Pac NW Plannergeek Honeymoon | Portland 3/3: Transportation

[InlandEmpire]

I can't wait until Seattle gets rail as extensive as it is in the Portland metro area - it really helps make Portland what it is.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by bricky

anger issues..

Portland looks like a great town!

So disagreeing with someone else's opinion means I'm angry? LOLOL. You're too much. Don't change a thing.

I guess there should be no debate on these forums anymore. If you disagree with someone you have "anger issues" according to this genius "bricky". Never mind that I never once resorted to swearing, personal insults, or anything else that could be construed as "anger". Debate or pointing out a fact apparently makes you "angry". Great logic there pal. There's someone here who has anger issues, but it is not me.

[ue]

Bricky: Seriously, I think Toronto's streetcar set up is a little strange like most people here, but how is J. Will with "anger issues?" I think he might be coming off a bit annoyed, but I would be too if I were told I was upset and flipping out when I was merely disagreeing with the general consensus and explaining myself.

[bricky]

Originally Posted by ue

Bricky: Seriously, I think Toronto's streetcar set up is a little strange like most people here, but how is J. Will with "anger issues?" I think he might be coming off a bit annoyed, but I would be too if I were told I was upset and flipping out when I was merely disagreeing with the general consensus and explaining myself.

There's a difference between what you say, and how you say it. Will's point about parking is interesting. But he comes across as a big (angry) jerk in this thread, actually. Oh, and I should have included control issues. He seems to have those as well.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by ue

Bricky: Seriously, I think Toronto's streetcar set up is a little strange like most people here, but how is J. Will with "anger issues?" I think he might be coming off a bit annoyed, but I would be too if I were told I was upset and flipping out when I was merely disagreeing with the general consensus and explaining myself.

I don't have "anger issues". bricky is lying as he has a tendency to do. Cirrus stated that Portland's streetcars don't switch back and forth between lanes around stops. I simply pointed out that no streetcar system anywhere switches back and forth between lanes around stops - it wouldn't even be theoretically practical, as it would mean a collision with a car every time a car was in that lane. Cirrus interpreted me pointing out this fact as being "upset" (which is nonsense), and brought Toronto into the conversation, later claiming I demanded other cities brought into the conversation for comparison (which is not true).

As for the bulb-outs, bulb-outs are great for users accessing a bus or streetcar. The issue is really with a parking lane to one side of the streetcar lane, and a moving traffic lane to the other side. If the streetcars ever start running with high frequency, I can't see how this traversing of the streetcar lane to get into and out of parking spaces will not be an issue. If they don't ever run with high frequency, than it's usefulness is very limited anyway.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by bricky

There's a difference between what you say, and how you say it. Will's point about parking is interesting. But he comes across as a big (angry) jerk in this thread, actually. Oh, and I should have included control issues. He seems to have those as well.

What exactly did I say that makes me come across as a big angry jerk? Where did I resort to cursing, personal insults, or like behaviour? I think you're lying, but I'm willing to give you a chance to point to exact quotes I made that constitute such behaviour. You're making vague, unfounded statements as you usually do.

[bricky]

Originally Posted by J. Will

What exactly did I say that makes me come across as a big angry jerk? Where did I resort to cursing, personal insults, or like behaviour? I think you're lying, but I'm willing to give you a chance to point to exact quotes I made that constitute such behaviour. You're making vague, unfounded statements as you usually do.

I was going to try to say something clever, but forget about it. No, your tone was not combative, angry, and controlling. You are right. As you always are about everything. By the way, the city you live in, and everything about your life and choices, is the best in the world. Way better than Portland.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by bricky

I was going to try to say something clever, but forget about it. No, your tone was not combative, angry, and controlling. You are right. As you always are about everything. By the way, the city you live in, and everything about your life and choices, is the best in the world. Way better than Portland.

Looks like you're the one with anger issues, based not only on your snarky response, but on the fact that you felt the need to mention me in this thread in the first place without me having addressed you first (post #40). I never claimed to be "always right" BTW, like you suggest. I merely expressed my opinion. And contrary to what you say, my "tone" wasn't "combative, angry, and controlling". Were that true, you'd have pointed out the exact quote(s) I made that were combative, angry, and controlling. By all means though, attempt to say something clever.

[ue]

Originally Posted by J. Will

I don't have "anger issues". bricky is lying as he has a tendency to do. Cirrus stated that Portland's streetcars don't switch back and forth between lanes around stops. I simply pointed out that no streetcar system anywhere switches back and forth between lanes around stops - it wouldn't even be theoretically practical, as it would mean a collision with a car every time a car was in that lane. Cirrus interpreted me pointing out this fact as being "upset" (which is nonsense), and brought Toronto into the conversation, later claiming I demanded other cities brought into the conversation for comparison (which is not true).

As for the bulb-outs, bulb-outs are great for users accessing a bus or streetcar. The issue is really with a parking lane to one side of the streetcar lane, and a moving traffic lane to the other side. If the streetcars ever start running with high frequency, I can't see how this traversing of the streetcar lane to get into and out of parking spaces will not be an issue. If they don't ever run with high frequency, than it's usefulness is very limited anyway.

why exactly, are you re-explaining this to me? I already read your other posts. I agree that you don't have "anger issues" and that you were merely stating your opinion. I asked how is J. Will having anger issues because I didn't believe bricky. I don't understand how you couldn't get that.

I agree bricky, there is a difference when you factor in how you say things. But because this isn't a verbal conversation, a lot of tone is lost. J. Will could very well be having an angry or joyful tone with what he's saying in real life, but based on the words he chose, he seems neither. He just seems to be explaining himself and might be coming of a tad annoyed because people are thinking he has anger issues. I'd be annoyed as well.

