What are the per capita emissions? That's really the relevant metric. All this talk about how we are now 2% below 1990 levels is per capita; our total emissions have always been increasing.
"...building a road might be "high risk" but if that road leads to a light rail station and is lined with high-density development, it could be an overall plus for the environment. "
Rex: That is the most ridiculous statement I've seen in print since "Goin' Rogue" came out. Let's keep building dirty roads and leave it to someone else to solve the impact problem, I'm sure it will be fine.
If you want to see ample evidence that dis-investment in streets does not cut down on driving or emmissions, go live in Seattle for a month. Everyone still drives, it just takes twice as long to get anywhere.
If we don't invest in roads, we will have basically the same number of drivers (I will allow that there will be marginally fewer, but not much), and these drivers will be stuck more in traffic belching out greenhouse gases because you haven't improved the street system to accommodate them.
There is NO hard data anywhere that demonstrates that disinvesting in streets and parking causes people to drive less. None.
You don't need hard data to conclude that if there were less roads, that people would drive less. The problem with Seattle is that attractive transport options are slim.
@blabby and lodel: The problem with Seattle traffic is that there are an inordinate number of choke points when it comes to intra-city driving. Portland has twice as many bridges as Seattle and only has one real water mass to deal with. Seattle has the Sound, Lake Washington and umpteen canals to deal with. They also seem to let their drawbridges get opened during prime commuting times.
Lodel, you're actually wrong. Driving is inelastic. People would still drive. Your "common sense" is not a substitute for hard data and real research. And I'm telling you, that data does not exist. There is none.
A major problem with our planning regime around here is exactly this sort of "makes sense to me intuitively" thinking that you make here. When the results on the ground end up being the exact opposite (and twice as expensive) as what "makes sense" to the planners who "don't need hard data."
The lack of hard data goes both ways, Blabby. I would like to see evidence that backs up your observation that "everybody" in Seattle drives.
My point is not that we shouldn't build roads, it's that we need to be very deliberate about how and why we build them, and Mr. Burkholder's statement is a sign that Metro is not doing that.
"But in a packed Metro meeting this morning, Adams' idea failed by a 5-11 vote. Metro's Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation approved the regional transportation plan despite Adams' and two other members "no" votes against it."
5 votes against, or 3?
Adams: “Respectfully, I think the Metro amendments put us in a fact-gathering cul-de-sac."
Precisely the type of fact-finding cul-de-sac that he's proposing to kill the CRC.
Do you own a car Amos? How often do you drive it? How do you get groceries to your house? How were those groceries delivered to the market? What was the last thing you acquired that was too big to transport by bike? How did you get it home?
Do you have kids? How do you get them to everywhere they need to be and still get to work on time? How do you visit someone or someplace outside of the city?
Where do you work? Do you ever drive there? Does you business use or sell supplies that arrive by truck? Does it make deliveries by truck? If you have customers, how do they get to your workplace?
If we tell the next Intel or Solarworld that if they locate here we can't guarantee a functioning street system, and they won't be able to attract good hires from the other side of the region, because those workers won't want to commute an hour and half each way by car OR transit, do you think those employers will locate here?
Everyone drives. The percentage of people who never drive is less than 10%. These people frankly seem to have less need to be anywhere, and therefore are likely play less than a key role in our local economy (sorry, but true). It makes zero sense to plan our region for the needs of these people.
Blabby, please see the second paragraph of my last comment for clarification on my point.
To answer your questions in brief: Yes, I own a car. When I use it I prefer to drive on roads, it is much more convenient than front lawns, so I do understand that they are important. That having been said I ride my bike to work and everywhere else that I possibly can.
I choose socially responsible transportation in order to decrease my dependency on wide, fast-moving roads... I only wish my government would take on the same mindset.
"My point is not that we shouldn't build roads, it's that we need to be very deliberate about how and why we build them, and Mr. Burkholder's statement is a sign that Metro is not doing that."
