Not that I didn’t respect her a lot before…
Nolan (from Portland), the Oregon House Majority Leader, parted company with House Speaker Dave Hunt and voted against the Transportation bill. The bill passed anyway 38-22 (because it raises taxes, it needed a 36 vote super-majority to pass) (and somehow I suspect that if she had been vote number 36, Nolan might have voted in favor).
Other Legislators on the ‘D’ side of the House voting No were:
Ben Cannon, Portland
Brian Clem, Salem
Chris Harker, Beaverton
Jefferson Smith, Portland
The bill will now go on to the Senate. Meanwhile, Steve Duin skewers the #1 beneficiary of the bill, the Newberg-Dundee bypass, in his column today.
106 responses to “Mary Nolan is My New Hero”
The other five definitely deserve recognition for their bold votes:
Ben Cannon made the last vote on the floor, keeping the vote total from hitting the mythical “40” votes. (and for those listening to his floor speech, his vote was definitely a cliff-hanger).
Chris Harker switched his vote after Ben cast his vote, bringing the total ayes down to 38. (and he was the only D to drop a non-supportive letter).
Brian Clem staked out his opposition last week and held true to his pledge.
Jefferson Smith, along with Chris Harker, for being one of the freshman Ds to vote against the grain.
The question is, would another two Ds have joined the opposition if they knew the magical “40” wouldn’t be hit. And, why didn’t the Rs have their crew locked down better? Interesting stuff. The Senate vote could be equally interesting.
“Bold votes”?
Amazing.
I’m not a fan of this bill but the idea that it should follow the pattern of spending this site advocates is very unbold, or foolish.
It simple would not pass if it did.
But no suprise since the bill advances raod projects.
Never mind the legislature has left intact the $250 million lottery dollars for Milwaukie Light Rail, along with the status quo spending of current funding. No, that’s not good enough for you folks.
You demand tax increases and even more spending on the failed approach you enamor over with imaginary benefits.
Your entire approach to land use and transportation is an extraordinary demonstration in ignoring reality.
This explains some of it.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/00818-portland-a-model-national-policy
John E:
I’m curious if you have ever provided statistics or articles that do not have a complete bias to them (i.e. articles from other sources than Wendell Cox or O’Toole)?
For those who didn’t catch the floor speeches yesterday, Representative Bailey gave a fantastic speech. I would love to get the copy of his speech – including the last paragraph he wasn’t able to finish. Regardless of one’s position, I though his speech beautiful.
ws,
What do you mean? There’s all sorts of evidence of failure. From Metro and the PDC included.
Is all of it biased?
Wendoll Cox and Randal O’Toole are not biased in the least. Nor are they agenda driven like the other side. You are simply applying convenient assumption. Using bias as an excuse to avoid the substance and facts they raise.
Apparently you don’t know what bias is.
Nothing is more biased than the land use and planning regime you seem to think is a model of success. No matter what it costs or how much failure in the outcomes.
I’m curious. Exactly what do you see as success other than the declarations made by the publicly funded agencies producing the fabrications?
Lenny declared the Tram and SoWa a success.
Bob has declared Interstate a success.
Is that the kind of shallow depth you’re into?
Chris,
I’m normally for mass transit, pedestrians and bicyclists over cars, but having grown up in McMinnville and travelled through Dundee and Newberg literally hundreds of times going to and from Portland, I can tell you that this bypass highway is desperately needed. People have been trying to build this bypass for decades. I’m 37 years old and I remember being suck in stop-and-go traffic regularly at age 17. If there is one highway project in all of Oregon that needs to go forward, this is it.
Again, there are exceptions to every rule. We shouldn’t be in the habit of building highways and freeways, but this one is very, very much needed.
John E.“What do you mean? There’s all sorts of evidence of failure. From Metro and the PDC included.
Is all of it biased?
Wendoll Cox and Randal O’Toole are not biased in the least. Nor are they agenda driven like the other side. You are simply applying convenient assumption. Using bias as an excuse to avoid the substance and facts they raise.”
ws:Many of their reports and “statistics” have been questioned and debunked numerous times. They do have bias, it is seen in their writings and their pocketbooks as they are funded by notorious pro-sprawl interests.
Wendell in particular has iterated so many asinine claims, it’s ridiculous. I find his reports on GHG emissions to be the most appalling, and cites information that was conducted by himself that was funded by special interest groups in Australia. He cherry picks data with the best of them to make broad based claims.
ws,
You could not be more wrong, misinformed and misrepresenting.
There’s been no such debunking of their reports at all. Their pocketbooks show no influences as you suggest and the boogieman sprawl is a stale cannard.
What is their bias?
You’re is obvious. Anti-growth and anti car.
And you accept any cost and failure.
Brian,
I too am very familliar with the Dundee choke point.
The same problems are elsewhere such as the sunrise corridor, Tualatin Sherwood & I-5/99 connector, CRC etc.
All of which is a product of the anti-car fanatasism and smart growth fantasies which usher along one failed plan after another.
A latest chapter is the WES.
WES ridership and cost getting worse
WES– Monthly Deficit
Feb—–($336,246)
March—($373,195)
April—($456,413)
Washington County pays $203,040 and Clackamas County pays $25,000 in “assistance” each month
Tri Met makes up shortfall
FEB—–$108,206
March—$145,155
April—$228,373
Those criticizing the bypass ignore congestion and repeatedly pretend it’s merely people needlesly driving around.
Meanwhile commuting and commerce mobility get worse, region wide, every year.
What’s the answer here? More light rail and street cars which have no effect on worsening congestion at all.
The Milwaukie light rail extension will be the worst investment yet. Short line, huge cost, serving very few, and diverting revnue needed elsewhere including the Sellwood bridge which Lenny says should be closed to all vehicle traffic.
Talk about asinine.
You could not be more wrong, misinformed and misrepresenting. … And you accept any cost and failure.
Don’t get personal. It’s needless hyperbole anyway.
the Sellwood bridge which Lenny says should be closed to all vehicle traffic.
At the very same time, Lenny also said that a new bridge should be constructed further south for automotive traffic. You can’t criticize the entirety of the statement as being anti-growth or anti-car.
Here’s one literally-titled debunking of some of O’Toole’s work:
DEBUNKING CATO: Why Portland Works Better Than the Analysis of Its Chief
Neo-Libertarian Critic
ws: Many of their reports and “statistics” have been questioned and debunked numerous times. They do have bias, it is seen in their writings and their pocketbooks as they are funded by notorious pro-sprawl interests.
JK: Why don’t you give us “many” examples, otherwise we think you are just making accusations to cover the fact that you cannot rationally counter John’s claims.
I have used a lot of Randal’s and Wendall’s data on PortlandFacts, only after I verified their accuracy. I guarantee you that what they say is far more accurate than most of what I read here. And yes, we all makes mistakes. But to say they have been debunked time after time is pure bullshit.
Thanks
JK
Bob,
Lenny said close the bridge and let Clackamas build a new one.
That’s asinine. Clackamas is not going to build one and least of all where there is not one now.
Even if the Lenny got his way on the Sellwood bridge any new brige would have Lenny and the rest of the usual opponets to all things cars and trucks. That new Clackamas bridge would face all of the same and even more obstructions led by the scare of sprawl spurring.
And while the resulting nightmare congestion problem from the 34,000 vehicles/day that once used the Sellwood bridge found other crossings Lenny would laugh it off as with advice for more rail transit.
Meanwhile the Milwaukie light rail find little obstruction regardles of it’s enormous cost and lack of merit.
