This agency is in the running for Idiots of the 21st Century:

"Light rail was meant to be fed by people taking the bus, walking or biking," said Rick Sheridan, spokesman for the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT). "It was not meant to be fed by cars."

Just goes to show that the point of light rail is not to move people, instead it is to feed money to political buddies.

Light rail costs too much, does too little.

If you are concerned about wasting $4 BILLION on the new Columbia river bridge, much of it for light rail, there is a cheaper way:

NoDridgeTolls.com

Thanks
JK

JK - Think you meant this address

http://www.nobridgetolls.com/

Please do not feed the streetcars!

OTOH, this is also the reality -- once people get in their cars for a trip, they are much less likely to change to a mass transit mode part of the way.

Bottom line is that urban spaces need a lot more people and a lot fewer cars; one of the biggest problems in urban areas is all the land that has to be given over to the care, feeding, and especially storage of cars. If you build a transit system designed to make it possible to get around without a car, your first priority is not necessarily providing an expensive amenity for those who do use the car --- especially given the data on how few people do mid-trip mode shifts from cars to something else.

Besides, a sentiment expressed many times -- including, I think, by more than the occasionally commenter on this blog -- is some variant of "you couldn't pay me to take mass transit." OK, so we believe you and we didn't spend a lot of time trying to lure you onto the "choo choo" as you call it.

Yeah, that's actually the point of light rail. Encourage dense, walkable communities where those of that that choose to live without automobiles can do so. That amounts for more tax base for the city, less carbon emissions, stronger communities, and more choices for people to decide where they want to live. Those "ugly apartment bunkers" you talk about will likely sell pretty well once the economy recovers; a lot of people wouldn't mind living within a five minute train ride of downtown seattle, and are willing to trade in their car and yard to do so. I understand your frustration that is the "boondoggle" that is the Portland Streetcar, but light rail construction such as Seattle's Link and Portland's MAX are making sure that people like you, living in the city, don't have to subsidize roads/schools/infrastructure out in the suburbs, which long term is actually a lot more costly than investing in innercity transportation.

Thank you for that beautiful recitation of The Portland Planners' Prayer. I had almost forgotten how it went. Here's some music to go with it.

The ad hominem stuff is a nice touch as well.

I'd respond to your inaccuracies point by point, but they kind of refute themselves. Maybe later if I'm in the mood for some LOLs.

ambrown: Yeah, that's actually the point of light rail. Encourage dense, walkable communities where those of that that choose to live without automobiles can do so.
JK: Then feel free to pay the full cost of your Choice, instead of expecting government subsides to build high density. And the toy train which costs many times the cost of driving. For instance the new interstate bridge proposal, proposes spending $26,000 to build roads for each daily user (about $0.77 per day for each user and a 92 year life - the age of the current old span.)
Compare that to $462,000 to build toy trains for each daily user (about $42 per day for each user over a typical 30 year life till most of it has to be replaced. Even at 60 year, the cost would be $21 per day)

ambrown: That amounts for more tax base for the city,
JK: Unfortunately, there is NO evidence that their taxes will ever make up for the money that is shoveled to the developers to build high density for people unwilling to pay its actual cost. (If they were willing to pay the actual cost, there would be no need for subsidies.)

ambrown: less carbon emissions,
JK: Got any evidence for this? Also please provide evidence that there is harm to carbon emissions.

ambrown: stronger communities,
JK: Not true. Stronger communities are in single family neighborhoods & the burbs:
“The frequency of interaction with neighbors is lower in high-density census tracts.”
“That residents living in dense census tracts have fewer confidants.”
“High tract density reduces the number of friends.”
“Interactive individuals sacrifice something by locating in dense tracts.”
“Membership in hobby-oriented club is less likely [in low-density tracts].”
“Group involvement tends to be weaker [in low-density tracts].”
See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/Smart/SocialInteractionAndUrbanSprawl.htm

ambrown: and more choices for people to decide where they want to live.
JK:Let us know when those people are willing to actually pay for their choices. Since when is it the government’s duty to “provide choices”?

