Not just a suburban issue, of course 

 

 

On 3/14/2019 at 9:32 PM, KJP said:

Not just a suburban issue, of course 

 

 

 

Concrete is cleaner! 

 

I would be very interested to know which census tracts lost population due to abandonment vs due to smaller household sizes. I'm not too familiar with the west side, but the east suburbs have been losing population for awhile, but they are for the most part not being abandoned. There just has been no real addition of housing units until recently. Its the same houses with now just the parents living in them. The only way to actively combat population decline while household sizes shrinks is to add more and more density. The long game would be waiting for the parents to leave those houses, and them to open up on the market for a new family to move in, which would take decades.

1 hour ago, PoshSteve said:

I would be very interested to know which census tracts lost population due to abandonment vs due to smaller household sizes. I'm not too familiar with the west side, but the east suburbs have been losing population for awhile, but they are for the most part not being abandoned. There just has been no real addition of housing units until recently. Its the same houses with now just the parents living in them. The only way to actively combat population decline while household sizes shrinks is to add more and more density. The long game would be waiting for the parents to leave those houses, and them to open up on the market for a new family to move in, which would take decades.

 

There is more to it than just that.  My brother and parent both own homes near to one another.  My middle nephew graduated in '18 and moved back home. Most of my cousins' kids live at home as well.  Nobody wants to sell, that is a real fact. Some people just don't want to move and unmarried generations are moving "home".  It makes counting more difficult

 

On 3/27/2019 at 10:47 AM, KJP said:

 

I couldn't agree more.  The urban city block looks a lot better than "glass human glass box warehouses in the sky".    

 

 

^ Interesting that they're using "Geuga County, Ohio" (sic) as the "most sprawling county"; wonder what data they used to determine that.

Edited April 19, 20196 yr by Robuu

14 minutes ago, Robuu said:

^ Interesting that they're using "Geuga County, Ohio" (sic) as the "most sprawling county"; wonder what data they used to determine that.

 

Perhaps the lowest population density in a recognized urban area.   More likely the biggest difference they could find between NYC and an urban county.

 

Likely a misleading number.   Geauga County is like a fifth Amish, and I suspect they weigh more than the general population.  Both due to physically working harder (muscle weighs more than fat by a good margin) and the way they eat.   Plus there does not seem to be a premium on thinness for the women, while in NYC......

 

I'm quoting someone else's retweet of a retweet of a tweet but having to edit it to clean up some language....

 

? This is exactly why Republican legislatures in Missouri, Ohio, et al go out of their way to f--- over cities by defunding transit & building highways on cornfields. Growing urban neighborhoods tilt the balance of statewide political power. They know exactly what they're doing.

 

 

Edited June 17, 20195 yr by KJP

Cleveland, we have a problem.....

 

Northeast Ohio’s traded-sector job hubs relative to its non-white communities. Source: 2016 5-year ACS data

 

Friday, June 07, 2019

Eradicating The Transportation Paradox

Guest Author

by Dominic Mathew, Director of Mobility Innovation, Fund for our Economic Future

 

Residents across Northeast Ohio are faced with an untenable choice: a commute by public transit that can be as long as three hours every day, an expensive commute by car that can consume more than an hour’s worth of wages, or a significantly smaller set of employment options closer to home. Too many residents find themselves stuck in an intractable scenario: no car, no job; no job, no car.

 

Meanwhile, employers face hiring and retention challenges as long commutes increase turnover and, as a result, the cost of doing business.

 

These realities are the result of fragmented, unaligned development across Northeast Ohio; for decades, industrial, commercial and residential development has sprawled outward, but there has been no net increase in jobs or population to substantiate the regional spread.

 

While the disconnect between people and jobs is a growing national challenge, in Northeast Ohio, the problem is getting worse more quickly than in other markets.[1] And it matters. The disconnect between people and jobs exacerbates racial inequities, limits economic mobility, harms the region’s businesses, and diminishes the overall health of our economy.

 

Residents in Northeast Ohio spend between 24 percent and 29 percent of their income on transportation, a large part of which is the cost of commuting to work (check out the interactive H+T Affordability Index from the Center for Neighborhood Technology for more granular information about transportation costs in Northeast Ohio). This is not to mention the time spent commuting that can be spent on more constructive tasks. According to the Brookings Institution, only one-quarter of jobs in low and middle-skill industries are accessible via transit within 90 minutes.[2] (For more information on local commuting patterns by car and public transportation, see interactive maps at www.jobhubsneo.org.)