[Centropolis]

walk away? don't get a thread locked in a great series? please?

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by ue

why exactly, are you re-explaining this to me? I already read your other posts. I agree that you don't have "anger issues" and that you were merely stating your opinion. I asked how is J. Will having anger issues because I didn't believe bricky. I don't understand how you couldn't get that.

I wasn't re-explaining it to you. I was re-explaining it to bricky. I thought that was obvious.

[ue]

Then why would you quote me instead of bricky? No, it wasn't obvious, because generally speaking, when someone quotes your post, the words that follow are considered a response to your post.

[InlandEmpire]

People! Gawd! It's an internet forum - get over it and move on! This thread is about Portland, not about Toronto. I don't care who started it, just end it!! Let's just say for a metro the size of Portland, the transportation options are impressive. yay!

[giovanni sasso]

my favorite part of the thread about portland is the comparison of toronto and colorado.

a few items to follow up since this thread began:

1 - the columbia river crossing (the new i-5 bridge) was given the go-ahead by the federal highway and transit administrations this week, which is unfortunate because the current design of the bridge is awful, a utilitarian A-to-B deck across the columbia river. it will, though, include an extension of the max (light rail) yellow line into downtown vancouver, washington.
http://northeastportland.katu.com/ne...s-major-hurdle

2 - it was announced that the eastside streetcar (which opens next year) is going to have a fare, which is leading people to speculate that they're going to do away with fareless square altogether. buses were cut out of fareless square a few years ago, and now it's technically called "free rail zone". while i certainly think that it's a nice amenity, i wouldn't begrudge trimet from eliminating it altogether when there's a budget shortage.
http://portlandtribune.com/news/stor...29670840488900

3 - following up on cirrus' link in the other thread, metro (portland's regional government agency) approved funding that covers the bike share program on thursday.
http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting...g_proposa.html

[Derek]

Seriously guys? It's a damn picture thread. Enjoy the pictures, and shut up!

[fflint]

Originally Posted by giovanni sasso

my favorite part of the thread about portland is the comparison of toronto and colorado.

Fucking-A.

1 - the columbia river crossing (the new i-5 bridge) was given the go-ahead by the federal highway and transit administrations this week, which is unfortunate because the current design of the bridge is awful, a utilitarian A-to-B deck across the columbia river. it will, though, include an extension of the max (light rail) yellow line into downtown vancouver, washington.
http://northeastportland.katu.com/ne...s-major-hurdle

This whole bridge proposal was unusually bad from the start, IMO, and the process seemed skewed toward a more Californian approach--cars, cars, cars, cars, cars, light rail, cars, cars cars, cars, bikes, cars, cars. I'm glad they're including light rail and a bikeway, but I read it will mean five new freeway interchanges and the primary focus is significantly increasing private automobile capacity. Not exactly what Portland has been known for these last few decades. Hopefully things will work out for the best.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by Derek

Seriously guys? It's a damn picture thread. Enjoy the pictures, and shut up!

As annoying as the bickering has been I've learned alot more about Portland from this this thread than any other.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by giovanni sasso

1 - the columbia river crossing (the new i-5 bridge) was given the go-ahead by the federal highway and transit administrations this week,

Looks like something with a 10-figure cost. Who's paying for it? It's pretty common knowledge that Vancouver, WA is an outlet for sprawl to escape Oregon's growth management, so if southern Washington had much influence over the project I can see how that would steer it more towards cars.

Originally Posted by giovanni sasso

2 - it was announced that the eastside streetcar (which opens next year) is going to have a fare

I must not have gotten any good pictures of I'd have included them here, but my hotel was right smack in front of a completed section of east side tracks.

[bunt_q]

Wow, I should've come back sooner.

Has Portland taken a look at what impact eliminating the fare-free zone would have on ridership? I'd also be curious to see a breakdown on trips, assuming they keep track...how many folks hop on for a one-station ride in the core, for example.

One last thing on the Toronto method vs. streetcar bulb-outs. There's a big difference having pedestrians cross a lane when it's a gap in an on-street parking lane. It's an entirely different thing to cross an active traffic lane. It shouldn't come as a surprise that a parked vehicle provides more protection to exposed pedestrians than a stop sign does. Also interesting the level of concern with streetcar-vehicle collisions (with cars parking in that rightmost lane, or the hypothetical streetcar shifting scenario). If a simple "no passing streetcars" rule works so well for protecting pedestrians, why wouldn't a similar "vehicles yield to streetcars" rule work anywhere cars cross the tracks? Presumably that rule already exists too.

.

[giovanni sasso]

the funding -- currently estimated to be in the $3B range -- is, at least for now, split roughly in thirds: federal money, tolls (which the current bridge does not have), and oregon & washington states. the way i see it, if you're already this far into billions of dollars, why would you choose the cheapest (and most auto-centric) option in the name of being frugal? it comes off as extremely insincere, especially when there are sensible arguments for renovating the current bridge and building a local one between i-5 and i-205 (the ring road highway bridge a few miles upstream, closest to the airport) instead, if money is really what it's all about.

but fflint is right, the CRC proposal on the table does not exactly fit the portlandian ethos. granted, its primary purpose is to better serve the vehicular artery of the west coast, i-5, but again, when the budget is this high and you're going to facilitate light rail expansion and serve bikes and pedestrians anyway, why settle for an ugly, flat concrete deck across the mighty columbia? there are 10 bridges across the willamette river in portland, and the one i-5 crosses is far and away the ugliest, the widely panned, utilitarian marquam bridge. it's nestled between the hawthorne bridge (arguably portland's most iconic) and the light rail bridge under construction.

proposals included THIS, THIS, and THIS (my favorite), but the one governors kitzhaber (OR) and gregoire (WA) are pushing is THIS. f'n terrible.