Passenger Trains > Building light rail subverts American values

"Light Rail..... not a transportation solution but a political ideology to change people's behaviors, reduce freedom of movement, and expand the size of government." Liz Pike, Republican, Camus WA. commenting, February, 2014, on the replacing of the worn, obsolete I-5 bridges across the Columbia River WA with a new bridge with more traffic lanes and light rail connecting downtown Portland to downtown Vancouver, residential communities, and colleges and universities.

I've always wondered why being stuck in massive freeway traffic jams is an ultimate expression of America's ideal of liberty.

n9949y Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>colleges and universities.
>
> I've always wondered why being stuck in massive
> freeway traffic jams is an ultimate expression of
> America's ideal of liberty.

There are plenty of people on TO who can tell you why this is true.

Wow. She really didn't say that, did she?!

Light rail increases the mobility of people in urban areas.

I'm all for lowering taxes and the scope of government, but transportation is clearly a role of government and if we accept the gigantic sums of money sunk into highways and roads, diverting some of that money to alternative modes seems like a no brainer. This could also include bike paths and busses. I just don't understand why busses and bike paths have little resistance, but railroads are attacked so viciously.

Liz Pike's website provides some background.

The original project was a Washington State + Oregon + Federal rebuilding of the I-5 bridges. Oregon state apparently withdrew support, and the bridge project stopped. A bill was introduced to have Washington State pay the whole / most of the cost. State representative Pike moved to stop the bridge project (rail and road) until a bi-state solution is found.

Last item at this link, as well as interviews and articles on the subject:

http://houserepublicans.wa.gov/news/pike-feb-2814-enewsletter/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/14 17:09 by Lackawanna484.

http://houserepublicans.wa.gov/news/legislature/wa-legislators-ask-or-legislature-to-scrap-existing-crc-project-022414/

If that is what her constituents want, then as their representative
she is acting correctly. She has no obligation to those in Oregon
or elsewhere whose opinions differ. They presumably have their
own representation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/14 16:58 by GenePoon.

so there....

---

Big oil and friends auto and tire industries killed mass transit. Make no mistake, they are still at it and anti-Amtrak as well.

eee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> so there....

Wow, she sounds dangerous! Did she say this stuff when she was sober? I think many people will see it as good for a laugh and disregard it. Most people in Oregon and Washington are not stupid.

Michelle Bachmann has made similar comments about light rail.

Sadly, it wasn't that long ago when support for public transit, including light rail, was bi-partisan and included conservative politicians.

P Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I just don't understand why
> busses and bike paths have little resistance, but
> railroads are attacked so viciously.

Buses and bike paths have been attacked very viciously. Pennsylvania State Representative Darryl Metcalf called spending more on public transit (includes buses, trains and paratransit) as "more welfare." In Nashville, an organization, partly funded by an automobile dealer, is opposing plans for bus rapid transit. In the most recent federal transportation bill, Congress made major cuts in federal funding for trails and in many places property owners are going to court to prevent abandoned rail corridors from being converted to trails.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/14 19:48 by RuleG.

Hmmmm. I don't remember hearing all of those things the times that the issue of a light rail bridge (Yellow Line) or an addition to an I-5 bridge was put to a vote. When it get close to happening I guess you pull out all the stops.

Portland was going to build a light rail (Yellow Line) to Vancouver. That means it has to cross the Columbia. Portland got it going and Vancouver came up with a vote that they didn't want it. That's why the Yellow Line ends at the Expo Center.

You can find a study about a new bridge across the Columbia that will say whatever you want. One of those studies says that 2/3 of the traffic on the bridge is Vancouver (or Southwest Washington) people coming to work in Oregon. They are the ones that tie up I-5 every morning and evening. A Park n Ride at the north end of the Yellow Line is full of Washington cars that get on MAX as soon as they can. Portland would like a new bridge because of Port of Portland and other industry trying to ship products out of Oregon.