 

The hardest hit residents? People of color.

 

Racially motivated national and local policies have driven segregated development patterns and community disinvestment, and prevented people of color, particularly black Northeast Ohioans, from building wealth. Regional areas of economic distress are disproportionally populated by black residents and the fastest growing job hubs are located in communities that are disproportionally white.

 

In the Cleveland MSA, the number of black residents who do not own a vehicle is almost four times that of white residents. This challenge is particularly acute in high-poverty neighborhoods. For example, 56 percent of residents in Cleveland’s Central neighborhood, populated by 90 percent black residents and one of the region’s most distressed, do not have access to a vehicle.[3]

 

To get to work in Solon, the region’s fastest growing job hub with living-wage, accessible manufacturing jobs, carless residents face a commute of more than 90 minutes and two transfers—each way. This same commute by car would be under 30 minutes. People of color and low-income Americans who tend to have the longest commutes are also less likely to use new shared mobility services because of barriers like accessibility and lack of technology infrastructure.

 

This amounts to distance discrimination. Left unaddressed, these obstacles are likely to worsen.

 

We are no longer living in a world where transportation options need to be limited to a choice between individualized car ownership or a traditional bus. We can eradicate The Transportation Paradox if we embrace seamless mobility solutions that transcend barriers to entry for disadvantaged communities by addressing them head-on.

 

In Northeast Ohio, the Fund for Our Economic Future is working in partnership with transit agencies, and public, private and nonprofit leaders to create a testing ground for potential alternative options, including ride-sharing solutions like SHARE, neighborhood-based designs like EmpowerBus, car/van-pooling services like Enterprise RideShare, and on-demand services like Transloc. Through The Paradox Prize, an open call for ideas, we hope to source solutions that can break The Transportation Paradox.

 

Done right, in conjunction with an effective, efficient public transportation system, mobility solutions have the potential to dramatically increase prospects for economic advancement for Northeast Ohio’s un- and underemployed residents and improve the ability for area businesses to fill thousands of open jobs across the region. Our region’s mix of urban, suburban, and rural communities—all facing this same challenge—make Northeast Ohio a prime place to demonstrate what’s possible for regions around the country.

 

Northeast Ohio needs your big ideas! We hope you’ll join us in addressing The Transportation Paradox. Applications for The Paradox Prize are now being accepted at paradoxprize.com.

___

[1] The Brookings Institution, “The Growing Distance Between People and Jobs in Metropolitan

America,” 2015.

[2] The Brookings Institution, “Missed Opportunity: Transit and Jobs in Metropolitan America,” 2011, page 64.

[3] U.S. Census Bureau, selected housing characteristics, 2012-2017 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/download_center.xhtml#

Please login to post a comment

Redirected from the Beacon thread....

 

1 hour ago, audidave said:

^Y’know that is one hell of a picture!  The smog is so heavy in downtown. Everything is blackened by the coal trains including the buildings nearby. None of the 9 substation stacks are pumping out smoke and i don’t really see any of the steel mills further down the valley pumping out much smoke either. The Cuyahoga looks pretty brackish as well.  No wonder people didn’t want to live downtown. 

 

FYI @audidave, most homes and businesses were heated and powered with coal. So were the streetcar power stations. The mills were pretty busy in the first year of the Great Depression. And I assume by "substation" you mean Cleveland Thermal? There were lots of other pollutants as well. Many Clevelanders suffered breathing and other ailments from the pollution. So if you could afford to live in the heights back then, you did. Most couldn't afford it however. BTW, all that being said, the smog isn't that heavy in the picture. When all of the industry was at full tilt, day turned to night or at least twilight. And Clevelanders would say "When you can see the air, times are good."

 

On 4/2/2019 at 9:00 AM, KJP said:

 

 

Yes, it is the "concomitant infrastructure obligations" that are really going to bite future generations.

On 7/3/2019 at 4:50 PM, KJP said:

 

 

 

I paid $80K for my house in the Uncool Crescent 'burb 3 years ago. The exact same property in the Cool Crescent would have been $275-300K.