I would invite you to sit through the process of putting the RTP together and then read through the final document and argue that it isn't a deliberate process.
It's the same with the CRC, you guys didn't personally sit in every meeting for 2 years, so you assume the process hasn't been adequate.
@Blabby - I've done a lot of time in Amsterdam lately. They've certainly "disinvested" in roads over the last couple thousand years - it's all canals and bike paths and alleys in the central city. Millions of people, and almost no one drives. People often hold them up as if they were saints who all thoughfully choose to ride bikes instead of drive each morning, but I'm sure their citizens would be just as in love with SUVs as we are, if only there was a place in their city to park them. I'd point them out as a good example that disinvesting in roads causes a decline a the number of drivers.
Reymont, I'm not sure where to begin with that argument.
Amsterdam's developed form was never based on cars. They didn't have streets and then decide to disinvest in them. Therefore Amsterdam is not "a good example that disinvesting in roads causes a decline in the number of drivers."
Children, the solution to global warming (which I do believe in) will not be to revert to 19th Century pedal technology. There will be a technological solution (i.e. cars which pollute far less) and everyone will still drive them.
There is no way that human beings, who are inherently selfish, will turn away from one of the greatest conveniences in history to go back to riding bikes and trolleys. It will not happen. These modes are for people with the luxury of extra time, and people who unfortunately can't afford the ownership costs of a car.
"There is NO hard data anywhere that demonstrates that disinvesting in streets and parking causes people to drive less. None."
I would suggest that investing in streets causes people to drive more.
Studies published in the Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (Cervelo & Hanson, 2002) and in Transportation Research Part A (Noland, 2001) indicate that there is a strong, in Noland's case statistically significant, relationship between lane mileage and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Essentially, the studies support the theory of induced travel. If we build more capacity or "lane miles", more people will drive. In other words, investing in roads increases driving.
Regarding your assertion that "driving is inelastic": Travel demand is not inelastic. An increase in capacity, or the supply of roads, results in a reduced cost of travel (in terms of time). When the cost for travel decreases, demand for travel increases. If demand for travel or "driving" were inelastic, as you state, the demand would not change relative to cost. However, this is not the case. For travel demand, if supply is decreased the cost for travel increases and demand decreases. Fewer roads, higher travel costs in terms of time, fewer drivers. See Noland, referenced above, for an illustration of this. Changes in GHG emissions associated with induced demand are a bit more challenging to quantify.
I'm disappointed to hear that Rex, who is running for Metro Council President, is making yet another major regional transportation decision that appears to hamper our pursuit of GHG emission reductions. I agree with him that we need to consider land use when evaluating transportation projects, but we also need some aggressive action and strong leadership if we hope to achieve the types of reductions in GHG emissions we need to stabilize global climate. I don't see that coming from him thus far.
I feel like the last quote before the cut summarized things quite well.
"...building a road might be "high risk" but if that road leads to a light rail station and is lined with high-density development, it could be an overall plus for the environment."
This is called a RATIONAL COMPROMISE. Car people, you get something. Non-car people, you get something. Urban planners and sociological futurists, you get the most of all.
@Blabby, here is the problem with your argument: You're presenting driving and roads and the suburbanite lifestyle as a continuing imperative. As something that can't change and that must be continued or "the economy" will suffer.
What you and people like you don't get is that our oil-based suburban economy has been a disastrously short-sited and free-riding idea from the beginning. We have been stealing from future generations for decades by violating a very basic, common sense idea that you have no right to do whatever you want if it infringes on other people's basic rights. I say that the global environment and its associated ecosystems (clean air, clean water, etc.) are a common resource, that no person has the right to overuse. We have a human responsibility to leave the planet in as good or better condition than we found it, and we are not doing that. Quite the opposite. You and I and anyone else who impact the environment one iota more than we pay to clean it up or mitigate it are THIEVES, plain and simple.