ambrown: Those "ugly apartment bunkers" you talk about will likely sell pretty well once the economy recovers;
JK: Ever notice that planners always tell us that someday their crap will be desirable?

ambrown: a lot of people wouldn't mind living within a five minute train ride of downtown seattle, and are willing to trade in their car and yard to do so.
JK: Then let those people pay their real cost. Besides, what the heck is in downtown anymore except government offices, druggies, whores, and “vibrant” teenagers looking to get laid?

ambrown: I understand your frustration that is the "boondoggle" that is the Portland Streetcar, but
JK: Good that we agree that the streetcar is a complete waste. That is, of course, another planner failure.

ambrown: light rail construction such as Seattle's Link and Portland's MAX are making sure that people like you, living in the city, don't have to subsidize roads/schools/infrastructure out in the suburbs,
JK: Who feeds you this crap? Road users pay their own way. Further, in new devolvement, the developers have to pay for the roads, sewers etc (except in high density urban renewal districts, where the rest of us end up subsidizing them.) As to schools they are paid by the community where they are built. Got any proof that it is cheaper to rip up a street dig up an old line and put in a new, large one, the re-pave the street than to lay pipes under vacant land?

ambrown: which long term is actually a lot more costly than investing in innercity transportation.
JK: How is it cheaper to build a toy train at close to 100 million per mile than roads at 5-10 million per lane-mile .

Make Portland a better, more livable, plane – fire 350 planners!

Thanks
JK

George Anonymuncule Seldes Bottom line is that urban spaces need a lot more people and a lot fewer cars;
JK: Why is that desirable? High density costs more than low density, is more polluted, has more crime, more congestion.

George Anonymuncule Seldes If you build a transit system designed to make it possible to get around without a car, your first priority is not necessarily providing an expensive amenity for those who do use the car
JK: If you really care about cost, the last thing you build is light rail. And cars are cheaper than transit - even in high density.

George Anonymuncule Seldes Besides, a sentiment expressed many times -- including, I think, by more than the occasionally commenter on this blog -- is some variant of "you couldn't pay me to take mass transit." OK, so we believe you and we didn't spend a lot of time trying to lure you onto the "choo choo" as you call it.
JK: Does this mean the transit lobby will quit lying to us that light rail reduces congetion?

Thanks
JK

Wow - first I was slightly stunned by the abject stupidity of the planners in Seattle. I thought we had brain-dead planners here, but the ones in Seattle evidently have two brains - one is lost, the other is out looking for the first one; as evidenced by this truly incredible lack of intelligent planning.

However, I was then pushed beyond stunned and into shock (and awe) when we had not one but two people here who think the decision was genius. Wow, I knew we had some whack jobs in Portland, now I'm able to put a name (so to speak) with people who espouse DUMB ideas. Sorry, I call it as I see it. Anyone who doesn't understand the reasoning behind park-and-ride garages really needs to stop smoking and take a few breaths of fresh air.

Wow.

Wouldnt park-n-ride lots allow the people outside the urban area to use light rail for at least part of the trip? Seems to work here. Try and park at a west side lot after 7am. And the planners keep them from just driving on in to work by making parking so expensive. Driving part way and paying $80/mo is better than driving all the way in and paying $180/mo to park downtown. And all those "nasty" cars stay in the 'burbs.

Oh, and the best part- you lose a couple more productive hours of your day sitting on a train.

I think that liberals will cure us all of driving cars!

Wait, that won't happen at all. We'll all just get miserable and move away.

George and Ambrown, do you guys own cars? Be honest.

Isn't "density" and "life without a car" great... for other people? Isn't riding the bus great... for other people?

I did not intend to support or oppose Seattle's light rail or their decision on park and ride lots, neither of which do I know a whole lot about. I simply repeated something that I've heard from people on all sides of transit debates: that once people are in the car, the outcome most times is that the entire trip is made in the car.