More studies? It has been studied to death!!! The people that do the studies don't know what they are doing. They design one bridge that is so tall it gets into the flight path of Pearson Field. Back to the drawing board. They get it lowered but they didn't consult the Coast Guard. There is a river shipper upstream that can't get their products under the new design.

Each time the folks in Vancouver that don't want it reach farther and farther out until you see what Liz Pike says.

The thing that I hear that causes the folks in Vancouver to vote against it is that they think it will bring downtown Portland crime, drugs, and homeless to the streets of downtown Vancouver.

I live in Oregon and I believe that I will be able to live just fine without a new bridge. Even if a ship hits it, an earthquake takes it down, or the pilings under it rot and it sinks into the river on its own. In the meantime hundreds of millions of your tax dollars (federal) have been spent on studies with nothing to show. (and none of the studies addressed the points made by Liz Pike)

jb

PS: I think the Portland MAX system is very good. I ride it at least once a week and it serves me exceptionally well. The people of downtown Vancouver just DON'T want it.

jdb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> The thing that I hear that causes the folks in
> Vancouver to vote against it is that they think it
> will bring downtown Portland crime, drugs, and
> homeless to the streets of downtown Vancouver.
>

That is a problem. Portland historically has been very hospitable to those folks. The couple of times I've been to Portland I've seen them camped out on sidewalks, mostly young people not the older ones you see in some other cities. Panhandling is endemic and no doubt if the new line is built, the WA neighborhoods would be attractive to them. The couple of times I've ridden MAX there have been the unwashed on there as fares are on the honor system. One time I rode, a couple of young thugs were hassling other passengers until a plain clothes policeman identified himself and ejected them at the next stop where they no doubt reboarded to continue their mischief. I've heard stories of problems out near Gresham - a few stops you don't want to get off at, especially if you don't know the neighborhood. But on the positive, one day at NE 82nd Ave, the platform swarmed with officers checking fare cards and I believe the fine for cheating is quite high.

In addition to Vancouver, Clackamas County has also been vociferous in opposing MAX, and ousted some county commissioners who voted for it. Then the new ones tried to stop the ongoing construction of the new Orange line from the county line through Milwaukie to its final stop at SE Park Ave Station. Lawsuits were filed and at least one county vote was held in an attempt to stop it, either for the same reasons as Vancouver or for the increase in taxes to pay for it. In any event, the efforts have so far failed and construction is still ongoing.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liz Pike's website provides some background.
>
> The original project was a Washington State +
> Oregon + Federal rebuilding of the I-5 bridges.
> Oregon state apparently withdrew support, and the
> bridge project stopped. A bill was introduced to
> have Washington State pay the whole / most of the
> cost. State representative Pike moved to stop the
> bridge project (rail and road) until a bi-state
> solution is found.
>
> Last item at this link, as well as interviews and
> articles on the subject:
>
>

Actually you've got that backwards. Washington bailed on the project in July 2013
by not funding it's $450 million share of the project. Oregon continues to work on
the project looking at options to reduce the cost and make it doable without Washington's
involvement. Oregon funded it's share last year but it will need to be extended at some point
this year.

The bill Pike is excited about will make it illegal for Washington transportation districts,
like C-tran in Vancouver, from allowing Oregon to condemn property in Washington for that end
of the bridge.

n9949y Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Light Rail..... not a transportation solution but
> a political ideology to change people's behaviors,
> reduce freedom of movement, and expand the size of
> government." Liz Pike, Republican, Camus WA.
> commenting, February, 2014, on the replacing of
> the worn, obsolete I-5 bridges across the Columbia
> River WA with a new bridge with more traffic lanes
> and light rail connecting downtown Portland to
> downtown Vancouver, residential communities, and
> colleges and universities.
>
> I've always wondered why being stuck in massive
> freeway traffic jams is an ultimate expression of
> America's ideal of liberty.