Now, if we accept that climate change and its assosiated horrors are highly likely without seriously altering our lifestyle (and if you don't, you are a No-Nothing of a criminal order as there is OVERWHELMING scientific modeling and consensus evidence to support that assertion) we should be taking big steps to change things. The won't BE an "economy" in 50 years if we don't take steps now to stave off global warming. There will be mass suffering, conflict, and death as eco-systems fail and the planet becomes incapable of supporting life as we know it. I'm fairly sure you mentioned you have kids at some point, Blabby -- how do you sleep at night knowing the world your political ideology will leave them?
I am calling Cause v Correlation on this one. There may well be a statistical relationship between lane mileage and vehicle miles traveled. That does not mean that simply investing in roads will increase the amount people drive.
A large part portion of urban development in this country has been outward, charitably called suburban growth/incorporation and uncharitably called urban sprawl. Obviously if you put people ten miles outside the city and then build roads betwixt, people are going to drive more. It's not the roads that are to blame, however.
It seems like most of the angst here is over urban growth boundaries. That's fine. People probably should live closer to where they work. But there's no clear reason why the cause celebre that is transit de-funding would do anything other than make our existing system less efficient and therefore more wasteful.
Barold, thank you for your substantive reply. I couldn't find the first article, but I did find the abstract for the second. He says his results are that adding lane miles contributes to roughly 25% of VMT growth. What accounts for the additional 75% isn't detailed.
Adding new miles is slightly different from what I call "disinvesting" in our current system, but definitely related. The entire argument boils down to making our road system more unbearable so that people don't want to use it. I would argue that that is not a responsible position for leaders who are stewards of our economy to take.
I would also like to see the relative GHG impact of a car moving easily through town at a standard rate, and the same car taking twice as long in stop and go traffic to make the same trip. I don't know that answer to that but would be curious to see it.
I'm not disappointed in Rex because Metro isn't Portland. It represents something like 30 cities over 4 counties. It's not Metro's job to parrot the Portland party line.
c-kidd, I do have kids, and I do worry about what the world will be like for them. I just don't fool myself into thinking that if one mid-sized city in one small state in one country builds a few less miles of roads that it will impact global warming. The solution to global warming is far far beyond the talents or resources of someone like Sam Adams.
Portland is a very green liberal city, and people still drive everywhere. Just look out your window. It's not going to stop. The practical solution to this problem is to reinvent cars.
Good point Matt. Arguably he was sure to lose. So he was posturing?
Also, the Oregonian had this story ready to go this morning, so the Mayor's office probably gave it to them. Maybe being Super Sustainability Guy is all Adams has left so he has to make a big show of it? He's getting too much heat already from bike nazis and the like?
Copenhagen syndrome perhaps? It seems like a proposal that could have benefited from more time in the oven. Using one particular measurement of greenhouse emissions as the only (or at least dominant) metric seems a little unsubtle to me.
I do like the idea of assigning higher levels of scrutiny to certain projects though. I mean, everything should get a high level of scrutiny, but we live in the real world and you have to pick your battles.
Matt - to make it look like he's standing up for things that he knows will win votes in Portland.
Whether you think he's a good politician or a bad politician, he's still a politician.
As for the other comments on this thread: why does it have to be so black and white? "No more roads or unlimited roads" is a patently false choice. All the rational person can ask for is that factors other than just ease-of-driving are taken into account when making decisions; that roads are seen as part of a larger whole, not something to be considered in isolation.
I honestly can't say, Matt. It appears that he feels underinformed by the CRC greenhouse gas discussions that have taken place, which he has now projected onto Metro's plan. This is not a good sign, unless he's trying to win votes from the "intuitive beliefs over projected probabilities" crowd.
isn't what Sam did today the kind of thing we expected when we elected him mayor: take a leadership stand for Portland, a green Portland, not going along with the status quo or powers when that would be detrimental to the city's interests and just plain wrong? it seems like he's finally getting his act together of late, becoming that mayor. i don't know if he would have won this argument under any conditions; the belief that we have to build for more cars is so ingrained into so many Americans, attempts to promote the changes that are necessary are going to take a long time to work through.