On 7/3/2019 at 4:50 PM, KJP said:

 

 

If this is indeed the case (since it's Angie, I suspect the supporting data was very carefully cherry picked to support a pre-reached conclusion), it's self correcting.

But I suspect it's not the case, and the reason is shown.   Children.

 

MIllenials are having them later.   (Yes, I know I'm one to talk LOL).

 

What cities would need to do would be quite politically unpopular with current residents.   They vote, potential residents do not.

It's a slow revision to the world mean of suburbs being cheap and cities being expensive.

25 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

If this is indeed the case (since it's Angie, I suspect the supporting data was very carefully cherry picked to support a pre-reached conclusion), it's self correcting.

But I suspect it's not the case, and the reason is shown.   Children.

 

MIllenials are having them later.   (Yes, I know I'm one to talk LOL).

 

What cities would need to do would be quite politically unpopular with current residents.   They vote, potential residents do not.

 

It makes total logical sense. We wanted to buy in Downtown/OTR but couldn't afford the amount of space we wanted so we ended up in Northside. I've talked to people in Northside bars who bought in College Hill because they couldn't afford Northside. And so on and so forth. Every single millennial I know who has bought in the suburbs did so out of necessity, not because they wanted to be there.

 

We also fully intend to have children and raise them in Northside.

3 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

It makes total logical sense. We wanted to buy in Downtown/OTR but couldn't afford the amount of space we wanted so we ended up in Northside. I've talked to people in Northside bars who bought in College Hill because they couldn't afford Northside. And so on and so forth. Every single millennial I know who has bought in the suburbs did so out of necessity, not because they wanted to be there.

  

 We also fully intend to have children and raise them in Northside.

It's a similar story up in Cleveland. I ended up in Lakewood because we were priced out of our top neighborhoods and at the time West Park didn't have a lot on the market. We plan to move back in in the next five years and raise kids in the city. 

51 minutes ago, KFM44107 said:

It's a similar story up in Cleveland. I ended up in Lakewood because we were priced out of our top neighborhoods and at the time West Park didn't have a lot on the market. We plan to move back in in the next five years and raise kids in the city. 

 

In all fairness, Lakewood is not exactly suburban.  It's more dense than many Cleveland neighborhoods--and also a great place to raise children.  

1 minute ago, Cleburger said:

 

In all fairness, Lakewood is not exactly suburban.  It's more dense than many Cleveland neighborhoods--and also a great place to raise children.  

Don't disagree, hence why we ended up in Lakewood. I don't think we would have regrets if we end up getting "stuck" in Lakewood. Definitely not moving any further west though. 

 

I do feel a certain responsibility to move into the city for what it's worth. On top of that both my wife and I will soon be working in Cleveland.

 

Alot of people discount the fact that there are alot of people out there who plan to send their kids to Catholic School no matter what city they lived in. It certainly isn't a small percentage. Therefore where you move isn't always based on school district. The question is is it enough? 

 

Lastly, alot of millennials just aren't having kids, period. Are you gonna really move to the suburbs if you're childless? Maybe, but I doubt it because I bet a big part of that choice for most people was so they could continue to have fun themselves; as well as the cost of raising a kid. 

Count me as another example. I live in downtown Cleveland and Ohio City for almost 5 years before I was priced out a little over a year ago. I never would have left the city if I could have found a place I could afford that didn't need alot of work done (renting was no longer an option). I ended up buying in Shaker Hts right along the Blue Line so I can still have quick and easy access to downtown without needing to worry about driving and parking. I don't particularly want to live in the suburbs, but where I bought in Shaker is a decent compromise with walkability and convenient access to transit. Kids, and thus schools, are of no concern to me. I plan on heading back closer to the core when I'm able to. 

On 10/15/2018 at 2:21 PM, E Rocc said:

 

Truth.   It would be better to say they were getting away from a dependence on public transportation.

 

Maple Heights was one of the first of the sprawlburbs.  Yet before the RTA takeover, the typical MH resident likely had better access to public transportation than most Clevelanders.   The point was it was not an essential.   