Quite a true statement for some systems, not necessarily just light rail. Look at New Mexico's Rail Runner which was started by Bill Richardson using state highway money (called GRIP - "Governor Richardson's Investment Partnership"). Richardson at the time was looking to run for President and it was considered a resume enhancer for his 2008 campaign. He snookered the legislature by low balling the cost, avoided asking for Federal money for construction (both so it could be built quickly and because it would easily fail a cost benefit analysis). Final cost was just under 1/2 billion dollars, a lot for a state with a small population like NM.

It was touted as an easy way for mainly state government workers to get to their jobs in pricey Santa Fe from homes in Albuquerque and Rio Rancho. Another benefit was avoiding crowed two-lane I-25 from the downtown area to just north of Bernalillo. But funds for rebuilding the 1960's highway were instead diverted to the RR. Even today, construction is now only finishing up at the interchange with US 550 north of Bernalillo. From there to Santa Fe, I-25 is a wide open 75 mph highway to Santa Fe and it's 30 minutes quicker driving than with the train. At one point, some Republicans in the legislature introduced a bill to require ABQ-SF government workers to ride the train (not sure how that would have worked).

In 2008 when Obama was elected also on the local ballot in ABQ and SF were measures to pay for RR operation by increasing sales taxes which passed (note to government planners - make sure you place measures such as this on the general election ballot when liberal candidates are likely to win - votes for that person carry over into votes for transit also). In any event, the RR mainly carries commuters as it was designed to but not at the level which helps pay operating costs - farebox recovery is only 14%. Indeed, the RR was hyped to do just what the WA representative said - to change people's behaviors (for global warming believers it would cut greenhouse gases),
reduce freedom of movement (traffic jams on un-rebuilt highways forcing people to make other choices), and expand the size of government (government elites know what's best for you - its always the case, isn't it?).

brc600 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Big oil and friends auto and tire industries
> killed mass transit.


I always like this urban myth, because it quickly identifies people who have no idea what they are talking about.

But of course you didn't even get the myth correct, I guess not realizing that buses are a huge part (the majority) of mass transit. So I'm certain you're also unaware of how and why utility companies originally owned and subsidized unprofitable trolley systems, and how and why tax law changes (pushed by 'Progressives') brought a relatively quick end to that. The Law of Unintended Consequences is a good subject to study, along with all of the above.

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Michelle Bachmann has made similar comments about
> light rail.
>
> Sadly, it wasn't that long ago when support for
> public transit, including light rail, was
> bi-partisan and included conservative politicians.


That's a dishonest statement. Not going to give you the benefit of the doubt because IIRC you have a lengthy history of political involvement, including employment, didn't you work for a Democrat Senator or Rep?

There are still plenty of GOP supporters of transit, and I know at least 1 popular Tea Party favorite who is in favor of govt assisted transit projects, WHERE APPROPRIATE. But of course since he doesn't share the "Every train is sacred!" mindset nor agrees that every transit proposal makes sense, he's labeled as anti-transit by many who are ignorant, dishonest, or both (such as many media members).

High capacity transit makes sense in crowded corridors where roads are effectively built out or there is a very dense destination/employment core somewhere on the line. Buses are often more efficient in other corridors and as distributors, especially in the less dense employment districts in metro areas under 5 million. And in some smaller metro areas lacking population, density, and congestion, even fixed routed bus transit may not be the best answer. Dial-a-ride type service might be all that an honest analysis would support at present and in the relatively near future. Each case is different, one size doesn't fit all. I won't offer an opinion as to whether the time is now (or soon enough, since these projects can end up with 10-year lead times) ripe for LRT to Vancouver, WA.

Cumbresfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> In 2008 when Obama was elected also on the local
> ballot in ABQ and SF were measures to pay for RR
> operation by increasing sales taxes which passed
> (note to government planners - make sure you place
> measures such as this on the general election
> ballot when liberal candidates are likely to win -
> votes for that person carry over into votes for
> transit also).