Good coverage of a wonky issue, but an important one. I'm a supporter of both Adams and Burkholder. I have to agree with Rex on this one and he should go further. We will likely be in either a carbon tax regime or cap and trade in a few years. In either system there will be money that must be paid for transport carbon emissions. The model needs to comprehend our best estimate of the costs. This little skirmish is a war of models, we'll probably see more. The fact we have a regional transportation plan that connects to land use planning is pretty awesome.
I don't own a car. I carry groceries to my house. I moved stuff out of storage yesterday and the day before and used a friend's truck, though I usually use Zipcar. I do not have kids, but I personally used public transit or walking to get everywhere when *I* was a kid in the 1990s.
Your argument is flawed. Your thinking is exactly what led to the suburban sprawl in all but a very few number of cities in this country. If Portland had planned the way you think they should 30 years ago, it would not be the city it is today, it'd be Vancouver, WA. Why should we think this way for the next 30 years?
@Blabby Amsterdam is but one of dozens of major European cities that are "disinvesting" in roads. I've been to 20 countries in Europe, and pretty much everywhere roads are being turned into pedestrian only zones, especially in city centers (which is what Portland should do) and though citizens originally balked at the idea they now say it's been a huge benefit.
Even in Portland we can see the benefit from removing the highway that used to go over Tom McCall Waterfront Park and the Pearl District. Would you have preferred we kept that too?
@Blabby You seem to be under the impression that it's an all or nothing proposition when it comes to cars. Nobody is advocating the wholesale removal of cars, or that we should always do everything without them. I walk, I ride a bicycle, I ride a motorcycle, I take public transit, and when necessary I use a car sharing service. A car is not the 100% solution, nothing is.
But why should one person drive a car everywhere, when he only truly needs it a fraction of the time? How many times do you ride in your car by yourself carrying no cargo? I can get somewhere just as quickly on my $1500 motorcycle and use up 1/10 the space and 1/3 the gas. I also whizz by bumper to bumper traffic and never have to look for a parking spot downtown. I use the most practical solution for every scenario, and that's rarely a car.
Andy, if you want to see how pedestrian malls work aroung here, check out the one in Eugene. Oh wait, they turned it back into a street after all the businesses failed.
"Amsterdam's developed form was never based on cars."
Are you suggesting by comparison that Portland's form was based on cars? Because I'm pretty sure Portland was laid out in the late 1800's or thereabouts. Trolley and horse-cart times. And bike times too, apparently (see the next paragraph). But definitely pre-car.
"Children, the solution to global warming (which I do believe in) will not be to revert to 19th Century pedal technology. There will be a technological solution (i.e. cars which pollute far less) and everyone will still drive them."
"Children"? Really?
Anyway: "everyone will still drive them"? Every single one? Here's the funny thing about absolute statements like that: They're always wrong.
"There is no way that human beings, who are inherently selfish, will turn away from one of the greatest conveniences in history to go back to riding bikes and trolleys."
Except for those human beings that do. Some actually prefer riding bikes and trolleys. Selfish, selfish, selfish.
"It will not happen. These modes are for people with the luxury of extra time, and people who unfortunately can't afford the ownership costs of a car."
Some purchase the luxury of extra time with the thousands of dollars they don't spend on car ownership.
@Blabby: "Children, the solution to global warming (which I do believe in) will not be to revert to 19th Century pedal technology."
I never argued that, in fact, I think the 19th century pedals were bad too. I think we should get rid of the pedals and go back to the 18th century where if you wanted the car to go faster, you have to shovel more coal into the firebox. At least you'll get some exercise that way. (Although I should admit that the pedals in early cars tended to operate the gearshift. The throttle on the first ICE (in 1806) was a hand lever.)
