Obama Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood opened up a hearing last week on the authorization of new highway spending with a shout-out to our very own Columbia River Crossing project. “He said, ‘It will be paid for by tolls,'” recalls Portland Metro President David Bragdon, who was back in DC to talk to the Senate about smart transportation planning.
The Washington Independent noted Bragdon’s remarks on a highway bill which so far does little to encourage public transit use and address climate change.
David Bragdon, president of the Portland Metro Council, cautioned that building new transit infrastructure would be futile without land-use management plans to accompany it. Efforts to prevent sprawl, for example, and to concentrate populations around both public transportation and commercial facilities go a long way to keep people out of cars, he said.
“We can’t simply reform the supply of transportation, we have to reduce demand,” Bragdon testified, “and the way our communities are laid out is a major determinant of demand.”
Tolls were the hot topic at the CRC booth set up for Sunday Parkways last weekend… just feet away from the booth for the anti-12 lane CRC group. Naturally, some unsubtle protest arose.
While CRC staffers explained to park-goers that tolls will reduce traffic and greenhouse gas emissions on the $4.2 billion bridge project, opposition group Smarterbridge.org took the opportunity to hand out its new flier: 
Don’t forget – giving the government more money will control the weather.
What I want is less people.
Can we get some population control started up in this hizzouse?
99% of our problems solved by reducing the population here folks.
‘99% of our problems solved by reducing the population here folks’
Let’s see, who else in history was into ‘reducing the population’ ?
Ever been to Montana or Siberia a$$hole?
Amazingly you can reduce the population without killing a single person, dip$h1t!
How? (Reduce means what we have now – minus – whatever number our overlords deem sufficient)
“Efforts to prevent sprawl, for example, and to concentrate populations around both public transportation and commercial facilities go a long way to keep people out of cars, he said.”
What’s strange is that there really is very little evidence to back up these claims our planners make. Yes, I know Bragdon isn’t a planner, but face it, he is.
The connection between our vaunted planning system and any actual results is tenuous at best. There really isn’t much hard data to show the results we claim we’re getting.
Our overseers fail to realize that most people are not going to quit driving their cars. If they set the tolls too high, the people on the low end of wages who work in Portland (and I see many OR licensed cars coming to Vancouver to work) will have to quit working. Thus, there will probably be more people on public assistance.Also, it seems to me that the biggest share of the costs to be paid by tolls will be paid by a minority of drivers: ie, people living in one state and working in another. Also, Oregon will have to do something about the income taxes they impose on Washingtonians that work in Oregon. Which by the way, Washington does not impose on Oregonians who work over here. If they set the toll high during rush hour, then you will have to choose between paying a high toll or going to work an hour or 2 earlier and just kill time till you are scheduled to start working. How many wasted man hours will that amount to? While I agree that tolls will have to be imposed, they will have to be reasonable tolls. IMHO
They always sling names at me, yet predictably never are able to refute my arguments or answer a simple question.
– also, thank you blabby and ujfoyt
There has never been a single case of building a bigger road reducing sprawl, even with tolls. Never! Let me give you an example of one that people would think would come close: There is a bridge in Denmark (Oresund bridge) that has an ~$80/day toll to cross it, in a built up urban area served by ferries before the bridge was built and guess what happened? Sprawl. People moved to the other side because houses were cheaper. (And that bridge is entirely paid for by tolls, not 1/3rd paid by tolls like we are discussing here.)
The only way to prevent sprawl that has ever worked in the past is to not build the bridge. It is the mark of an idiot to keep doing the same thing over and over, and expect different results. Everyone that thinks we should build this thing should move to Atlanta and have 60 days a year where you can’t go outside because the air is unhealthy, even though they have the biggest freeways per capita in the US.
D, pithy troll. look up, ya called me a name first.
Here’s how to reduce the population without killing anyone:
1. Let them die as they normally would.
2. Don’t reproduce. If you must spread your seed, no more than 2 kids.
Tax heavily, and I mean very very heavily, those with more than 2 kids.
Tax breaks to those with zero kids. It’ll work itself out. WHen the planet reaches say 500 million, (or some *sane number* I think we can revise reproduction rates to maintain the species.
You can still have kids.
The population will drop.
You can scream “let’s be green” and whine about urban sprawl and try and be as organic as you want, but the only thing that will make significant difference towards reducing climate change is to reduce the number of people, and therefore resources they consume, by a LOT.
@ ?pqM)mH{5i*7V7wVNiH?tcvUk’j>…
absolutely, unequivocally, 100% correct. no one in any position of power wants to address the root of the issue. at all. too many people on the planet. everywhere.
keeping it in the pants could save you money in the future. who woulda thunk it?
OK, sorry for the name calling. Problem is – I’m NOT screaming about being ‘green’ and urban sprawl.
Mother nature will take care of those problems just fine.
I’d be all for tax breaks for no kids.
But good luck telling the developing world to stop reproducing, it’s their only hope of survival, not to mention the story of civilization. Won’t happen.
As for the population alarmists – go back and read ‘The Population Bomb’ Paul Erlich circa~1970 that started the whole theory.
History has proven him 100% wrong.
Fuck the population.
Keep it in your pants so I don’t have to put up with your indolent spawn.
“The only way to prevent sprawl that has ever worked in the past is to not build the bridge.”
“…reduce the number of people, and therefore resources they consume, by a LOT.”
You kids really accept, even yearn for, a lot of central government control over your lives. It’s a bit disturbing. You want planners to tell you where to live. You want the transporation planners to make it more and more miserable to use your car. You want God-knows-who to institute population controls. Maybe we should hold a lottery to decide who has to march themselves into the ovens, in the name of keepin’ it green.
(On a side note, this modern contempt for children really will be the end of us as a functional coherent society. If you have that much contempt for children, who do you respect exactly?)
the problem is so many children learn to use the internet, at which they can not help but become annoying.
Honestly economist Joe Cortright has straightforward, reasonable info about the project online at http://smarterbridge.blogspot.com
Videos! And they do a good job telling stories! and you dont even have to read!
Thanks for covering it sarah!
Frisbee!!!!