Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbkelle who wrote (132345)	2/10/2001 11:02:35 PM
From: milo_morai	Respond to of 1571066

Our Light rail gets up to 55Mph. But it still takes 90 min to go from Gresham to Hillsboro. I can still go across town in 60 min even during most rush hour times of the day. All Portland has to due is change the center divider to the portable wall that a machine truck can pick up and create a extra lane going inbound or outbound for the appropriate time of day. We don't have to tear up everything. But 2 Billion dollars for Light Rail is insane. Now they are building a spur to the airport. They couldn't get anyone to spend the 400+million to build it into Vancouver. Plus Light Rail doesn't address but only 1/10 the Population of the Metro Area. We really need Star Trek technology of BEAMING people places. It's the only real solution. M.

To: jbkelle who wrote (132345)	2/12/2001 12:20:06 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571066

Milo, All recent studies have shown that merely widening highways to increase capacity does nothing to decrease congestion or commute times...in fact, the studies I've read recently show that the net effect, including the disruptions caused by the construction, result in a net increase in commute times. It's something I've experienced a number of times in a number of cities...they tear up everything to "improve" the roads, you have your entire commute disrupted in order to get the hoped-for improvement, and when it's done, the increment of improvement is negligible. JB, In addition to the problems with improvements to existing freeways, what is even more disturbing is that we've learned that every major freeway built in the last 20 years has opened to full capacity. During the freeway's construction period, the land at the proposed exits is developed by builders to maximum density. So that by the time it opens, there full grown suburbs tracking its path. In other words, new freeways beget more sprawl. I'm interested in the utilization of the Portland system. One problem with commuter rail and light rail is that it's often too heavy and expensive to build it into areas where it could get people from where they are to where they want to go, and too slow to attract significant ridership in the expanding outlying suburbs. The technology hasn't changed substantially since the 1950's. A new type of system that is light, inexpensive, and has average speeds substantially faster than 35 MPH is probably what's needed to meet the needs of today's sprawled American city. A number of concepts for that do this have been proposed and are being tested. In most instances new light rail lines are cheaper to build than freeways....and heavy rail can be cheaper if existing rights of way are used. There has been some improvement in technology in the last ten years, with manufacturers taking more and more advantage of space age materials that are lighter and more flexible, and with the use of computers to regulate flow and avoid congestion. Unfortunately, very few American cities are devoting the kind of financial resources to mass transit that have been and continue to be spent on freeways and the automobiles. So its not surprising that residents of cities like Portland which are in the early stages of developing light rail are disappointed with its impact. However studies have shown that as a city grows and becomes more dense, if we build mass transit, they will come; that mass transit is consistently faster than traveling by car in the city, and that cities like Chicago, NYC and Boston would be in gridlock right now if it weren't for their mass transit systems. Belatedly, Los Angeles has joined the mass transit bandwagon and has begun to see significant jumps in ridership.....even on its bus lines. Ultimately, light rail is not the final solution nor is heavy rail nor are buses....they are just pieces of the ultimate solution. Its all those things coupled with metered freeways, special HOV lanes, pay freeways, telecommuting, higher densities in certain parts of the city, reducing urban sprawl, etc that eventually will mitigate the worse effects of traffic and potential gridlock. ted

To: jbkelle who wrote (132345)	2/12/2001 12:38:31 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571066

jbk, The technology hasn't changed substantially since the 1950's. A new type of system that is light, inexpensive, and has average speeds substantially faster than 35 MPH is probably what's needed to meet the needs of today's sprawled American city. A number of concepts for that do this have been proposed and are being tested. Speed is something that the "planners" don't comprehend. It's a concept that has to do with providing product to consumers, and since most of these planners a government employees, they don't comprehend the language of the market. Joe