Portland's street layout, as I recall was put together in the early 1900's using the input of New York City and employing a free-flowing (ideally) grid design instead of the more restrictive medieval design you see implemented in Amsterdam or Copenhagen. There were, indeed, cars at the time. They did inspire our street layout. As a matter of fact, my house was built in 1912 by a man who owned a Ford garage in Vancouver.
Back to the greenhouse gases: I'm curious why there was no mention of Boardman Power Plant, and the fact that the Max and Streetcar are still ~40% coal-powered. I'd also like to know I have the option of going electric without contributing to a growing problem. http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/inde…
@orgengine: I think people got tired of explaining, that, even if Max and Streetcar were 100% coal powered, they'd still emit less greenhouse gases than people driving around in cars by themselves, so in an effort to keep the stories simple, they just don't mention it at all. Don't get me wrong, I want them to be 0% coal powered myself, but the easiest solution for that involves condemning PGE and having it taken over by the city, and I expect that people would complain about that, (citing the water bureau as an example,) even though there are ZERO electrical cooperatives in this state that have higher rates than PGE because they get discounts from BPA and they don't get the state licensed ~10% profit that PGE gets to take. (It isn't like they even assume any risk for that 10%. None at all: If they can't be bothered to perform preventative maintenance and something breaks* requiring costly repairs, the state will let them raise rates next year to make up the lost revenue, and they make the 10% profit on the repairs too.)) So even if the billing went twice as poorly as the water bureau's did, it wouldn't come close to comparing to PGE's rates.
*Something did break in the coal plant a few years ago. They billed everyone for the repairs, including those of us who buy green power specifically so that we don't buy power from that coal plant.
@inductee
Thanks for the links, they were educational. I guess my point should be that the streets were designed for the convenience of transverse-axled vehicles instead. Amsterdam's medieval design focuses on preventing the same ingress/egress as a security measure, with tapered alleys and the like.
FYI, "bike times" didn't come along until later, either
"They began the first mass-production of bicycles (still called "velocipedes") in 1868, as the first real bicycle craze had begun the year before, reaching full force all over Europe and America in 1868 and 1869. But exactly as with the dandy-horse, pedestrians complained about them, and the craze again faded quickly."
@Matthew
Believe me, I voted for the PUD when I had the chance for the same reasons you cited, but it appears that's water under the bridge. There are also problems with the BPA's grid structure that need to be addressed if we're going to be expanding wind power.
In regards to your "tired of explaining" point, I wasn't able to find an exact comparison between cars and coal-fired electricity for trains. An EV would produce, optimistically, 30% of ICE emissions in Portland's current situation.
I can only make a huge assumption that riding a train would drop that to @20%, given carbon footprint reductions of going from car to public transit. http://postcarboncities.net/files/climate_…
Please let me know if you have access to anything more concrete.
Rex: That is the most ridiculous statement I've seen in print since "Goin' Rogue" came out. Let's keep building dirty roads and leave it to someone else to solve the impact problem, I'm sure it will be fine.
If we don't invest in roads, we will have basically the same number of drivers (I will allow that there will be marginally fewer, but not much), and these drivers will be stuck more in traffic belching out greenhouse gases because you haven't improved the street system to accommodate them.
There is NO hard data anywhere that demonstrates that disinvesting in streets and parking causes people to drive less. None.
A major problem with our planning regime around here is exactly this sort of "makes sense to me intuitively" thinking that you make here. When the results on the ground end up being the exact opposite (and twice as expensive) as what "makes sense" to the planners who "don't need hard data."
My point is not that we shouldn't build roads, it's that we need to be very deliberate about how and why we build them, and Mr. Burkholder's statement is a sign that Metro is not doing that.
"But in a packed Metro meeting this morning, Adams' idea failed by a 5-11 vote. Metro's Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation approved the regional transportation plan despite Adams' and two other members "no" votes against it."