The only reason it moves forward is the radical biases and agenda that dominates our land use and transportation planning.
John E. – What’s the reference for the county payments to TriMet for WES operational costs?
Bob,
I took a quick gander at that so called debunking of O’Toole.
[Moderator: Expletive deleted.]
The takes on Orenco, Cascade Station and Urban Renewal were all the stench I could take.
It’s so blatantly dishonest Metro,PDC and TriMet staff must have contributed.
Orenco is a auto oriented rat race like any LA, Atlanta or Houston suburb.
Cascade Station is the car oriented big box strip mall it was meant to prohibit.
Urban renewal/TIF is a corrupted funding tool for schemes that cannot pass scrutiny of public votes. So wildly abused and out of control defending it is as insulting as it gets.
That debunking is the bias and dishonesty lesson.
Where as O’Toole, CATO and George Will speak with the truth.
Bob R. Says: Here’s one literally-titled debunking of some of O’Toole’s work:
JK: Here’s a nice example of your citation’s allegedly debunking O’Toole:
TABLE 1: Portland vs. Other Western Cities
1980-2000 population growth32
……………………Cities …..metropolitan area
Portland ……….43…………. 43
Denver ………..12………….. 47
Seattle…………14 …………..46
Salt Lake City ..11…………. 46
In all four regions listed above, regional population grew by about 40-50%. But Portland’s results radically differ from those of other cities. In Portland, the city grew as fast as the suburbs. (bold added)
JK: Oh, really ALL of our regional growth was in Portland! He seems to forget Beavertion, Gresham, Hillsboro etc.
But perhaps he just missed a typo, then what is his point? That all growth was within a city?
I thought the goal was to save land area, but he tries to pawn off the above as proof that we are saving land. Is because we didn’t?
I won’t bother wasting more time on this obviously biased report from a bought and paid for advocate of the smart growth industry. And it is an industry driven by profits.
Thanks
JK
JK:
First off, some of your stats on your website are off. I have called you on it, especially regarding Tri-Met’s LR energy use to that of small cars. Not only are you using old numbers for LR, your methodology is completely off.
Cox and O’Toole will often throw around the fact that per sf., single-family detached homes consume the least amount of energy.
But this is a per sf. measurement, and it completely avoids the fact that single family detached homes are much larger than multi-family units, which puts the average down.
Total energy use, single-family detached homes consume the most of any dwelling unit, almost twice that of multi-family units.
Furthermore, WC asserts that city dwellers emit more GHGs than suburbanites because they own more than one home and eat at “fancy” restaurants:
http://www.newgeography.com/content/00680-enough-cowboy-greenhouse-gas-reduction-policies
Even though numerous studies show that suburbs consume enormously more energy due to land consumptive homes and transportation patterns that tie them together.
WC also talks about housing affordability and restrictive land-uses. Many of his articles touch on California, but never does he mention such market influences like Proposition 13, etc. He lumps any restrictive land use as “smart growth”, but does not go into depth that many cities have varying levels of land-use restrictions and are not all created equal.
If you bring up specific points, I’d be more than happy to address them.
Bob R. Says: Here’s one literally-titled debunking of some of O’Toole’s work:
JK: Here’s a another nice example of your citation’s allegedly debunking O’Toole:
O’Toole argues that Portland’s planning system is unpopular because “several recent elections and other events have seen defeats for the planners, but they continue to plan anyway.”36 However, most of his claims relate to events nearly a decade ago, such as rezoning decisions in the late 1990s. More recent events do not support his assertion that Portlanders yearn to turn Portland into a more conventional city.
He seems to have missed the desnity limitation measure passed by the voters in 2002:
AMENDS CHARTER: PROHIBITS INCREASED DENSITY IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS; REQUIRES REPORTS
It passed by a 2:1 margin. A competing, more severe, measure was also on the ballot. Although is no data available as to how many people voted for ONE but NOT BOTH measures, one can reasonably assume many did. SO the real total of people who voted agonist the current density policy was probably more like 3:1 or 4:1. See portlandfacts.com/Smart/MetroDensityVote.htm
Thanks
JK
Is the cost of $192 million for a six mile stretch of 2 lane highway alarming to anyone? And, this is for about 1/3 of the Newberg-Dundee Bypass.
Bob R. Says: Here’s one literally-titled debunking of some of O’Toole’s work:
JK: Here’s a another nice example of your citation’s allegedly debunking O’Toole:
O’Toole argues that Portland’s planning system is unpopular because “several recent elections and other events have seen defeats for the planners, but they continue to plan anyway.”36 However, most of his claims relate to events nearly a decade ago, such as rezoning decisions in the late 1990s. More recent events do not support his assertion that Portlanders yearn to turn Portland into a more conventional city.
He seems to have missed the desnity limitation measure passed by the voters in 2002:
AMENDS CHARTER: PROHIBITS INCREASED DENSITY IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS; REQUIRES REPORTS
It passed by a 2:1 margin. A competing, more severe, measure was also on the ballot. Although is no data available as to how many people voted for ONE but NOT BOTH measures, one can reasonably assume many did. SO the real total of people who voted agonist the current density policy was probably more like 3:1 or 4:1. See portlandfacts.com/Smart/MetroDensityVote.htm
Thanks
JK
John E.:You’re is obvious. Anti-growth and anti car.
I’d gladly chop down a forest if in its place was nice, functioning neighborhood.
ws:I am not anti-growth, I just don’t see growth in the terms of highways and strip malls.
You will never see any sprawl subdivision historically preserved or protected like so many nice inner-ring suburbs are surrounding Portland – and I think this is telling that what we are building and have built in suburbia is architecturally defunct and something that will not withstand the test of time.
If a typical subdivision somehow “disappeared” off the face of the earth, do you think people would rebuild it exactly the way it was? Nobody would. However, if Ladd’s Addition disappeared randomly, you bet whatever was developed in its place would have elm-lined diagonal streets and nice homes. This is very telling of what we used to build, and what we build now.
Furthermore, I am not anti-car, however, I find that the American public has been taken on a huge ride. There’s nothing wrong with the automobile, but subsidies and market forces have pushed aside mass transit and walking in favor of only using your car for every daily need.
In doing so, we have made something that provides an individual with freedom, to making them a prisoner to their automobile.
In addition, assuming that because people drive x amount of passenger miles means that we should develop more highways/roadways is assuming that people are wanting this outcome. We develop housing clusters so the only viable option is driving and nothing else, and then we point to that very development and say: “see, everyone’s driving, they choose to. Let’s build more highways and subdivisions to accommodate these numbers.
I’d bet those same people would love to have a nice corner store to walk to for basic grocery needs, but any such store is illegal in suburbia, so it doesn’t happen. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Sorry for the multiple posting, I got a “server error” and did not realize it had posted.
ws Says: First off, some of your stats on your website are off. I have called you on it, especially regarding Tri-Met’s LR energy use to that of small cars.
JK: You having “called me on it” DOES NOT MAKE YOU RIGHT.
ws Says: Not only are you using old numbers for LR, your methodology is completely off.
JK: Perhaps you would like NEW numbers from the Feds:
MAX ( NTD Table 17)
Tri-met (Data line 684; LR)
Sources of Energy (in Thousands) KWHr …………43058.9
Passenger Miles Traveled…………………………….. 186540.5 (1000’s)
CRC_Energy_Technical_Report.pdf Pg 2-13:
The fuel conversion factor for electricity is 3,412 Btu/kWh (USDOE 2005)
MAX energy usage per passenger-mile
43.0589e6 KW-Hr x 3,412 Btu/kWh = 1.469169668 e11 Btu
1.469169668 e11 Btu / 186.5405 e6 PM = 787.59 Btu / PM
787.59 Btu / PM x 3 = 2,362 Btu / PM
Automobile MPG to match rail efficiency:
123,976 Btu/gal / 2,362 BTU/Mi = 52.49 MPG
52.49 MPG / 1.3 pass/vehicle 40.38 Vehicle MPG
Since most MAX lines parallel higher speed roads, or one with little stop and go, you should compare this to highway milage for cars.