Note to transportation planners and citizen transit advocates: Ignore this. Ballot measures to fund transit often succeed or fail independently of who is running for president. the following link documents which transit measures were approved and which were rejected dating back to 2000.

http://www.cfte.org/elections/past

In 2004, the year W was reelected, Denver area voters approved increases in local taxes to fund the Fastracks program, one of the most ambitious transit expansion programs anywhere in the country.

In any event, the RR mainly carries
> commuters as it was designed to but not at the
> level which helps pay operating costs - farebox
> recovery is only 14%. Indeed, the RR was hyped to
> do just what the WA representative said - to
> change people's behaviors (for global warming
> believers it would cut greenhouse gases),
> reduce freedom of movement (traffic jams on
> un-rebuilt highways forcing people to make other
> choices),

You have it backwards. Failure to adequately fund public transit is what reduces choices. There are roads just about everyone, but they don't do much good for people who do not have cars.
and expand the size of government

> (government elites know what's best for you - its
> always the case, isn't it?).

No it's highway-only politicians and those in government who think like them who are the elitists who don't have a clue or don't seem to care about the mobility needs of zero-car households. Elitism is also present when malls won't let transit buses on their property.

You should read "The Power Broker" by Robert Caro about Robert Moses the New York area roadbuilder who decided that he knew what was best for New Yorkers with his road program which ruined a lot of New York City neighborhoods.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/14 21:09 by RuleG.

darkcloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Not going to give
> you the benefit of the doubt because IIRC you have
> a lengthy history of political involvement,
> including employment, didn't you work for a
> Democrat Senator or Rep?
>
You've confused me with someone else. I have never worked as a paid employee for an elected official or on a campaign. I have worked as an unpaid intern for a four-month period for a couple of Congressmen many years ago.

darkcloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> brc600 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Big oil and friends auto and tire industries
> > killed mass transit.
>
>
> I always like this urban myth, because it quickly
> identifies people who have no idea what they are
> talking about.
>
> But of course you didn't even get the myth
> correct, I guess not realizing that buses are a
> huge part (the majority) of mass transit. So I'm
> certain you're also unaware of how and why utility
> companies originally owned and subsidized
> unprofitable trolley systems, and how and why tax
> law changes (pushed by 'Progressives') brought a
> relatively quick end to that. The Law of
> Unintended Consequences is a good subject to
> study, along with all of the above.

While it's true that Standard Oil, Firestone and General Motors through National City Lines, were not the sole cause of the decline of transit systems, they did help to accelerate a process already underway.

While it's true that buses comprise the majority of transit in most areas, those who believe in the National City conspiracy theory of the decline of public transportation would point out that buses are less popular than rail and many people opted to travel by car. That's somewhat of an oversimplification, but there is still a grain of truth to it, too. There is a strong anti-bus sentiment among much of the public and there are many on TO who look down on buses whether buses are for local transit or intercity transportation.

No myth at all. In 1981, Harper's magazine devoted 5 pages to this. Also, Parade Magazine had a feature on this circa 1995-2000, IIRC. The Harper's story cites General Motors own documents and Standard Oil and other conspirator documents. I've had various academics and attorneys read that article and other documents I have. They said no doubt it was/is a true story. I've had auto and oil people themselves tell me the same story and swear it is true.


darkcloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> brc600 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Big oil and friends auto and tire industries
> > killed mass transit.
>
>
> I always like this urban myth, because it quickly
> identifies people who have no idea what they are
> talking about.
>
> But of course you didn't even get the myth
> correct, I guess not realizing that buses are a
> huge part (the majority) of mass transit. So I'm
> certain you're also unaware of how and why utility
> companies originally owned and subsidized
> unprofitable trolley systems, and how and why tax
> law changes (pushed by 'Progressives') brought a
> relatively quick end to that. The Law of
> Unintended Consequences is a good subject to
> study, along with all of the above.