5 votes against, or 3?
Adams: “Respectfully, I think the Metro amendments put us in a fact-gathering cul-de-sac."
Precisely the type of fact-finding cul-de-sac that he's proposing to kill the CRC.
Do you have kids? How do you get them to everywhere they need to be and still get to work on time? How do you visit someone or someplace outside of the city?
Where do you work? Do you ever drive there? Does you business use or sell supplies that arrive by truck? Does it make deliveries by truck? If you have customers, how do they get to your workplace?
If we tell the next Intel or Solarworld that if they locate here we can't guarantee a functioning street system, and they won't be able to attract good hires from the other side of the region, because those workers won't want to commute an hour and half each way by car OR transit, do you think those employers will locate here?
Everyone drives. The percentage of people who never drive is less than 10%. These people frankly seem to have less need to be anywhere, and therefore are likely play less than a key role in our local economy (sorry, but true). It makes zero sense to plan our region for the needs of these people.
Not everybody, but a vast majority (see table 7)
http://globaltelematics.com/pitf/portlands…
To answer your questions in brief: Yes, I own a car. When I use it I prefer to drive on roads, it is much more convenient than front lawns, so I do understand that they are important. That having been said I ride my bike to work and everywhere else that I possibly can.
I choose socially responsible transportation in order to decrease my dependency on wide, fast-moving roads... I only wish my government would take on the same mindset.
"My point is not that we shouldn't build roads, it's that we need to be very deliberate about how and why we build them, and Mr. Burkholder's statement is a sign that Metro is not doing that."
I would invite you to sit through the process of putting the RTP together and then read through the final document and argue that it isn't a deliberate process.
It's the same with the CRC, you guys didn't personally sit in every meeting for 2 years, so you assume the process hasn't been adequate.
Amsterdam's developed form was never based on cars. They didn't have streets and then decide to disinvest in them. Therefore Amsterdam is not "a good example that disinvesting in roads causes a decline in the number of drivers."
Children, the solution to global warming (which I do believe in) will not be to revert to 19th Century pedal technology. There will be a technological solution (i.e. cars which pollute far less) and everyone will still drive them.
There is no way that human beings, who are inherently selfish, will turn away from one of the greatest conveniences in history to go back to riding bikes and trolleys. It will not happen. These modes are for people with the luxury of extra time, and people who unfortunately can't afford the ownership costs of a car.
"There is NO hard data anywhere that demonstrates that disinvesting in streets and parking causes people to drive less. None."
I would suggest that investing in streets causes people to drive more.
Studies published in the Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (Cervelo & Hanson, 2002) and in Transportation Research Part A (Noland, 2001) indicate that there is a strong, in Noland's case statistically significant, relationship between lane mileage and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Essentially, the studies support the theory of induced travel. If we build more capacity or "lane miles", more people will drive. In other words, investing in roads increases driving.
Regarding your assertion that "driving is inelastic": Travel demand is not inelastic. An increase in capacity, or the supply of roads, results in a reduced cost of travel (in terms of time). When the cost for travel decreases, demand for travel increases. If demand for travel or "driving" were inelastic, as you state, the demand would not change relative to cost. However, this is not the case. For travel demand, if supply is decreased the cost for travel increases and demand decreases. Fewer roads, higher travel costs in terms of time, fewer drivers. See Noland, referenced above, for an illustration of this. Changes in GHG emissions associated with induced demand are a bit more challenging to quantify.
I'm disappointed to hear that Rex, who is running for Metro Council President, is making yet another major regional transportation decision that appears to hamper our pursuit of GHG emission reductions. I agree with him that we need to consider land use when evaluating transportation projects, but we also need some aggressive action and strong leadership if we hope to achieve the types of reductions in GHG emissions we need to stabilize global climate. I don't see that coming from him thus far.
