View Single Post
Old Posted Jun 10, 2008, 7:23 PM
sakyle04's Avatar
sakyle04 sakyle04 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 78201
Posts: 1,369
Originally Posted by PTSA View Post
Running cars overnight for ice removal was tried and does not work all the time, crime moves along the transit line (you have to pay for a police presence regardless where it occurs), light rail only works if you are on the light rail line and have access to transit (the majority of the population does not), changing employment patterns can leave the light rail line transit area, two to three pedestrian/car crashes per year, you can beat light rail (if you have to walk to your destination several blocks) into downtown and park most of the time, benefits of light rail permanence are quite debatable.

I have never seen any repaving on major bus routes every five years. The Portland Transit mall is now partly asphalt. Wow, that would be expensive. The freeway was repaved once as I remember in many many years, bus tires are cheap compared to maintaining and constructing light rail, light rail is not economically feasible anywhere in the US (does this tell you something?).

It is silly to build something and pay for it, forever, that can not pay for itself.

Heavy rail as I noted is feasible with bus rapid transit if done right. Be innovative don't just follow the cattle heard.

25 years of Urban Planning
i know these arguments.

i use them to try to gain support for the idea that we should raze the alamodome for a residential high-rise village (or some other lofty urbane purpose)...

i say that the dome is a money-loser year after year and the fact is that it does operate in the red. however, as a city-owned building, the money it generates in taxes more than makes up for its operating loss, although those dollars don't get credited to their bottom line.

basically, you are using facts to build a disingenuous case. i know. i do it. the reality is that cities with light rail have a greater density and a greater livability. these things turn the tide of exurban sprawl and allow greater efficiency in city services. fewer cars on the road means that the pollution levels drop, resulting in easier business regulations for the city which results in greater economic investment which results in a greater pool of wealth for all. that in turn makes all of us into greater consumers who then pay sales taxes that in turn fund things like city improvements and infrastructure, not to mention police who keep us safe on those dastardly trains.

your argument is flawed PTSA, at least on this forum. we are here because we believe in density and urbanity. we believe that they reduce crime, increase property value, improve livability, raise standards, and generally help society at large. more succinctly, a rising tide lifts all boats.

i believe in our ability to reinvent ourselves. i believe in a more efficient, more beautiful, and more integrated city. i believe in change.
Kyle on Twitter
Reply With Quote