I think we need to turn this one on its head.

"Local land use plans should promote shorter trips and preserve freeway capacity for longer through trips."

In other words, don't over-develop at interchanges.

Whatever. I went to one of their meetings and came away thinking, "these people suffer from tunnel vision".
MHW

Portland's land use goals and directions are going in a different direction then what we see coming from the CRC Task Force and its recommendations.

Our industrial areas and associated work centers located in River Gate and NW Industrial areas, on Willamette and Columbia Rivers receive NO gain or advantage with the CRC Project recommendations.

We have little or NO reliable transit access to any of our regional industrial work centers. This lack of access also includes rail, and roads.

What is coming from the CRC Task Force is inconsistent with with our Land Use when compared to what we could be doing other alternatives for less money that provide greater impact.

Putting all of our money into one project that is inconsistent with our land use goals does not make sense.

I think it has been well summarized already.

Plus it is hard to say what is and is not a land use. I question what is there already as I haven't studied it enough.

I would argue the reverse - Solutions for local land use plans should be consistant with the need to move people and goods, cars and trucks. I belive the history of development and transport is on my side.

Maybe this is a sarcastic response, but local land use plans require transportation, so being consistent is to build transportation where demand is, right?

If that's the case, local streets win hands down (because streets are everywhere) and this is a condemnation of TriMet (and Metro, as the "regional planning body"), for a total failure to ensure the availability of transit throughout the area.