Most people -- ok, just about everyone other than JK -- finds cars to be a not-insignificant expense; once one is bought, insured, fueled, and maintained, there is every incentive to drive more and very little to go out of pocket again to pay for another mode. People who have problems finding a place to park have even more problems if they don't buy a monthly pass that ensures that they can find a spot to park -- thus, even more disincentive to take a car part way and then switch to a bus or rail.

That's not universal -- there are clearly some people, particularly people who start in the suburbs who will drive to transit and take transit from there. But the area discussed in the story isn't particularly suburban at all.

Perhaps Seattle has simply decided that, since there's no point in trying to pull people out of cars with transit and that they have no chance of reducing congestion by any means, their goal should be more modest: provide people who don't want or can't afford to drive with an alternative to it.

And yes, we do own a car, but we don't use it much -- less than 4000 miles annually at this point. We are almost the proverbial Sunday drivers.

Three ("dumb") people, Native, this native Oregonian (too) thinks it's good, and good on Seattle. It's a start, for them. Now they have to 'build it out' for it to make (better) sense.

Growing up out West, I was indoctrinated in the 'California car culture,' through and through. Cars are as much as necessities of life -- commercial activity (of a 'town') is sprawled around a wide area, and towns are far apart.

When I lived back East, they towed my car one day and I simply never bothered to get a replacement. 'Towns' there are dense, no one affords a detached residence -- everyone lives in apartments. Space is confined; 'development' means building up, not sprawling out. And, sheesh, Easterners make a big deal out of driving 30 miles to 'the next town,' like, one way is a half-day trip. (I used to drive 60 miles one way to a movie theatre.) But for a dozen years I got used to getting around just fine on the light rail systems they have, and buses, and if need be, take a taxi, or walk -- heck, there is a half-million people within a 10-block walk from you, there.

These times are strange admixture. Western cities like Portland, Seattle, are transitioning to dense populations like Eastern cities; but suburbs surrounding Eastern cities are 'thickly settled' (as it says on traffic signs back East), whereas Western city suburbs, like Gresham or Hillsboro or Wilsonville around Portland -- is like, }pop!{ instant farm land, agriculture. In many respects it is almost that way in L.A. and 'Frisco, despite those populations and being spread out -- real rural is not far out of the city. (Back East, there is no rural nowhere (east of the Mississippi). There's no mountains, there's no beaches, there's no desert (east of the Rockies). Not real ones, anyway.)

Back East, roads were laid out (without 'planning'), and the associated commerce begun, before cars were invented.

Out West, the CarCulture population sprawled out and the associated commerce of it began, before cars ended. Sure, there's some oil remaining in pockets on the planet, but as much is consumed in one year now as in all of World War II or in the 10 years of the 1950s, and Real Soon Now (in your lifetime) gasoline is going to go Real High Priced and then the cost/benefit ratio of cars and roads is going to look waaaaay different. And versus light rail and mass transit.

Anyway, good on Seattle, it's a start. Now they have to 'build it out' for it to make (better) sense.

George Anonymuncule Seldes Most people -- ok, just about everyone other than JK -- finds cars to be a not-insignificant expense;
JK: Right, but you left out the most important part: cars are cheaper than transit. Here is the cost per passenger-mile of the 10 biggest USA bus systems:
City..........................BusCost/passenger-mile.
New York, NY ...........$1.26
Los Angeles, CA ........$0.68
Newark, NJ ................$0.82
Chicago, IL ................$1.38
Philadelphia, PA ........$1.05
Seattle, WA ................$0.88
Miami, FL ...................$0.98
Washington, DC .........$1.33
Houston, TX ................$0.89
Minneapolis, MN ........$0.88

Average USA car, about $0.25

You will notice that transit in these big cities isn’t any cheaper than Trimet, which exposes another planner lie: the claim that higher density will make transit more practical.

Actually the above is not a fair comparison because the transit costs are operation only and do not include road construction. The car cost includes everything including road construction.