I disagree.  Cleveland residents had good bus and train access to CTA buses and Trains. I believe the independent transportation companies had a small area to cover so transportation coverage for that area was better.  I feel that RTA ruined the Shaker Rapid and eastside bus service. 

12 hours ago, PoshSteve said:

Count me as another example. I live in downtown Cleveland and Ohio City for almost 5 years before I was priced out a little over a year ago. I never would have left the city if I could have found a place I could afford that didn't need alot of work done (renting was no longer an option). I ended up buying in Shaker Hts right along the Blue Line so I can still have quick and easy access to downtown without needing to worry about driving and parking. I don't particularly want to live in the suburbs, but where I bought in Shaker is a decent compromise with walkability and convenient access to transit. Kids, and thus schools, are of no concern to me. I plan on heading back closer to the core when I'm able to. 

 

To be fair, we're talking about an urbanist group here.  

 

About a decade ago we were seeing and hearing the same things.   I had a lot of contacts among what could be called "early millenials" from work and through Holly, and thanks mostly to Facebook have kept up with a number of them.   

 

Quite a few lived in the city or the denser burbs while single or childless.   I would estimate 90% moved out to the "sprawl" once they had kids, and this includes the single moms.   

This was a politically undefined group, I'd say the people on this forum are going to fall within that 10%, and it may be 20-25% by now.

 

But dense surroundings are still not generally seen as an ideal place to raise kids.

10 hours ago, MyTwoSense said:

I disagree.  Cleveland residents had good bus and train access to CTA buses and Trains. I believe the independent transportation companies had a small area to cover so transportation coverage for that area was better.  I feel that RTA ruined the Shaker Rapid and eastside bus service. 

 

It could be that it was equal or better than most.   Local bus ran about every half hour during the day, stopping within a couple blocks of 90% of the houses in Maple.   Connected to downtown via Turney and Broadway, proceeded to Southgate, Randall Mall (both doing well at the time) and eventually the Shaker Rapid.

The RTA was a very downtowncentric, rush hour oriented entity.   Ironically with respect to the latter, it lost a lot of commuters when Cleveland decided to put high school kids going crosstown on it.   (I rode the Red Line a lot at the time,  this is not speculation).

The merger was the worst thing to happen to public transportation at the time.   It eliminated competition and replaced transportation priorities with political.

 

5 hours ago, E Rocc said:

Quite a few lived in the city or the denser burbs while single or childless.   I would estimate 90% moved out to the "sprawl" once they had kids, and this includes the single moms.   

 

5 hours ago, E Rocc said:

But dense surroundings are still not generally seen as an ideal place to raise kids.

 

Were they able to find decent public schools in the city?  Was the best job they could find in the suburbs?  Could they afford a house in the city with the extra bedroom (or more)?  It's been pointed out over and over that people can only choose from the options that are available to them.  Schools are a huge factor for any family with kids, and very few people are willing to risk their kid's education by pioneering in a bad district.  They're making rational choices based on the situation they're faced with, but it doesn't mean that's their preferred choice. 

9 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

It could be that it was equal or better than most.   Local bus ran about every half hour during the day, stopping within a couple blocks of 90% of the houses in Maple.   Connected to downtown via Turney and Broadway, proceeded to Southgate, Randall Mall (both doing well at the time) and eventually the Shaker Rapid.

The RTA was a very downtowncentric, rush hour oriented entity.   Ironically with respect to the latter, it lost a lot of commuters when Cleveland decided to put high school kids going crosstown on it.   (I rode the Red Line a lot at the time,  this is not speculation).

The merger was the worst thing to happen to public transportation at the time.   It eliminated competition and replaced transportation priorities with political.

That is what I am trying to convey.  RTA was definitely downtown centric and had a 7am to 7pm operating cycle.    Elimination of express trains also had a big impact.  Busing kids was bad in hindsight, but wasn't unique to Cleveland.

 

We also need to remember in the mid 70s Cleveland and it's neighborhood were very different.  There were services, but they were not so fragmented.  The flee to the 'burbs was still in it's infancy.  

Not sure if this is the right thread for this but I just recently looked at Sioux Falls on Google Maps. Looks like a sprawl nightmare. 