As you can see many smaller new cars match or beat this. If want to save energy, drive a new small car instead of sponging off the taxpayer on transit.
ws Says: Cox and O’Toole will often throw around the fact that per sf., single-family detached homes consume the least amount of energy.
But this is a per sf. measurement, and it completely avoids the fact that single family detached homes are much larger than multi-family units, which puts the average down.
JK: What is wrong with that? OR are you really arguing that people should live in smaller houses? Or maybe they should also go to your church and wear your style of clothes?
Quit trying to tell others how to live, this is a free country.
ws Says: WC also talks about housing affordability and restrictive land-uses. Many of his articles touch on California, but never does he mention such market influences like Proposition 13, etc. He lumps any restrictive land use as “smart growth”, but does not go into depth that many cities have varying levels of land-use restrictions and are not all created equal.
JK: Ok, so you ignore Harvard, Federal Reserve and HUD studies. Try reading some real data that didn’t come from advocacy groups: debunkingportland.com/Housing/HousingCost.htm
Thanks
JK
SO the real total of people who voted agonist the current density policy was probably more like 3:1 or 4:1.
Your alleged debunking of the CNU report includes a large, admitted guess by you. Guessing isn’t much of a methodology to use when debunking. I can just as easily say “so the real total of people who voted to revise the current density policy was probably more like 1.8:1” and still be just as backed-up by the numbers as your assumption. Unless someone did a scientific poll, we just don’t know.
The info you provide on the Metro ballot measure on your web site shows the more extreme measure going down in flames, losing in all three counties. The more modest measure doesn’t strike me as a particularly strong repudiation of planning practices in our region. It lost in Multnomah County, where people are experiencing density and urban development just a tad more than the surrounding areas, by about 1.7:1.
WS: If a typical subdivision somehow “disappeared” off the face of the earth, do you think people would rebuild it exactly the way it was? Nobody would. However, if Ladd’s Addition disappeared randomly, you bet whatever was developed in its place would have elm-lined diagonal streets and nice homes. This is very telling of what we used to build, and what we build now.
JK: WOW!! You completely ignore the FACT that Ladd’s addition is an early example of sprawl. It was even built on prime farmland.
More telling, this subdivision (Ladd’s) that you love was built without regard to city zoning or planning.
See what nice things can happen when there are no planners or city crap to get in the way?
Thanks
JK
Quit trying to tell others how to live, this is a free country.
Quit trying to tell others they can’t have density.
I remember quite well at a public meeting where the facilitator rhetorically mentioned our expected population increase and asked where these newcomers should live, and you blurted out “They can live beyond Beaverton!”.
Well, some of them want to live closer in, and in a variety of housing types. Portland (city of) actually allows landowners MORE freedom to develop their property than the surrounding suburbs.
All of this railing against density is just telling people how they can’t live … telling people they can’t live close-in via infill and urbanization.
At this point the discussion of subsidies usually comes up, but in my view that’s completely separate and worthy of debate. But the freedom to have traditional urban form and higher densities is something I think ought to be allowed.
Do you support a repeal and/or relaxation of setback requirements, minimum parking requirements, and building height limits?
Ruh,
Is that a joke?
You’re asking if $192 million for a six mile stretch of 2 lane highway is alarming?
It’s for a major highway, Newberg-Dundee Bypass.
You want alarm.
The Milwaukie light rail expansion will cost $1.6 billion for the uneeded 6.5 mile light rail line.
$2 billion of the CRC $4 billion is for light rail.
Get it? Or get alarmed.
Does anybody know about the ongoing Washington and Clackamas contributions to WES ops that John E. cited?
Orenco is a auto oriented rat race like any LA, Atlanta or Houston suburb.
Having spent time in Atlanta and LA suburbs, and Houston exurbs, I can see quite a bit of difference between them and Orenco. Try finding anything like Orenco in Gwinnett County around the Mall of Georgia. Heck, just try to walk from the mall to the Japanese restaurant across the street in less than 20 minutes. (Helpful tip: Don’t order Sushi in suburban Georgia.)
Since when did you develop an aversion to auto oriented rat races, anyway?
Cascade Station is the car oriented big box strip mall it was meant to prohibit.
Cars were never prohibited in any plan for Cascade Station. Big box stores were more limited in number and scope, but nonetheless not prohibited.
Cascade Station is still developing in a superior pattern to traditional strip malls. There are multistory buildings directly fronting the sidewalk, plenty of open space, lots of trees and landscaping, on-street parking, etc. Remarkably, even given the corporate nature of the tenants, there is a good deal of pedestrian activity in the area. I even see joggers, dog walkers, and sidewalk diners — something not too typical of strip malls. And development continues, even while it has slowed in other areas.
JK:WOW!! You completely ignore the FACT that Ladd’s addition is an early example of sprawl. It was even built on prime farmland.
More telling, this subdivision (Ladd’s) that you love was built without regard to city zoning or planning.
See what nice things can happen when there are no planners or city crap to get in the way?
ws:
1) It was built on farmland but worked its way outward from the city. It was not “leap frog” development of today, but was consistent with the development trends of the city. Now, if in the 20s it was built way outside of the city or outside to any adjacent city, then you would have a point.
2) I don’t have a problem with building on farmland all of the time. It depends on many factors. Regarding Ladd’s Addition, it was not as if it was built 20 miles from the downtown area in a rural community, it was consistent with the concentric outgrowth that any city experiences.
Also, intensive agriculture is an inconsistent land-use for cities. It does not work and the rural-urban interface is a LULU (locally unwanted land use).
Leaving “spots” of farmland in urban areas does not make sense when it means that more development outside the city will need to take place in farmland anyways. We all understand this except you.
3) Let us not conflate “streetcar sprawl” and “highway sprawl”.
4) Many great cities of the world were built without the equivalent of planners, but that’s not to say there were no plans developed to create those cities.
Portland’s surveys, townships, street grids, bridges, park system, etc. were most certainly planned. Don’t fool yourself too much. I know you like to do that.
There was definitely more leeway regarding development, however, everyone was working within a similar framework.
Lastly, it’s not pro-growth or no-growth, it’s how you grow.
John E.$2 billion of the CRC $4 billion is for light rail.
ws:Uh no, more like 750 million.
The bridge itself is not that expensive – it’s actually the revamped interchanges. Keep in mind, the ‘Couv would get 5 new interchanges, and Portland 2, from what I know.
The Milwaukie light rail expansion will cost $1.6 billion for the uneeded 6.5 mile light rail line.
Source? The total project cost has always seemed a bit high to me, compared to other recent projects (and allowing for the bridge), but the fact sheet I’ve seen has a length of 7.3 miles and $1.4 billion.
Still a big sticker, but on a route-mile basis you’re numbers are about 28% higher than what I’ve seen proposed. (About $96m per track mile total based on TriMet’s published numbers.)
$2 billion of the CRC $4 billion is for light rail.
Source? According to this recent Columbian Article, WashDOT’s regional administrator puts the potential savings from “killing light rail” at $750m.