"...building a road might be "high risk" but if that road leads to a light rail station and is lined with high-density development, it could be an overall plus for the environment."
This is called a RATIONAL COMPROMISE. Car people, you get something. Non-car people, you get something. Urban planners and sociological futurists, you get the most of all.
What you and people like you don't get is that our oil-based suburban economy has been a disastrously short-sited and free-riding idea from the beginning. We have been stealing from future generations for decades by violating a very basic, common sense idea that you have no right to do whatever you want if it infringes on other people's basic rights. I say that the global environment and its associated ecosystems (clean air, clean water, etc.) are a common resource, that no person has the right to overuse. We have a human responsibility to leave the planet in as good or better condition than we found it, and we are not doing that. Quite the opposite. You and I and anyone else who impact the environment one iota more than we pay to clean it up or mitigate it are THIEVES, plain and simple.
Now, if we accept that climate change and its assosiated horrors are highly likely without seriously altering our lifestyle (and if you don't, you are a No-Nothing of a criminal order as there is OVERWHELMING scientific modeling and consensus evidence to support that assertion) we should be taking big steps to change things. The won't BE an "economy" in 50 years if we don't take steps now to stave off global warming. There will be mass suffering, conflict, and death as eco-systems fail and the planet becomes incapable of supporting life as we know it. I'm fairly sure you mentioned you have kids at some point, Blabby -- how do you sleep at night knowing the world your political ideology will leave them?
Good for Adams.
A large part portion of urban development in this country has been outward, charitably called suburban growth/incorporation and uncharitably called urban sprawl. Obviously if you put people ten miles outside the city and then build roads betwixt, people are going to drive more. It's not the roads that are to blame, however.
It seems like most of the angst here is over urban growth boundaries. That's fine. People probably should live closer to where they work. But there's no clear reason why the cause celebre that is transit de-funding would do anything other than make our existing system less efficient and therefore more wasteful.
Adding new miles is slightly different from what I call "disinvesting" in our current system, but definitely related. The entire argument boils down to making our road system more unbearable so that people don't want to use it. I would argue that that is not a responsible position for leaders who are stewards of our economy to take.
I would also like to see the relative GHG impact of a car moving easily through town at a standard rate, and the same car taking twice as long in stop and go traffic to make the same trip. I don't know that answer to that but would be curious to see it.
I'm not disappointed in Rex because Metro isn't Portland. It represents something like 30 cities over 4 counties. It's not Metro's job to parrot the Portland party line.
Portland is a very green liberal city, and people still drive everywhere. Just look out your window. It's not going to stop. The practical solution to this problem is to reinvent cars.
Also, the Oregonian had this story ready to go this morning, so the Mayor's office probably gave it to them. Maybe being Super Sustainability Guy is all Adams has left so he has to make a big show of it? He's getting too much heat already from bike nazis and the like?
What's your impression?
I do like the idea of assigning higher levels of scrutiny to certain projects though. I mean, everything should get a high level of scrutiny, but we live in the real world and you have to pick your battles.
Whether you think he's a good politician or a bad politician, he's still a politician.
As for the other comments on this thread: why does it have to be so black and white? "No more roads or unlimited roads" is a patently false choice. All the rational person can ask for is that factors other than just ease-of-driving are taken into account when making decisions; that roads are seen as part of a larger whole, not something to be considered in isolation.
Yikes! What does that do to someone's carbon footprint, anyway?
I don't own a car. I carry groceries to my house. I moved stuff out of storage yesterday and the day before and used a friend's truck, though I usually use Zipcar. I do not have kids, but I personally used public transit or walking to get everywhere when *I* was a kid in the 1990s.
Your argument is flawed. Your thinking is exactly what led to the suburban sprawl in all but a very few number of cities in this country. If Portland had planned the way you think they should 30 years ago, it would not be the city it is today, it'd be Vancouver, WA. Why should we think this way for the next 30 years?