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5098324,-96.73415,12556m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

On 7/11/2019 at 12:03 PM, E Rocc said:

 

If this is indeed the case (since it's Angie, I suspect the supporting data was very carefully cherry picked to support a pre-reached conclusion), it's self correcting.

But I suspect it's not the case, and the reason is shown.   Children.

 

MIllenials are having them later.   (Yes, I know I'm one to talk LOL).

 

What cities would need to do would be quite politically unpopular with current residents.   They vote, potential residents do not.

 

Someone was listening to you.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/where-have-all-the-children-gone/594133/

 

The Future of the City is Childless

 

[...]

 

For those young and middle-aged Americans who are having sex and having children, the smaller cities and suburbs might simply be a better place to live. Perhaps parents are clustering in suburbs today for the same reason that companies cluster in rich cities: Doing so is more efficient for them. Suburbs have more “schools, parks, stroller-friendly areas, restaurants with high chairs, babysitters, [and] large parking spaces for SUV’s,” wrote Conor Sen, an investor and columnist for Bloomberg. It’s akin to a division of labor: America’s rich cities specialize in the young, rich, and childless; America’s suburbs specialize in parents. The childless city may be inescapable.

 

=========================

On 7/11/2019 at 8:02 PM, PoshSteve said:

Count me as another example. I live in downtown Cleveland and Ohio City for almost 5 years before I was priced out a little over a year ago. I never would have left the city if I could have found a place I could afford that didn't need alot of work done (renting was no longer an option). I ended up buying in Shaker Hts right along the Blue Line so I can still have quick and easy access to downtown without needing to worry about driving and parking. I don't particularly want to live in the suburbs, but where I bought in Shaker is a decent compromise with walkability and convenient access to transit. Kids, and thus schools, are of no concern to me. I plan on heading back closer to the core when I'm able to. 

 

On 7/12/2019 at 2:21 PM, jjakucyk said:

Were they able to find decent public schools in the city?  Was the best job they could find in the suburbs?  Could they afford a house in the city with the extra bedroom (or more)?  It's been pointed out over and over that people can only choose from the options that are available to them.  Schools are a huge factor for any family with kids, and very few people are willing to risk their kid's education by pioneering in a bad district.  They're making rational choices based on the situation they're faced with, but it doesn't mean that's their preferred choice. 

 

I would have lived in downtown Canton when I worked there as a childless young single from 2007-2009, but there wasn't even an option, regardless of budget.  It was simply desolate.  I did live in downtown Akron from 2009-2013.  I'd still live there today if I hadn't gotten married and planned on starting a family.  A lot of my nonprofit work has been devoted to development of urban cores and urban neighborhoods.  But I wasn't able to make it work for my own family given the options available and my inability to freeze myself in time until development could actually occur.

 

We moved to West Akron in 2013 and we may move again for the school system when our oldest hits school age in the fall of 2020.  And it's definitely because of the kids--and because my wife's culture frequently involves extended stays by empty-nester grandparents (in-laws) to help with early childhood.  We have a third kid about to be born and may well go for a fourth.

 

Needless to say, if I'm looking for 5+ bedrooms, potentially including an in-law suite on top of that, in a good school district so I don't have to pay private school tuition for four kids, the current urban market doesn't actually have anything for me, almost regardless of my budget.

^That 5+ bedroom stuff got split up into apartments, like in Victorian Village and Avondale.

If I were in Columbus, I would definitely look at Vickyville.  There was even a time when I thought I'd be back in Columbus by now.  Miss that place.  But life happened and I've put down roots in the Northeast now.  C'est la Vie.

Texafornia dreaming

America’s future will be written in the two mega-states

 

In the cable-news version of America, the president sits in the White House issuing commands that transform the nation. Life is not like that. In the real version of America many of the biggest political choices are made not in Washington but by the states—and by two of them in particular.

 

Texas and California are the biggest, brashest, most important states in the union, each equally convinced that it is the future (see our Special report in this issue). For the past few decades they have been heading in opposite directions, creating an experiment that reveals whether America works better as a low-tax, low-regulation place in which government makes little provision for its citizens (Texas), or as a high-tax, highly regulated one in which it is the government’s role to tackle problems, such as climate change, that might ordinarily be considered the job of the federal government (California). 

 

Given the long-running political dysfunction in Washington, the results will determine what sort of country America becomes almost as much as the victor of the next presidential election will. 

