From: IN%"bianco@xxxxxxxxxx" "Martha Bianco, H-Urban Co-Moderator" 1-MAY-1994
20:27:53.03
To: IN%"URBAN-L%TREARN.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" "Multiple recipients of list
URBAN-L"
CC:
Subj: Converting Infrastructure and Architectural Problems?
Return-path: <@PSUVM.PSU.EDU:owner-urban-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from psuvm.psu.edu by ARCH.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12866) id
<01HBU68ZI4YO8ZFDBN@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 1 May 1994 20:27 EDT
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id
7165; Sun, 01 May 94 20:30:52 EDT
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU
(LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1675; Sun, 1 May 1994 20:30:52 -0400
Date: Sun, 1 May 1994 17:27:08 -0700
From: "Martha Bianco, H-Urban Co-Moderator" <bianco@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Converting Infrastructure
Sender: Urban Planning Discussion List <URBAN-L%TREARN.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Multiple recipients of list URBAN-L <URBAN-L%TREARN.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: "Martha Bianco, H-Urban Co-Moderator" <bianco@xxxxxxxxxx>
Message-id: <01HBU68ZI4YO8ZFDBN@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Comments: To: urban-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[Posted by Martha Bianco <bianco@xxxxxxxxxx> in response to Brent Ryan.]
In Portland, a number of abandoned rail rights-of-way were taken over by
the city and more or less preserved under the assumption that they might
eventually be used for rapid transit. This is not *exactly* what Ryan is
referring to, but it bears some similarity. The light-rail line we have
(operational since 1986) now runs along one of those rights-of-way. There
is one other right-of-way I know of that the city is supposedly keeping
operational by running a vintage trolley along its tracks. There was
opposition to this trolley by residents of a riverside condominium
^
|Architectural...
project, through whose property the tracks run. During protests by these
residents, it emerged that city officials wanted to keep the trolley
^
|This could be an architectural problem.
operating in order to keep the right-of-way operational for future
possible rapid transit; for that reason, the trolley operators are charged
some low nominal franchise fee of something like $1 per year. I also
remember that at the time this opposition surfaced, there was talk among
the opponents of wanting to see alternative uses of the right-of-way, such
as conversion into a jogging or bicycling path, but that appears to be
very unlikely at this point. However, running rapid transit through this
high-income residential area also appears quite unlikely.
^
|Same comment..., but how?
Martha Bianco
Lewis & Clark
bianco@xxxxxxxxxx
20:27:53.03
To: IN%"URBAN-L%TREARN.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" "Multiple recipients of list
URBAN-L"
CC:
Subj: Converting Infrastructure and Architectural Problems?
Return-path: <@PSUVM.PSU.EDU:owner-urban-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from psuvm.psu.edu by ARCH.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12866) id
<01HBU68ZI4YO8ZFDBN@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 1 May 1994 20:27 EDT
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id
7165; Sun, 01 May 94 20:30:52 EDT
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU
(LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1675; Sun, 1 May 1994 20:30:52 -0400
Date: Sun, 1 May 1994 17:27:08 -0700
From: "Martha Bianco, H-Urban Co-Moderator" <bianco@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Converting Infrastructure
Sender: Urban Planning Discussion List <URBAN-L%TREARN.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Multiple recipients of list URBAN-L <URBAN-L%TREARN.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: "Martha Bianco, H-Urban Co-Moderator" <bianco@xxxxxxxxxx>
Message-id: <01HBU68ZI4YO8ZFDBN@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Comments: To: urban-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[Posted by Martha Bianco <bianco@xxxxxxxxxx> in response to Brent Ryan.]
In Portland, a number of abandoned rail rights-of-way were taken over by
the city and more or less preserved under the assumption that they might
eventually be used for rapid transit. This is not *exactly* what Ryan is
referring to, but it bears some similarity. The light-rail line we have
(operational since 1986) now runs along one of those rights-of-way. There
is one other right-of-way I know of that the city is supposedly keeping
operational by running a vintage trolley along its tracks. There was
opposition to this trolley by residents of a riverside condominium
^
|Architectural...
project, through whose property the tracks run. During protests by these
residents, it emerged that city officials wanted to keep the trolley
^
|This could be an architectural problem.
operating in order to keep the right-of-way operational for future
possible rapid transit; for that reason, the trolley operators are charged
some low nominal franchise fee of something like $1 per year. I also
remember that at the time this opposition surfaced, there was talk among
the opponents of wanting to see alternative uses of the right-of-way, such
as conversion into a jogging or bicycling path, but that appears to be
very unlikely at this point. However, running rapid transit through this
high-income residential area also appears quite unlikely.
^
|Same comment..., but how?
Martha Bianco
Lewis & Clark
bianco@xxxxxxxxxx