Now, personally, I wouldn’t mind setting aside light rail to Vancouver until there’s more political support for it north of the river, if it meant we could take a step back and re-evaluate this whole CRC mess.
I’d take that a step further and so no Milwaukie LR or Couv LR for no CRC project.
I’d even scrap Milwaukie light rail for putting I-5 underground on the east bank of Portland. There’s some good real estate there.
Not sure of the feasibility though.
PS…
Regarding Cascade Station, even though they offer less parking per square foot of business than a lot of traditional suburban strip malls, they’ve still overbuilt on the parking.
Despite the fact that they have a high occupancy ratio in the developed areas, I rarely have any trouble parking there when I drive. Even at peak, holiday times. The only exception was when Ikea first opened and there was a mad rush to check it out… then I had to park at the outer extremity of Ikea’s lot, a couple of hundred feet away… and there was still plenty available.
Perhaps in the long run, Cascade Station’s management can squeeze in a few more structures for tenants without needing to construct additional parking.
I would love to get the copy of his speech
Have you tried looking on the Oregon Legislature Web site? I was able to get audio of Fred Hansen speaking at a hearing there and they appeared to have a good archive (I know it wouldn’t contain what he wasn’t able to say).
this bypass highway is desperately needed
How would you compare it to making the existing highway four lanes? It seems like it would be much cheaper and less disruptive.
Washington and Clackamas contributions to WES
Doesn’t SMART also pay for it, since it runs into their district (outside TriMet’s)? Note that if they do, none of it is for reimbursement of allowing people with transfers/passes to ride for less/free.
I’d even scrap Milwaukie light rail for putting I-5 underground on the east bank of Portland. There’s some good real estate there.
Hell, I have a fantasy of tearing down the sore-thumb Marquam Bridge and tunneling I-5 from South Waterfront all the way to Rose Quarter.
“Hell, I have a fantasy of tearing down the sore-thumb Marquam Bridge and tunneling I-5 from South Waterfront all the way to Rose Quarter.”
I’d actually argue this would be the greatest land-use and transportation policy the city could endeavor in. That real estate would be vital to the city for new industrial zones, housing and waterfront access.
The Rose Quarter is also a huge pain congestion wise too.
Does anybody know about the ongoing Washington and Clackamas contributions to WES ops that John E. cited?
Those exact figures are not posted as an original source anywhere online.
The only references I could find were cut-and-paste identical from an anonymous commenter on a Pamplin web site, and multiple copies from someone calling themselves “nativepdx” on the OregonLive web site.
Interestingly, “NativePDX” was repeatedly asked to provide a reference and, like John E., has so far failed to do so.
That doesn’t mean the numbers are _wrong_, of course, but without a source it’s difficult to verify or provide context.
Thanks, Bob.
My jaw dropped a while back when TriMet’s spring ridership report came out with its WES numbers. The idea of a $100,000 weekly deficit while we’re losing bus and MAX service all over the place is a real downer. The news that counties made up most of the deficit begged the question of why that wouldn’t be done for bus/MAX services that are on the chopping block even though they -as do all bus and MAX services- cost less per ride than WES. There is something very wrong with this picture.
JK:As you can see many smaller new cars match or beat this. If want to save energy, drive a new small car instead of sponging off the taxpayer on transit.
ws:Your methods do not consider the fuel used to get gasoline into fueling stations, does not cover the Btus spent in making a new car, and does not address the fact that new riders on an existing transit line will reduce energy outputs for a system vs. new people buying a car and driving which will only increase energy output.
Furthermore, your methods don’t address the fact that people drive longer distances in their cars for the same things that people walk to or take mass transit for. A car could get 100 mpg for all I care, but if they are driving 50 miles a day, this isn’t going to save the environment, and is a net-negative environmental impact.
It wouldn’t make sense to put a light rail line in a small town, because the energy use would be outrageous, it also doesn’t make sense for everyone to drive a car in a city because mass transit would move those people better.
You’re trying to make prescriptive statements.
JK:What is wrong with that? OR are you really arguing that people should live in smaller houses? Or maybe they should also go to your church and wear your style of clothes?
ws:I never said anything about people living anywhere or anyplace. I was pointing out that Cox misleads people into thinking that single family detached homes consume less energy because per sf. they consume less than multi-family.
This is deceptive.
I don’t have an issue with SF homes. I have an issue with the misleading statistics without an analysis. The fact remains that SF homes consume the most amount of energy of any building. But reading Cox’s papers paints an entirely different picture.
JK:Quit trying to tell others how to live, this is a free country.
ws:I never made a statement about people living anywhere. This is the same kind of argument that happened in post 9-11 hysteria: if someone even questioned the Iraq war, they would immediately be considered anti-American. I’m not going to play your mind games, so spare me.
JK:Ok, so you ignore Harvard, Federal Reserve and HUD studies. Try reading some real data that didn’t come from advocacy groups: debunkingportland.com/Housing/HousingCost.htm
I’ve always acknowledged small supply of housing creates excessive prices. Regarding the UGB, by state law, it has to provide 20 years of land. Inventory wise, there are too many homes on the market as it is, conditions that do not meet inflated prices. Housing prices, among other factors, is a supply and demand issue.
With that said, I was pointing out that Cox does not go in depth into specific city examples. He considers Las Vegas a “restrictive” city due to a “de facto” BLM line along the likes of San Jose, Portland, and Seattle. Some criteria for his arguments would help.
Cities are complex systems, you can’t just lump them all into one category.
Speaking of the Harvard economist you’re referring to:
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_1_green-cities.html
Green Cities, Brown Suburbs
Bob R. Says: The more modest measure doesn’t strike me as a particularly strong repudiation of planning practices in our region. It lost in Multnomah County, where people are experiencing density and urban development just a tad more than the surrounding areas, by about 1.7:1.
JK: Busy right now, but I just have to correct two of your glaring errors:
The more modest measure
Does this SOUND modest:
PROHIBITS INCREASED DENSITY IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS; REQUIRES REPORTS
Then you said:
It lost in Multnomah County, where people are experiencing density
How is this a loss:
Multnomah CountyYES=91,485NO=53,022
Thanks
JK
JK: As you can see many smaller new cars match or beat this. If want to save energy, drive a new small car instead of sponging off the taxpayer on transit.
What you persist in ignoring is that “the taxpayer” has chosen to support transit, so it’s hardly “sponging.” If “the taxpayer” decides against supporting transit, there is a democratic process in place to make that happen.
Even if your “average 10 passenger” number was to hold up (which I seriously doubt), your prescription would mean that 8 additional cars would be on the road for each bus you removed, 8 additional cars would require road space, 8 additional cars would require parking (in downtown? where?) — per bus. The single occupancy vehicle is not a sustainable model.
R A Fontes Says:
The City of Wilsonville is on the hook for 300K per year to pay for WES operation.
The line is the most porrly thought out wasteful line yet. Milwaukie light rail will break all records.
Bob,
There are many places around LA, Atlanta and Houston that are much like Hillsboro and the Orenco station area. I don’t think you have spent any time out there. Other than the Euro looking center piece of Orenco it’s a typical suburban rat race to be found anywhere. You spin doesn’t work at all. With or without the Japanese restaurant pitch.
The rat race reference I made was not my aversion to them as much as my aversion to Metro creating them while claiming otherwise.
And using tax dollars to do so. And then having people like you misrepresent the outcome.
As for “Cascade Station is the car oriented big box strip mall it was meant to prohibit”.
Funny man Bob. You turned by point into one prohibiting cars? Then you correct with cars were never prohibited?
What a character you are.