Now, I’ll bet the planners here will say that I left out the massive subsidy to cars, but that is yet another planner lie. Here is what the Feds say:

* Highway passenger transportation system paid significantly greater amounts of money to the federal government than their allocated costs.
* Transit received the largest amount of net federal subsidy
* On average, highway users paid $1.91 per thousand passenger-miles to the federal government over their highway allocated cost during 1990-2002.
* On a per thousand passenger-miles basis, transit received the second highest net federal subsidy, second to passenger rail, averaging $118.26 in year 2000 chained dollars.
See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/Roads/RoadSubsidy.htm

George Anonymuncule Seldes once one is bought, insured, fueled, and maintained, there is every incentive to drive more and very little to go out of pocket again to pay for another mode.
JK: why would anyone want to use another mode? The car is the cheapest, most energy efficient, fastest, most convenient and actually improves people’s standard of living by allowing more job choices since you can reach a wider variety of jobs in a given length of commute. Another little detail the planners leave out when they describe their vision of utopia to be inflicted on all of us.

George Anonymuncule Seldes People who have problems finding a place to park have even more problems if they don't buy a monthly pass that ensures that they can find a spot to park -- thus, even more disincentive to take a car part way and then switch to a bus or rail.
JK: Most of us have NO PROBLEM finding parking. That is only a problem in downtown, which is becoming more irrelevant every day. (Unless you are a drug dealer, panhandler, whore, horny teeny bopper or government employee.)

George Anonymuncule Seldes And yes, we do own a car, but we don't use it much -- less than 4000 miles annually at this point. We are almost the proverbial Sunday drivers.
JK: I do hope that you are not sponging off of the taxpayers by using transit, which is 80% paid by taxpayers instead of users.

Thanks
JK

JK: "Average USA car, about $0.25"

Source, please.

"Thanks"

I should note that I have a spreadsheet on our current, seven-year old Saturn, purchased used with 11k miles on it as a family pass-down, and we have pretty inexpensive auto insurance (as auto insurance goes) through USAA; still and all, including the modest purchase price ($13,500), the car costs us $0.62 mile. Presumably this is the last car we will ever buy, and I hope it is good for at least 135,000 miles for us, so the cost per mile of the vehicle would only be $0.10 at that point (rather than $0.35 of the $0.62 as it is now). But even if the car had been free, I'm spending $0.27/mile. I strongly doubt that there are enough people out there spending less per mile than me to make an honest average into two bits per mile just on operations alone.

I bet the AAA figures are probably better than your swag:

AAA Average Costs Per Mile
miles per year 10,000 15,000 20,000
small sedan 55.0 cents 42.1 cents 35.4 cents
medium sedan 70.2 cents 54.0 cents 45.5 cents
large sedan 86.8 cents 65.8 cents 54.9 cents
composite
average * 70.7 cents 54.0 cents 45.3 cents

www.aaaexchange.com/Assets/.../200948913570.DrivingCosts2009.pdf

"thanks"

George Anonymuncule Seldes JK: "Average USA car, about $0.25"
Source, please.
"Thanks"
JK: http://www.portlandfacts.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit(2005).htm
Note the numerous links to calculations and sources.

George Anonymuncule Seldes I should note that I have a spreadsheet on our current, seven-year old Saturn, purchased used with 11k miles on it as a family pass-down, and we have pretty inexpensive auto insurance (as auto insurance goes) through USAA; still and all, including the modest purchase price ($13,500), the car costs us $0.62 mile.
JK: Since your gas cost is around $0.10 per mile, the cost of the other stuff would be about $0.52 pe mile. If you drove the national average of about 12,000 miles instead of 4,000 that part would drop dramatically, probably to about 1/3 or $0.21 per mile, giving a total of around $0.31 per mile. That is actually a bit lower than the number that I used since at the national average of 1.6 people per car your cost is $0.19 per passenger-mile.

George Anonymuncule Seldes I bet the AAA figures are probably better than your swag:
JK: Thanks for insult, you are advertising your ignorance, especially when you didn’t even realize why your cost was so high, or know how the AAA calculates its cost.