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.economist.com/leaders/2019/06/20/texafornia-dreaming

How a 30-Minute Commute Has Shaped Centuries of Cities

by Jason Kottke   Sep 05, 2019

 

Twenty-five years ago, physicist Cesare Marchetti argued that people, on average, tend to keep their commutes to about an hour a day, round-trip. For Citylab, Jonathan English looks at how this inclination has interacted with advances in transportation to affect how cities grow and evolve. For instance, walking and travel by horse kept cities to an effective diameter of a few miles, allowing their density to grow over many centuries.

 

https://kottke.org/19/09/how-a-30-minute-commute-has-shaped-centuries-of-cities

Which has manifested itself in state politics as well....

 

 

Edited September 11, 20195 yr by KJP

1 hour ago, KJP said:

Which has manifested itself in state politics as well....

 

 

 

Replied on T to Jason's tweet.

 

The suburbs, particularly the NE Ohio suburbs, are the deciding region in statewide elections.   The Republicans are disinclined to challenge them, the Democrats can't afford to.

So of course sprawl is popular when the costs of developing and living there are reduced by subsidies from the established neighborhoods....

 

 

Love this....

 

 

Edited December 16, 20195 yr by KJP

 

More needless highway, brought to you by the asphalt lobby. 

 

Some In Rural Florida Want Officials To Change Direction On Toll Roads

February 21, 20205:00 AM ET

 

Florida is planning a major expansion of its highways with a series of toll roads that would open new parts of the state to development.

 

Exactly where the roads will go hasn't been announced yet, but opposition to the highways is growing in rural areas such as Jefferson County in North Florida. Mike Willis' family has lived there since before Florida became a state. He likes to refer to it as "the other Florida."

 

"Most people think of Florida as palm trees, white sandy beaches," he says. "We have rolling clay hills and beautiful pine forests."

 

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/21/807032774/some-in-rural-florida-want-officials-to-change-direction-on-toll-roads

 

^They lost me when they featured Randall O’Tool. Boo! A modern Al Porter. 

2 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

^They lost me when they featured Randall O’Tool. Boo! A modern Al Porter. 

 

Yeah I don't know the guy, but he sure doesn't sound very objective. I think he was merely there to represent a fairly academic (unreasonable) contrarian viewpoint. 

2 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

^They lost me when they featured Randall O’Tool. Boo! A modern Al Porter. 

 

40 minutes ago, surfohio said:

 

Yeah I don't know the guy, but he sure doesn't sound very objective. I think he was merely there to represent a fairly academic (unreasonable) contrarian viewpoint. 

Take a read through the thread “the anti-rail hitman is still out there” in the Rail portion of the Transportation forum. Randall O’Tool is often featured on that thread. “We can’t solve 21st century problems with 19th century technology” is his commentary on rail. Apparently he doesn’t know when cars were invented, since that’s his suggested alternative. 

10 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

 

Take a read through the thread “the anti-rail hitman is still out there” in the Rail portion of the Transportation forum. Randall O’Tool is often featured on that thread. “We can’t solve 21st century problems with 19th century technology” is his commentary on rail. Apparently he doesn’t know when cars were invented, since that’s his suggested alternative. 

Ohhhh, that guy lol. His credibility is hovering around zero. 

1 hour ago, surfohio said:

 

Yeah I don't know the guy, but he sure doesn't sound very objective. I think he was merely there to represent a fairly academic (unreasonable) contrarian viewpoint. 

 

It's not even academic -- he's from the CATO Institute.

1 hour ago, GCrites80s said:

 

It's not even academic -- he's from the CATO Institute.

 

Well who else is gonna pay him for his sweeeet ranch house in the exurbs. 

Reason Magazine is probably the top pop-libertarian publication and Randal O'Toole is one of the top pop-libertarian "minds" in relation to urban development and transportation. So it would almost be surprising if he didn't make an appearance in that video, It's a big shift that the market urbanism thing is gaining traction in libertarian circles (such as Reason's readers/viewers), because O'Toole's views were completely dominant a decade ago.

O'Toole has been a part of my life for over 20 years, dating back to when I read an anti-Portland MAX light rail hit piece in 1998.  Penned by his truly.