It was the big box strip mall it was intended to prohibit. Charlie Hales bragged about how this new ped/bike/transit oriented mini-city,Cascade Station would never be what it turned out to be. Never mind the $200 million spent, public land given away and no bid contract to build light rail.
Big box stores were prohibited. You are wrong. Only after years of nothing happening with the vision did the vision collapse along with the size limits prohibiting big boxes.
Cascade Station is developing into in a typical car oriented pattern to traditional major strip malls found across the region. Tanasborne, The Crossings in Beaverton etc. All were developed with no public money and have the same flurry of pedestrian activity in the area, joggers, dog walkers, and sidewalk diners, that you tout at Cascade Station. Most all of which arrive by car at all locations.
Why do you now call Cascade Superior? Because of millions of tax dollars needlessly spent?
It’s a complete failure of the intentions, plan and vision.
Your spin is so disingenuous.
You also seem to have no understanding of the seetheart deal the landlords have making their position sweet and flexible for reduced leasing advantages. Again the big goverment handout in a reckless planning scheme to get light rail expanded.
ws Says:
John E.$2 billion of the CRC $4 billion is for light rail.
ws:Uh no, more like 750 million.
No ws you are wrong. $700 million of the CRC $4 Billion is for light rail IN Vancouver alone. The rest of the light rail expense from Expo and across the bridge in another $1.3 Billion h
It not surprising you are misinformed the break down never gets reported.
And rail activists who do know would never correct you.
Bob either doesn’t know or won’t tell you.
May 28, 2009 4:22 PM
Bob R. Says:
The Milwaukie light rail expansion will cost $1.6 billion for the unneeded 6.5 mile light rail line.
Source?
That’s easy Bob, by the time the thing breaks ground the current number of $1.4 Billion will have easily risen. Add the station costs not included that Milwaukie will have to pick up and it’ will be $1.6 billion at least. Then other urban renewal subsidized TOD development will follow and flop like so many other current TOD schemes.
On CRC, WashDOT’s regional administrator puts the potential savings from “killing light rail” at $750m.
That’s certainly the Vancouver share only.
But why is this break down so vague at this juncture? Deliberately obscured by the proponents.
The CRC bridge has a seperate span the light rail component. With that and the CRC- light rail infrastructure in Oregon and Washington it’s closer to $ 2 billion.
But again we should all know this break down crystal clear.
Bob,
Cascade Station, is building parking to accommodate the auto oriented mammoth it is becoming.
You call it “overbuilt”. That’s funny. They won’t be coming to you for advice.
Jason McHuff
Wilsonville is stuck for 300k per year for WES. It’s a very painful sticking and a horrible failure of transportation spending.
Bob R. these are TriMet numbers
WES ridership and cost getting worse
WES– Monthly Deficit
Feb—–($336,246)
March—($373,195)
April—($456,413)
Washington County pays $203,040 and Clackamas County pays $25,000 in “assistance” each month
Tri Met makes up shortfall
FEB—–$108,206
March—$145,155
April—$228,373
The $25,000 is Wilsonvilles’s share.
Yes There is something very wrong with this picture.
Yet the picture is even worse as some believe it to be a success and seek to extend it to Salem regardless of the picture.
Limousine service would be cheaper.
“John E.” writes: I don’t think you have spent any time out there.
Are you now calling me a liar? Of course I’ve spent time out there. Would you like Google Earth coordinates to where I’ve attended church services? Would an affidavit from a native Georgian convince you? Sheesh.
I’ll tell you what. I’ve got some frequent flyer miles. We can go visit my family in Suwanee together and you can pace out the street grid of Orenco for me.
Bob R. these are TriMet numbers
Fabulous… how about a reference and the full context. That way we won’t have to rely on random comments from the likes of “Anonymous” and “NativeTualatin” or whatever that person was going by on that particular day.
I don’t think you have spent any time out there.
And then having people like you misrepresent the outcome.
What a character you are.
Your spin is so disingenuous.
They won’t be coming to you for advice.
You frequently pepper your remarks with insults. Maybe if you stuck to the facts you’d win more converts to your cause.
Please note that if you directed your insults at any other commenter on this blog, rather than at the moderator, you’d earn a nice vacation from commenting.
Try to stick to the issues at hand. You’ve already been warned multiple times about this.
(I posted this about 5pm from another IP address and I got a message saying it is waiting for approval. It still hasn’t appeared, so here it is again, slightly modified.)
Bob R. Says: The more modest measure doesn’t strike me as a particularly strong repudiation of planning practices in our region.
JK: Does this SOUND modest:
PROHIBITS INCREASED DENSITY IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS; REQUIRES REPORTS
That is a pretty clear rejection of Metro’s density mandate. Too bad it was a dirty Metro trick and actually did nothing. Thanks to Rex Bikeholder and Vera from New York.
Bob R. Says: It lost in Multnomah County, where people are experiencing density and urban development just a tad more than the surrounding areas, by about 1.7:1.
JK: How is this a loss:
Multnomah CountyYES=91,485NO=53,022
Thanks
JK
Does this SOUND modest: PROHIBITS INCREASED DENSITY IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS; REQUIRES REPORTS
Actually, when comparing comparing the explanatory statements of the measures, as presented on one of your own web sites:
Measure No. 26-11
Measure No. 26-29
I think it’s pretty clear that Measure 26-29 was the more mellow measure. I didn’t have any trouble identifying which was more harsh when I voted.
How is this a loss:
Sorry, my sentence was unclear. By “it”, I was referring to the harsh measure, 26-11, which lost by “about” 1.7:1. The more accurate ratio is a loss by 1.6764427625354777672658467360454:1. The figure 1.7:1 was rounded. Sorry again for the confusion.
Bob,
I was suspecting you hadn’t spent much time out at Orenco, Hillsboro, the suburbs.
Not calling you a liar about spending time in Atlanta etc.
And the point is our Metro meddled up suburbs are no better than most in other metropolitan areas.
In fact ours are worse for Metro’s meddling mandates resulting in seas of roofs, asphalt and concrete without any cohesive sense at all.
From Gresham to Hillsboro all of the worse messes and neighborhoods are the planning era Metro messes. Most all of the old, less dense areas are better.
As for the TriMet WES numbers?
What “full context”? They are what they are. Ugly. There’s your context.
Ignore them and pretend WES is worth extending to Salem. IMO that seems to be your MO.
And advocate for more TODs, Beaverton Rounds, SoWa & Cascade Stations too.
As I stated, I was talking about whether you had spent time in Hillsboro.
IMO you do misrepresent outcomes.
IMO you are a particular character of sorts. Harsh that is not.
IMO your spin is disingenuous.
IMO Cascade Station would find your take on their plans without merit and counterproductive.
Those are hardly insults, Bob. They’re opinions. IMO you are casting them as insults to avoid the the facts you don’t like.
I have brought facts, But not to “win converts to my cause”. But to call BS on your cause.
I have no “cause”. I’d like to see better use of tax dollars and a far better transportation system.
We shouldn’t be subsidizing TODs and UR schemes that flop when Tannasborne, Bridgeport Village, the Crossings and many others that
are privately funded and actually work out well.
I suppose I could suggest you thicken up your skin a bit and engage with a better focus on what is actually stated.
Do you know the break down of the CRC costs or the Milwaukie light rail scheme costs?
Otherwise I get the impression you don’t want others to know the truth.
was suspecting you hadn’t spent much time out at Orenco, Hillsboro, the suburbs.
Then you suspected incorrectly.