George Anonymuncule Seldes AAA Average Costs Per Mile
miles per year 10,000 15,000 20,000
small sedan 55.0 cents 42.1 cents 35.4 cents
medium sedan 70.2 cents 54.0 cents 45.5 cents
large sedan 86.8 cents 65.8 cents 54.9 cents
composite
average * 70.7 cents 54.0 cents 45.3 cents

www.aaaexchange.com/Assets/.../200948913570.DrivingCosts2009.pdf
JK: Again you show your ignorance: The AAA figure is based on buying a new car every 5 years for an average car age of 2 ½ years. The average USA car is 9 years old. When you account for that and the fact that the AAA number is cost per vehicle-mile and I was giving cost per passenger-mile to compare with transit, you get the kind of number that I gave.

If you can follow grade school arithmetic, you can see the details at:
portlandfacts.com/Transit/AAA_method.htm
and the above link.

Thanks
JK

Tensky,

Your'e just another duped person.

"good on Seattle, it's a start. Now they have to 'build it out' for it to make (better) sense."

Yeah sure pal.

That same line is the perpetual default excuse here.

That we need more MAX and Street car lines with more TODs and other subidized high density development like the Round and SoWa to make it all work.

And we still get the farce that it saves money.

There's so many problems with the planning fantasy that advances the smart growth-rail transit model it's bizarre to see people so easily and continually duped.

Priceless LOL = "Thank you for that beautiful recitation of The Portland Planners' Prayer. I had almost forgotten how it went. Here's some music to go with it."

jim karlock = Please god, don't ever let me piss him off!

My husband and I were up in Seattle being tourists over the weekend, and we ended up actually riding the "Link" train on opening day. We rode it because it was going where we wanted to go and we didn't want to walk, and we couldn't find a bus. (light rail fans will say that's exactly why light rail should exist) However, I really wanted to stand up in the train and cry out the stats I've read on this blog about how much money Tri-met loses per MAX rider, versus the smaller amount of money Tri-met loses per bus rider! All those excited, duped people. I felt sorry for Seattle.

The Seattle Sunday Times was full of op-ed pieces on how now Seattle has "grown up" and "joined the ranks of world-class cities." But there were also pieces complaining that some heavily-used bus lines don't actually connect to the train, but instead riders have to walk about 1/4 mile from their bus to the train.

An interesting thing I noted--their train design doesn't leave any space for advertising posters. And, their trains look cooler than ours, so I suppose Tri-met will be ordering a new fleet very soon so we can continue the "we're cooler than you" wars with Seattle.

Why would you care about passenger-mile cost when you can't buy auto travel by the mile?

The point of the original comment on the original post is that designing transit without park and rides might not be so stupid. The way we buy auto trips encourages drivers to drive more rather than less (as you note with your "if you drove more you'd spend less per mile") and to make complete trips in the car rather than to drive to transit.

As you and others note, transit doesn't reduce congestion and doesn't lure people out of cars. Perhaps Seattle is simply acknowledging these realities and has decided that there's no point to attempt to design a transit system around the needs of people who don't want to take transit and who are carrying cars with them when they go someplace. Perhaps Seattle's goal is to try and get a transit system into place to serve the needs of people who want to take transit.

P.S. Why would you think I didn't understand that driving less makes my cost-per-mile go up?

Back East, roads were laid out (without 'planning'), and the associated commerce begun, before cars were invented.

Umm...the same applies here, Tensk. From downtown Portland to Garden Home To Oregon City, your comment applies throughout.

Just how long have you been on the planet, anyway? You do realize that in 1950, everything beyond 82nd was farmland? That eastward development was done with cars in mind. Not so with much of Portland and its surrounding areas on the west.

Do you remember when Canyon Road wound up along the rim of the canyon from Jefferson Street along what is now the Zoo? Back when it was a windy, two-lane road? Ever heard of the Red Electric, which was a rail line that ran from Portland to Multnomah Village and Garden Home?