Even in Portland we can see the benefit from removing the highway that used to go over Tom McCall Waterfront Park and the Pearl District. Would you have preferred we kept that too?
But why should one person drive a car everywhere, when he only truly needs it a fraction of the time? How many times do you ride in your car by yourself carrying no cargo? I can get somewhere just as quickly on my $1500 motorcycle and use up 1/10 the space and 1/3 the gas. I also whizz by bumper to bumper traffic and never have to look for a parking spot downtown. I use the most practical solution for every scenario, and that's rarely a car.
"I've been to 20 countries in Europe..."
Golf clap.
"Amsterdam's developed form was never based on cars."
Are you suggesting by comparison that Portland's form was based on cars? Because I'm pretty sure Portland was laid out in the late 1800's or thereabouts. Trolley and horse-cart times. And bike times too, apparently (see the next paragraph). But definitely pre-car.
"Children, the solution to global warming (which I do believe in) will not be to revert to 19th Century pedal technology. There will be a technological solution (i.e. cars which pollute far less) and everyone will still drive them."
"Children"? Really?
Anyway: "everyone will still drive them"? Every single one? Here's the funny thing about absolute statements like that: They're always wrong.
"There is no way that human beings, who are inherently selfish, will turn away from one of the greatest conveniences in history to go back to riding bikes and trolleys."
Except for those human beings that do. Some actually prefer riding bikes and trolleys. Selfish, selfish, selfish.
"It will not happen. These modes are for people with the luxury of extra time, and people who unfortunately can't afford the ownership costs of a car."
Some purchase the luxury of extra time with the thousands of dollars they don't spend on car ownership.
I never argued that, in fact, I think the 19th century pedals were bad too. I think we should get rid of the pedals and go back to the 18th century where if you wanted the car to go faster, you have to shovel more coal into the firebox. At least you'll get some exercise that way. (Although I should admit that the pedals in early cars tended to operate the gearshift. The throttle on the first ICE (in 1806) was a hand lever.)
Back to the greenhouse gases: I'm curious why there was no mention of Boardman Power Plant, and the fact that the Max and Streetcar are still ~40% coal-powered. I'd also like to know I have the option of going electric without contributing to a growing problem.
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/inde…
*Something did break in the coal plant a few years ago. They billed everyone for the repairs, including those of us who buy green power specifically so that we don't buy power from that coal plant.
According to this:
http://www.planetizen.com/node/41290
Portland was laid out around 1866. Ladd's addition was laid out in 1891.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladd's_Additi…
Cars came along a little bit after:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_cars_be…
"Cars started to become popular around 1908 and became common in the 1920s."
Of course, these are just the first web pages I could find. If you can provide better information, I'd be curious.
Thanks for the links, they were educational. I guess my point should be that the streets were designed for the convenience of transverse-axled vehicles instead. Amsterdam's medieval design focuses on preventing the same ingress/egress as a security measure, with tapered alleys and the like.
FYI, "bike times" didn't come along until later, either
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_craze
"They began the first mass-production of bicycles (still called "velocipedes") in 1868, as the first real bicycle craze had begun the year before, reaching full force all over Europe and America in 1868 and 1869. But exactly as with the dandy-horse, pedestrians complained about them, and the craze again faded quickly."
@Matthew
Believe me, I voted for the PUD when I had the chance for the same reasons you cited, but it appears that's water under the bridge. There are also problems with the BPA's grid structure that need to be addressed if we're going to be expanding wind power.
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.s…
In regards to your "tired of explaining" point, I wasn't able to find an exact comparison between cars and coal-fired electricity for trains. An EV would produce, optimistically, 30% of ICE emissions in Portland's current situation.
http://www.electric-cars-are-for-girls.com…
I can only make a huge assumption that riding a train would drop that to @20%, given carbon footprint reductions of going from car to public transit.
http://postcarboncities.net/files/climate_…
Please let me know if you have access to anything more concrete.