I came very close to buying a condo in Orenco station back when it first opened, but the timing wasn’t right for my move back from Corvallis. I even drug my Mom out from Oak Grove to look at the unit.
As I look across the room, the coffee table and book case came from a vendor located in Orenco Station. (The Sofa came from the same vendor, but a different store location.)
My extended family has a Century Farm out beyond Sherwood.
Friends I’ve known for decades live in Aloha.
But this isn’t a surprise: Everything personal you (or one of your many pseudonymous others) have said or “suspected” about me for the past few years has been wrong.
And the point is our Metro meddled up suburbs are no better than most in other metropolitan areas.
That’s your opinion, and you’re entitled to it. Please realize that many others feel otherwise.
What “full context”? They are what they are. Ugly. There’s your context.
That’s your opinion. By “context”, I was referring to factual matters such as: What contractual obligations do the counties have, what is the history behind the impetus for WES, are these temporary contributions or long-term, etc. It would be very helpful to see source documents, which apparently you have received but which haven’t been posted in full form anywhere online. (At least not anywhere that Google has indexed.)
Ignore them and pretend WES is worth extending to Salem. IMO that seems to be your MO.
Apparently you haven’t been reading my posts over the years, or you are thinking of someone else. I’ve been fairly skeptical of WES, and it hasn’t been something I’ve been advocating for. I’ve posted in the past about what I think are various problems with the service, as designed.
IMO you do misrepresent outcomes.
IMO you do misrepresent me.
We shouldn’t be subsidizing TODs and UR schemes that flop when Tannasborne, Bridgeport Village, the Crossings and many others that
are privately funded and actually work out well.
Again, you must be thinking of someone else.
I’ve actually praised the urban form of Bridgeport Village (while criticizing it’s lake of genuine public ROW, draconian policies, and disconnection from primary transit networks). But Bridgeport Village is not without subsidy, and within it’s borders (no pun intended) it emulates New Urbanist, pedestrian-oriented development patterns which I’d like to see developed in a more-public matter elsewhere.
But if you’d actually read what I’ve actually wrote over the years, rather than projecting onto me the villain you think I am, you’d probably know that already.
IMO your spin is disingenuous.
IMO I’m not spinning, and you twist most of what I say into something it’s not.
I have brought facts
A few, but mostly opinions, and fewer referenced sources. “IMO”.
Do you know the break down of the CRC costs or the Milwaukie light rail scheme costs?
Everything I know about the CRC or Portland-Milwaukie light rail projects has been posted or linked form this very web site.
Otherwise I get the impression you don’t want others to know the truth.
Otherwise I get the impression you’re still hurling insults.
Maybe it’s just me, but I find the phrase “you don’t want others to know the truth” to be more than just a little bit insulting. But I care about the truth, so maybe that’s why.
John E.No ws you are wrong. $700 million of the CRC $4 Billion is for light rail IN Vancouver alone. The rest of the light rail expense from Expo and across the bridge in another $1.3 Billion h
It not surprising you are misinformed the break down never gets reported.
And rail activists who do know would never correct you.
Bob either doesn’t know or won’t tell you.
How about some documentation? You know, it’s one thing to say something, it’s another thing to actually post facts. Do you have a link of sorts?
http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/FileLibrary/FactSheets/CostEstimates.pdf
High Capacity Transit
(includes all possible alignments and lengths)
Light rail $0.53 to $1.17 billion
Rex Bikeholder and Vera from New York
Name-calling aside, at what point does a person who relocated to Portland in 1962 (47 years ago) get to have a policy opinion that isn’t questioned as being that of an outsider? What Libertarian principle applies here, when considering whether “New York” is a relevant measure of worthiness for an individual who was elected many times to various local offices, including thrice as Mayor?
Bob R.
Light rail $0.53 to $1.17 billion
Just hours ago you said $2 billion.
JKLooks to me like it was ws that posted that, not John.
As to Vera, NYC is relevant as long as she wants to turn Portland into NYC (or LA). If she wants to live in NYC, she should move there instead of selling out Portland to rich developers in an attempt to make Portland into NYC (or LA).
Thanks
JK
Looks to me like it was ws that posted that, not John.
Corrected. Thanks.
As to Vera, NYC is relevant as long as she wants to turn Portland into NYC (or LA). If she wants to live in NYC, she should move there instead of selling out Portland to rich developers in an attempt to make Portland into NYC (or LA).
Well, that’s an opinion I guess. Having been to NYC and LA, my opinion is that Portland resembles neither.
Given that most people think NYC and LA are quite different from another (and combined with the oft-given criticism that Vera and/or Portland are trying to be too much like Europe), it seems to me to be far too dissolved and contradictory of an opinion to have much resonance.
Bob R. Says: Does this SOUND modest: PROHIBITS INCREASED DENSITY IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS; REQUIRES REPORTS
Actually, when comparing comparing the explanatory statements of the measures, as presented on one of your own web sites:
JK: Aw, come on Bob, you know that few people read beyond the ballot title. And that title was a lie carefully constructed by Bikeholder and the thousand zealots. And you also know that Metro convinced all the regional Mayors to support their fraud.
But lets take it at face value:
prohibit Metro from requiring density increase in identified single-family neighborhoods.
Can we agree that that sounds like it will stop more density in our neighborhoods?
I assume you know the Metro lie there: single family neighborhoods are defined in the fine print as “inner and outer” neighborhoods. That precise definition DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY OF THE MAJOR STREETS that run through the neighborhoods.
The other trick was it self destructs in 2014 which is well before the current mandated density will actually be achieved.
Metro lied.
Again.
PS: are you comfortable with the government tricking the voters?
Thanks
JK
are you comfortable with the government tricking the voters?
I don’t consider 26-29 to be a trick. It was a compromise. And far, far more people voted for it than they did for 26-11.
If you really believe that nobody read the explanatory statements, and went just on ballot title alone, why didn’t 26-11 get more Yes votes than 26-29? 26-11 was earlier on the ballot after all.
(I don’t doubt that some people don’t read beyond the headlines, I really don’t. But that theory doesn’t hold water in this case, given the similar title language and earlier placement of 26-11.)
Similarly, many argued that Measure 37’s initial success was a knee-jerk reaction to a ballot title that hid many, many complexities and contradictions in the actual initiative text.
John E.From Gresham to Hillsboro all of the worse messes and neighborhoods are the planning era Metro messes. Most all of the old, less dense areas are better.
ws:Architectural opinion is fine, but you’re obviously ill-equipped to even decode the built environment to any degree or level. Some of the nicest places in the world are dense – density is not the issue at play here.
Density in the ‘burbs generally looks bad because they have to develop or choose to develop in ways that do not function well nor are consistent with how neighborhoods are generally built. I definitely do agree that a lot of it has been messed up, but this is not necessarily the fault of Metro and moreso the fault of the city codes and regs. as well as developers.
For instance, multi-family apartments in Beaverton are generally “inclusive” developments facing parking lots vs. Multi-family apartments in Portland which have limited setbacks and face tree-lined streets. This is a huge design difference with similar density levels.
Not to mention the zoning in the suburban cities only allows for one type of density or housing type in a given area. The multi-family homes here, grocery store there, SFR there… This is not how one creates neighborhoods or cities. No kidding multi-family homes look bad when they’re in large clusters, buildings never look good amongst themselves, they look best when combined with other structures that create a mosaic of sorts.
I don’t know what to tell you, but the metro area is expecting to double its population by 2060 – how should we grow, and is outward growth actually economically feasible?
I’d say most people who like larger homes can still appreciate Orenco station as a viable option to current suburbia lifestyle.