All of this predates the advent of the auto.

We don't need to return to the 1890's; autos are faster, less expensive, less polluting, more flexible, and more reliable. And a bus can run on the road just as an auto can.

We need better roads, not train tracks.

Its hard to have rational discussion with individuals who believe:

1) Climate change is a liberal myth.

2) Oil is an unlimited resource.

3) Public transport is exclusively used by drug addicts, those with criminal intent, and dirty tree-hugging liberals.

I applaud Seattle. I also note that voters in all three metro counties just approved a tax to fund extension of the Seattle light rail system.

With a little luck plans for a high-speed rail link connecting PDX-SEA-YVR will come to fruition. A stiff increase in gas tax and vehicle licensing would be a great way to fund this locally!

"autos are faster, less expensive, less polluting, more flexible, and more reliable."

LOL funny! I guess you've never ridden the Acela Express:

http://www.amtrak.com/images/maps/acelaexpress.htm

And then there is the massive increase in construction of high-speed rail in virtually every developed nation except the USA. I bet thats because China, Japan, Germany, Korea, Taiwan, France etc. don't make those wondrous cheap, less polluting,and reliable cars that we do in UHMERKA!

Acela Time Table Boston to NY:

X 2154 A Mo-Fr 7:00A -- 9:49A

2 hr 49 mins.

And these are *slow* in comparison to high-speed rail in the rest of the world.

yuan: Its hard to have rational discussion with individuals who believe:
yuan: 1) Climate change is a liberal myth.
JK: Show us the evidence that CO2 can actually cause warming in the real world, not just in play station models. Then show us that man’s CO2 is the cause of that CO2 increase.

yuan: 2) Oil is an unlimited resource.
JK: The stone age did not end because we ran out of stones. Same will be for oil. Besides if we really do run out we can make it. Hitler and & so can we.

yuan: 3) Public transport is exclusively used by drug addicts, those with criminal intent, and dirty tree-hugging liberals.
JK: It is also used by over paid bureaucrats who should be paying their real cost.

yuan: "autos are faster, less expensive, less polluting, more flexible, and more reliable."
LOL funny! I guess you've never ridden the Acela Express:
JK: I’m anxious to see it pick me up at my front door, like my car.
BTW, high speed rail does pollute more than a car because it uses more fuel per passengers-mile. It costs far more than a car. As to speed, that is only because of unrealistically low speed limits.

yuan: And then there is the massive increase in construction of high-speed rail in virtually every developed nation except the USA. I bet thats because China, Japan, Germany, Korea, Taiwan, France etc. don't make those wondrous cheap, less polluting,and reliable cars that we do in UHMERKA!
JK: No. Its for the same reasons we do her - building monument to politicians, not transportation. And people in under-developed countries are buying cars a soon as they can afford them. Just like the rest of the world.

I do hope you know MAX carries more riders than Amtrak every day!

I do hope you know that Europeans travel mostly in cars, not on trains.
See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/Transit/EuroTranistShareLoss.htm

Thanks
JK

Whoa.

I don't have the time to refute every single argument (and frankly, Jim Karlock's numbers come from such a made up dream world that it'd be pointless to challenge them anyway), but I wanted to say a few things.

1) For what its worth, I personally don't own a car. I'm too poor to buy one, and when i finally get that disposable income I'd rather spend it on supporting local portland businesses than spending a ton of money on foreign oil and on one ton of hulking steel. Plus, I like walking and biking, and I like polluting less. I've managed to find I can get to quite a handful of destinations on my own bodypower, and occasionally with a little help from trimet.

