Portland light rail's mixed track record (Houston, Austin: neighborhood, buy, live in)

[scm53]

Many of the people who make transportation decisions in Austin have long had a serious case of Portland envy.

The question for Austin voters, in the end, is whether sprawling Austin, Texas, has what light rail requires — or ever will. And if so, can the city, coming so late to the game, afford to play?

[sxrckr]

The one in Houston seems to have cars hit it a lot.

But, I still like the idea.

[mamacatnv]

The MAX system in Portland is amazing. I've used it to get from the airport to several different suburbs on numerous occasions as well as used it to get around, play tourist. People use it to commute etc. Combined with the bus system, Portland has IMO one of the best mass transit systems in the Western half of the country.

Metrorail and its one sad sad train, is a joke in comparison to the system in Portland. To be fair, Portland has spent 30 years developing this system, its not something that can be done overnight but I sure hope it is something that Austin decides to take on and begin to develop.

[austin-steve]

Just finished reading that in the paper edition. The website has much better graphics and photos. Has AAS started making more of it's content available outside the stupid paywall?

My main takeaway was this quote:

“Light rail doesn’t attract development. It repels it,” said John Charles, executive director of the Portland-based Cascade Policy Institute, a Libertarian think tank. “Anything that light rail can do, buses can do better, cheaper and faster.”

Since I agree with that last sentence, I'll be voting against the bond. Way, way WAY too expensive and it won't help traffic.

And the guy they use as the example commuter. Good grief. Sounds like a daily hell, and that's supposed to be better?

Most weekday mornings Strong, who works in a suburb about 10 miles west of Portland, climbs on his red LeMond Poprad bike and heads west to downtown on one of the city arteries where bikes officially have priority over cars. About 20 minutes later, he glides into the Skidmore Fountain station just west of the Willamette River.

After a short wait, Strong hefts the bike on board, hangs it on a metal hook and settles in with his laptop. About 50 minutes later, the train pulls into his stop in Hillsboro. Another mile and a half on the bike, and he’s at work.

Total one-way commute time: 75 minutes. Driving — if all goes well on the sometimes congested U.S. 26 — would take 45 minutes. The Strongs have two cars, so that time-saving option is available. He rarely takes it.

“I can spend an hour and a half each day getting absolutely nothing done and being stressed in traffic,” Strong said. “Or I can spend 2½ hours, and only 45 minutes of that is lost while riding my bicycle. And even that is not lost, because it’s exercise.”

I don't know. It's not a very compelling argument to think any large portion of Austin commuters will buy in to that sort of commute.

Steve

[gsupstate]

Originally Posted by sxrckr

The one in Houston seems to have cars hit it a lot.

But, I still like the idea.

Houston's system is very small for a city Houston's size, and also seems poorly planned / poorly designed / poorly managed.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

Just finished reading that in the paper edition. The website has much better graphics and photos. Has AAS started making more of it's content available outside the stupid paywall?

My main takeaway was this quote:



Since I agree with that last sentence, I'll be voting against the bond. Way, way WAY too expensive and it won't help traffic.

And the guy they use as the example commuter. Good grief. Sounds like a daily hell, and that's supposed to be better?



I don't know. It's not a very compelling argument to think any large portion of Austin commuters will buy in to that sort of commute.

Steve

one (legitimate) things cities do is create amenities for the residents. Those amenities attract more residents who appreciate those amenities. The labor force attracts employers, which in turn attract more employees.

Creating a train is about servicing a portion of the population that wants to utilize that mechanism of transportation. One good thing about trains is that the route is fixed, so developers can invest heavily around them, vs. bus routes which can be changed on a whim.

Im new to bike riding but I love all the new mega routes that are being created. You can ride 50 miles on trails with no intersections with cars. North/south routes and east west routes. It is awesome.

Trains are like parks, they serve a particular demographic and they do stimulate development and enhance density, but they dont directly have a positive return on investment.

[lndigo]

the light/commuter/regional rail that DFW has is wonderful. you can access forth worth, the airport, a huge chunk of dallas, and denton all on rail. i've found it to be a very practical and efficient way to get around dallas. i sure wish we had something comparable. young people in particular who are more collectively minded and have grown up with expensive gas prices are probably going to push for something like this anyway in the future if not now.

[JoninATX]

I was going to vote yes, but I would rather see the money put aside for road improvements throughout the Austin area starting with IH 35. Something needs to look be done rather soon than wait 20 years down the road.

[austinnative69]

I feel a little like the guy Austin-Steve was discussing. Since i live in Brentwood, I can catch the neighborhood Crestview train easily, but since i work in Round Rock -- i have a 6.5 mile ride from Howard station. I ride up with 8 fellow bike riders in the morning and that doubles on my way home.

I do wish the train had made it closer to Dell, i might do it every day instead of M-W-F.

All that said, I don't think they picked the best route for the "starter" line. Leaning toward a no vote.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

My main takeaway was this quote:

“Anything that light rail can do, buses can do better, cheaper and faster.”

Since I agree with that last sentence, I'll be voting against the bond. Way, way WAY too expensive and it won't help traffic.

But it's just flat-out, objectively, undeniably not true. There are very specific advantages that rail has that buses cannot duplicate.

1. Higher maximum capacity for a given driver.

2. More attraction to "choice" riders.

3. Ability to run on electricity, eliminating local emissions.

(BRT can approach, but not equal, some of those. But then you're talking similar capital expenses).

Now whether those advantages are worth it, and a fit for Austin, is a different question. But to claim that buses are better in _all_ cases is just false.