I honestly could care less if people drive a little or a lot in Orenco – the fact of the matter is that the neighborhood was designed to provide multiple options for whatever you want. I find this to be very egalitarian, and it is the way we should design neighborhoods.
Bob R. Says: Quit trying to tell others how to live, this is a free country.
Quit trying to tell others they can’t have density.
JK: Quit misrepresenting my position. I want the government to QUIT MANDATING DENSITY. That is not the same as saying people can’t have density.
Bob R. Says: I remember quite well at a public meeting where the facilitator rhetorically mentioned our expected population increase and asked where these newcomers should live, and you blurted out “They can live beyond Beaverton!”.
JK: Why not – better than forcing them into our existing neighborhoods. Note the operative word forcing as in mandating more density in Portland and forbidding new construction “beyond Beaverton” (figuratively speaking)
Bob R. Says: Well, some of them want to live closer in, and in a variety of housing types.
JK: You are pretending as if there is something stopping them as opposed to the very real laws forbidding low density.
Bob R. Says: Portland (city of) actually allows landowners MORE freedom to develop their property than the surrounding suburbs.
JK: So what?
Bob R. Says: All of this railing against density is just telling people how they can’t live … telling people they can’t live close-in via infill and urbanization.
JK: Again you mis represent. I am complaining about density MANDATES.
Bob R. Says: But the freedom to have traditional urban form and higher densities is something I think ought to be allowed.
JK: They why mandate it?
Bob R. Says: Do you support a repeal and/or relaxation of setback requirements, minimum parking requirements, and building height limits?
JK: Repeal the setback requirement – Hell yes – let people build as far backs as they desire, instead of forcing them up to the sidewalk in pursuit of some forced utopian goal of a walkable area.
As to the rest of you baited questions, why not let local residents, on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis set the zoning they prefer for their area, By secret ballot. Perhaps re-vote every few years.
And then the region could fire about 300 planners and save hundreds of millions by shutting down Metro.
Thanks
JK
As to the rest of you baited questions, why not let local residents, on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis set the zoning they prefer for their area, By secret ballot.
Now we’re getting somewhere: How is it Libertarian for next-door neighbors to get to dictate, in secret, what someone can do with his or her property?
All you’re proposing here is replacing one governmental scheme for setting zoning policy with another, albeit more locally-controlled, but nonetheless a governmental scheme.
Now, I happen to think there are compelling interests for a government to be able to set some limits via zoning policy. I don’t think someone should just be able buy a plot on Mt. Tabor and build a coal-fired power plant or situate a helipad, at least not without some kind of public review. Those are extreme examples with big external impacts, but issues of infill/density also have impacts, and to this extent the community has an interest in setting policy.
I just happen to think it makes more sense to handle these things in a multifaceted way, with a regional big-picture goal which is then fleshed out by individual cities and towns.
What you’re now proposing is to replace the regional big-picture component with a purely local component. But it’s still government getting involved with allowed uses for private property.
Ws: I don’t know what to tell you, but the metro area is expecting to double its population by 2060 – how should we grow, and is outward growth actually economically feasible?
JK: Outward is the lowest cost way to grow. It allows people the most freedom too. As Bob reminded us: let them settle beyond Beaverton.
Ws: I’d say most people who like larger homes can still appreciate Orenco station as a viable option to current suburbia lifestyle.
JK: Yeah , larger homes on a 2500 sqft lot. Ok maybe 2501 sqrt.
Ws: the fact of the matter is that the neighborhood was designed to provide multiple options for whatever you want. I find this to be very egalitarian, and it is the way we should design neighborhoods.
JK: The fact of the matter is that the design was forced on the developer by government planners.
BTW, why aren’t you drooling over that other posterchild to the planners immense foresight and financial brilliance, the Round. Currently in bankruptcy for the third time? Or is it the fourth?
Thanks
JK
why aren’t you drooling over that other posterchild to the planners immense foresight and financial brilliance, the Round.
Why aren’t you drooling over that other poster-child to the suburban mall developer’s foresight and financial brilliance, General Growth Properties?
(See, it’s easy to pick on a big financial mess without looking at the underlying issues and various merits. GGP owns Clackamas Town Center and Pioneer Place, which aren’t in very bad shape, but the rest of GGP’s business model is dragging it down hard.)
I posted this about 5pm from another IP address and I got a message saying it is waiting for approval. It still hasn’t appeared
I found your Integra / Cascade Policy comment in the spam filter, it has now been restored. Akismet (our spam filtering service) may have flagged the IP address in the past, or may have triggered based on the large percentage of ALL-CAPS in your comment. (Which came from the ballot title, not your fault.)
JK: Yeah , larger homes on a 2500 sqft lot. Ok maybe 2501 sqrt.
I just checked, using Zillow, a number of single-family, stand-alone homes in the original Orenco Station development, and they are on lot sizes typically ranging from 3,700 to 3,900 square feet, although a couple were listed at close to 7,000 square feet, but I was unable to tell if those were in fact duplexes or divided lots.
OK, that was a fun bit of debunking… but it’s after 1:30 and I do work for a living and have an early appointment, so see y’all later.
Bob R.
From what you wrote it appears you haven’t been out Orenco way much, or at all, since back when it first opened.
You’ve missed the rat race it became. Take a ride through the area.
I honestly think most of you loyal Portland planning fans don’t really know the region very well at all. The way you describe it suggests it’s some well planned and preferable metropolitan area. Not hardly.
Some of it is just crazy, Like dense boxes of row houses with front doors steps from highways and thoroughfares.
ws,
You’re spinning wildly on our density suburb pattern. And dwelling on theory vs what actually happened.
The Orenco area has no design that works at all. It didn’t follow the visions at all. It is an over crowded chaos that grew as a patchwork of individual developments that are just there. The areas closets to light rail were the last to develop and the totality of the area is simply unimpressive, period.
You calling it “the way we should design neighborhoods” is pure fantasy.
Bob,
Visiting a farm out past Sherwood is not visiting Hillsboro and Orenco. Did you go out there during rush hour?
What does Aloha have to do with anything?
Metro has indeed meddled up the suburbs and the evidence is everywhere but in your theoretical impressions.
Metro forced densities upon the 23 cities and the resulting mess is everywhere to be seen.
All of the worst developments in the past 30 years are from this mandate and planning regime.
And it makes no sense at all. Quite the contrary, it’s been random and chaotic with pieces stuck anywhere with pretenses it was all some master design. BS
Even the UGB expansion process for both residential and industrial lands proved to be lesson in chaos as pieces selected had no rational
interrelated design at all.
It’s funny that when the growth opponents want to warn of sprawl they go out and take pics of the very mandated subdivisions Metro spawned.
Never do we see photos of the older neighborhoods around here. That’s because they are preferable.
Not the overcrowded lovelies from our planners and density gurus.
Your dance around the WES failure is just that. You seem to think that a full lesson on the topic will change the outcome?
Not hardly.
I’ve followed the issue from it’s inception and even attended seminars at PSU in the planning stage.
It was cooked up and manipulated all the way through with the results entirely predictable.
Sorry, walking you through it would be a nightmare.
Just look at the 580 people who use it every day and the monthly deficit and know it sucks.
You may have been fairly skeptical of WES, and didn’t advocate for it but that’s not quite the same as opposing it now is it?
No it was rail transit and no such opposition surfaces at PT.
Now you’re spinning Bridgeport Village to fit the New Urbanist model?
Try the Beaverton Round.
You’re almost pretending like you would like to see more Bridgeport Village development. But by the time your amenities and requirements were added any new versions would become SoWa, Cascade Station or the Round. Not Bridgeport or Tannasbonre.