2)I apologize if my comment about your residence came off as a ad hominem attack; it was not my intent. My angle was rather that it's time people who live in inner cities (such as yourself) stop subsidizing wasteful suburban exurban growth that fosters more spatial segregation, more environmental impact on both the land and the air, and unequal taxation. Why should people living in Unincorporated Washington County be able to drive their car over the hills into the city without paying for CoP's infrastructure that makes such amenities possible or without paying the externalities associated with increased traffic or air pollution? If anything, since you have found wild internet success on extolling the virtues of fiscal responsibility, I'd think this would be a receptive arguement to you. If you want to make the corrallary that Portland's lower average milage in a car than the national average is due to land use laws and transportation planning (a fair assumption, in my book), then this "urban planning gospel" has managed to save residents of the city of Portland billions of dollars in gasoline. That same money can then be transferred into local businesses as opposed to immediately being sent to Saudi Arabia.

3) I'm not necessarily against all Park and Rides. I am personally very happy that there is significant parking along the new Green Line on 205. These park and rides along the fringe of the city will encourage would-be commuters from Gresham and Troutdale to drive a shorter distance, save on gasoline, and park on the periphery. The DC Metro has a series of very well utilized park-and-rides out in Maryland and Virginia. It just doesn't make sense to build Park and Rides in the inner-city destinations that the transit lines are supposed to foster.

4) While I'm weary of the yuppification of Portland as well, that doesn't necessarily have to equate itself to densification. As I was trying to say in point 1, it sure is a lot cheaper for municipal government to repave local roads in the city than to build new ones out in the suburbs. It's also a lot better for the environment, While Light Rail is expensive, look at Orenco Station out in Hillsboro: the area is taking off quite nicely, and that sort of development would never have had a chance without building the light rail line.

5) My final point was already made for me.
https://bojack.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-commentsjb0207a.cgi#comment-98216

oh, and i should throw in number six, to especially counter Mister Karlock.

6) Saying that Road Users pay for their own roads is as absurd as saying climate change isn't real. Honestly. Check out any report by nonpartisan studies and universities. One study suggested the road tax would have to be over $2 a gallon to pay for the true costs of roads. (http://www.ryanavent.com/blog/?p=1209) The Interstate Highway System is by far the largest project works project ever accomplished by the government, and it stands as the largest subsidy to oil, automobile, and road-building industries. For years the US government has been making it easier to travel; I personally just ask that my subsidy goes towards either forms of transportation that don't pollute or towards my own tax break at the end of the day.

and hell, let's throw in number 7.
7) Every single car that goes off the road because someone moved into one of those "ugly apartment bunker" is ONE LESS CAR ON YOUR STREETS. That's one less bit of traffic on your commute, a couple pounds less of carbon dioxide (and don't even begin to believe JK's convoluted numbers that transit is worse for air quality, it defies rationality), and a couple less square miles of our city that is paved over to become an interstate.

ambrown:I don't have the time to refute every single argument (and frankly, Jim Karlock's numbers come from such a made up dream world that it'd be pointless to challenge them anyway), but I wanted to say a few things.
JK: Why don't you start by showing where my numbers, from the Federal Government, Trimet & the AAA, are wrong.

Then you can show us the numbers behind your wild claims.

Thanks
JK

ambrown: 6) Saying that Road Users pay for their own roads is as absurd as saying climate change isn't real. Honestly. Check out any report by nonpartisan studies and universities.
JK: I did. But not from some car hating transit lobby group – I got mine from the feds:

* Highway passenger transportation system paid significantly greater amounts of money to the federal government than their allocated costs.
* Transit received the largest amount of net federal subsidy
* On average, highway users paid $1.91 per thousand passenger-miles to the federal government over their highway allocated cost during 1990-2002.
* On a per thousand passenger-miles basis, transit received the second highest net federal subsidy, second to passenger rail, averaging $118.26 in year 2000 chained dollars.
See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/Roads/RoadSubsidy.htm
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, : Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation

ambrown: One study suggested the road tax would have to be over $2 a gallon to pay for the true costs of roads. (http://www.ryanavent.com/blog/?p=1209)
JK: Another crap “study” from the transit lobby. Even if true that would only less than $0.10 per mile compared to $0.50 or more for transit. Try this for a real fact: Trimet fares would have to be about $10 to cover the real cost of your ride.

ambrown: The Interstate Highway System is by far the largest project works project ever accomplished by the government, and it stands as the largest subsidy to oil, automobile, and road-building industries.
JK: Not really it was entirely paid for by user fees. That is not a subsidy as much as you transit lobby buddies like to claim other wise.

ambrown: For years the US government has been making it easier to travel; I personally just ask that my subsidy goes towards either forms of transportation that don't pollute
JK: That is yet another reason to support efficient cars - they pollute less than bus because they are more energy efficient. We can argue about light rail vs. cars, but unlike rail, cars DO NOT emit mercury, uranium one thorium into the atmosphere.

Thanks
JK

You know what's funny? Dallas had the same problem with the DART mass transit system. After decades of mismanagement, DART is finally pulling its head out of its posterior and trying to make a profit, mostly by (trumpet call) setting up more park and ride space. The simple reality is that while it'd be great and peachykeen for everyone to live close enough that they can hop on a train and go where they like (and a lot of the developers building those ugly apartment bunkers are hoping that this is the case), it's just not realistic. In DART's case, though, instead of alienating its potential customer base by making it impossible for people beyond its immediate range to do so, DART is noting that there's a market for people who live waaaaaaaaay out who don't want to have to mess with the traffic all the way to downtown.

The best part is that I see the end-results every single day. I'm lucky enough that I live within a 25-minute bike ride to the nearest DART train station, and I'm even luckier that my workplace is about 15 minutes away from another station. In the meantime, I haul my bike onto a nearly packed train heading away from downtown, and I look at how the southbound trains heading to downtown are standing room only. Not only will this improve with the opening of a new north-south line later this year for another entire section of the city, but several smaller routes are opening to hit east and west. Instead of pissing off potential riders, those park-and-ride stations are encouraging people who live well north and south of Dallas (and we're the model of an automotive-designed city) to take the train if they're coming in for anything else on the weekend or in the evening. In the process, the trains are getting a lot of use, and that's making people re-evaluate using the bus routes, too. It's amazing how well that little thing about "honey instead of vinegar" works out.

ambrown: 7) Every single car that goes off the road because someone moved into one of those "ugly apartment bunker" is ONE LESS CAR ON YOUR STREETS.
JK: This is an example of how reducing driving can increase congestion and pollution:

Lets say you force 100 people, 90 of which were drivers, from safe, pleasant, good schooled, low crime, suburbia, into Homer’s condo cages and only, 75 of them will continue to drive. Now lets do something that the planners are incapable of: look at the facts: We have put 75 more cars on the road in ONE SMALL AREA, causing more congestion because congestion is a function of cars per area, not absolute number of cars.

For real numbers from a peer reviewed paper and graphs of this effect see:
http://www.portlandfacts.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm

ambrown:(and don't even begin to believe JK's convoluted numbers that transit is worse for air quality, it defies rationality),
JK: Then why don’t you clearly show us your numbers and how mine are wrong? Otherwise we might just think that you are yet another planner who cannot face the real world and is desperately trying to maintain the planner’s lies to keep his job.

ambrown: and a couple less square miles of our city that is paved over to become an interstate.
JK: Of course light rail uses more area than roads per person transported, not to mention it costs 10-20 times a much. Light rail costs too much & does too little.

Thanks
JK

JK, There are so many dishonest statements in your diatribes that I frankly don't even know where to begin. I don't have the time to do the point by point thing but I will throw this nugget out:

The TGV in France runs on electricity that comes from 85% non-carbon sources (nuclear, wind, and hydro).

yuan JK, There are so many dishonest statements in your diatribes that I frankly don't even know where to begin.
JK: If you admit that you cannot even find one, then please quit YOUR lies about me. (Can I assume that you are city planner or fellow traveler?)

yuan The TGV in France runs on electricity that comes from 85% non-carbon sources (nuclear, wind, and hydro).
JK: Thanks for the plug for nuclear power - France gets well over 50% of their electric power from nuclear. They recycle the fuel too. Too bad the paranoid progressives won't allow this clean low cost source of electricity here.

Thanks
JK