You ideas would have doomed Bridgeport to that failed model and never would have allowed the traffic changes that built it out of congestion.
I have actually read what you’ve actually wrote over the years. A loyal defender of all things central planning you are. While casting critics as they are not.
ws,
Not a chance CRC light rail is only 1.17 billion.
$0.53 billion is an insult. The approaches and bridge span for light rail will surpass that.
BTW
Clackamas Town Center has been the recipient of millions in Urban Renewal spending schemes.
The last piece, $25 million was approved two weeks after the 205 MAX got it’s final funding approval.
From what you wrote it appears you haven’t been out Orenco way much, or at all, since back when it first opened.
Wow. Just wow. Every one of your assumptions about me has proven factually incorrect so far, and now this. Do I have to hold your hand and drag you out there for a walk around the area and point out all the places I’ve been? Do I need to leave DNA samples and fingerprints around for you to sleuth? How about a urine sample?
I honestly think most of you loyal Portland planning fans don’t really know the region very well at all.
I honestly think you think the worst of people who disagree with you about policy. You just can’t imagine that someone who knows something about the area and has roots here could possibly envision a different policy than you.
Visiting a farm out past Sherwood is not visiting Hillsboro and Orenco. Did you go out there during rush hour?
Go back and read the original statement.
What does Aloha have to do with anything?
It’s next to Hillsboro and Beaverton. Look it up. Not only do I have friends out there who I visit regularly (even at rush hour), I have done work for a client out there, shopped and eaten in the area, by car, at rush hour. I’ll take pictures holding up a newspaper for you next time.
(Oh, that’s right, I made a complete video proving your assertion about Interstate Ave.’s frequency of trains wrong, but that didn’t change your mind.)
While casting critics as they are not.
What?
Not a chance CRC light rail is only 1.17 billion.
So you don’t have a source? $2bn ot of $4bn was just made-up?
WS provided you an official CRC document. I provided you a link to a WashDOT official’s quote. All you did was accuse me of misleading and withholding information, while in fact you were just making stuff up.
I think Bob R is actually a well designed computer program.
How it it possible that he can provide detailed responses day after day at any time of the day?
It’s not possible!
I wanna know who designed this program!
John E.
You’re spinning wildly on our density suburb pattern. And dwelling on theory vs what actually happened.
The Orenco area has no design that works at all. It didn’t follow the visions at all. It is an over crowded chaos that grew as a patchwork of individual developments that are just there. The areas closets to light rail were the last to develop and the totality of the area is simply unimpressive, period.
ws:The only thing I agree with you on is the developers who developed the section closest to light rail completely avoided the new urbanist theme to the north. The road leading down there is also several times wider than the one leading into the real Orenco Station.
It was different developers, what can I say?
John E.:
“ws,
Not a chance CRC light rail is only 1.17 billion.
$0.53 billion is an insult. The approaches and bridge span for light rail will surpass that. “
ws:I’m starting to like Jim Karlock more and more everyday. He at least entertains us and provides sources, albeit ones from his site.
Post a darn link to your rantings! Otherwise, you’re just blowing smoke.
Jim Karlock is waaaaay cool!
Any real blogger has to respect the likes of Jim Karlock!
And some of his ideas are pretty gosh darn good too!
Bob R:“I just checked, using Zillow, a number of single-family, stand-alone homes in the original Orenco Station development, and they are on lot sizes typically ranging from 3,700 to 3,900 square feet, although a couple were listed at close to 7,000 square feet, but I was unable to tell if those were in fact duplexes or divided lots.”
ws:My “data” shows that Orenco lot sizes average about .09 – .10 acre (4356 SF). There’s a few rogue lots that are near .12 acres.
Comparing this to Ladd’s Addition (sorry if I use this neighborhood as a comparison a lot), the lot sizes are about .12 – .14 (5,500 SF or so) acres. However, they are much thinner, which has a bigger impact on interior design of homes.
Laurelhurst neighborhood is about the same averaging about .12 acres for the lot.
The lot sizes in NW are about the same as Orenco, but thinner. NE Portland the lots are about .11 acres.
Lot sizes are not that smaller in Orenco than anywhere in Portland, but who needs a huge yard when you have a large park in front of your home? There’s way more space there to actually do something. Most yards are not big enough for anything substantial for children, even if they are on a bigger lot.
JK:“Outward is the lowest cost way to grow. It allows people the most freedom too. As Bob reminded us: let them settle beyond Beaverton.”
ws:It’s actually case by case, however, infrastructure costs of newly urbanized areas compared to existing urban areas is higher due to increased transportation costs (which is the highest of all infrastructure):
http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=26213
Remember, this report was conducted by private consultants, not to mention companies that benefit from engineering infrastructure.
Bob R. Says:
JK: Yeah , larger homes on a 2500 sqft lot. Ok maybe 2501 sqrt.
I just checked, using Zillow, a number of single-family, stand-alone homes in the original Orenco Station development, and they are on lot sizes typically ranging from 3,700 to 3,900 square feet, although a couple were listed at close to 7,000 square feet, but I was unable to tell if those were in fact duplexes or divided lots.
OK, that was a fun bit of debunking… but it’s after 1:30 and I do work for a living and have an early appointment, so see y’all later.
JK: Bob, you just made my point about TINY lots. Most of NE Portland is 5000 or larger lots – Orenco, is as you say, much smaller. This is what people get stuck with when Metro drives up the price of land with its idiot policies.
(The 2500 was a flippant comment to indicate tiny lots as was indicated by the 2501.)
Thanks
JK
John E.
You’ve missed the rat race it became. Take a ride through the area.
JK: But that is the goal. It IS vibrant.
Thanks
JK
ws: I’m starting to like Jim Karlock more and more everyday. He at least entertains us and provides sources, albeit ones from his site.
JK: You need to look deeper. Almost all of my claims have links to credible sources. There is even one to the Sierra club (admittedly to show how they lie about density reducing driving.)
There will be another one soon about how they lie on the auto’s externalities.
Thanks
JK
ws Says: Lot sizes are not that smaller in Orenco than anywhere in Portland, but who needs a huge yard when you have a large park in front of your home? There’s way more space there to actually do something. Most yards are not big enough for anything substantial for children, even if they are on a bigger lot.
JK: The yard size is the difference between the new smaller total lot size and the new larger house, leaving small private spaces. A park is NOT a substitute for a private yard.
ws Says:
JK:”Outward is the lowest cost way to grow. It allows people the most freedom too. As Bob reminded us: let them settle beyond Beaverton.”
ws:It’s actually case by case, however, infrastructure costs of newly urbanized areas compared to existing urban areas is higher due to increased transportation costs (which is the highest of all infrastructure):
http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=26213
Remember, this report was conducted by private consultants, not to mention companies that benefit from engineering infrastructure.
JK: And if the consultant didn’t deliver the conclusion Metro’s zealots wanted, they would not get future work. And they know it.
If building out is so expensive, how come a completely private development, with new roads, parks, lakes, waterways and schools ALL PAID BY THE DEVELOPER, not government provides single family homes on 1/4 acre lots for under $200,000. Not even enough to buy a 1/4 acre lot in Portland’s Planners’ Paradise.
Metro lies. Quit believing their crap.
Next you will try to tell us that WES is a success.
Thanks
JK
A park is NOT a substitute for a private yard.
And a private yard is not a substitute for a park.
The Orenco Station development has a different ratio of private space to public space, and it has attracted a market segment.
Orenco, is as you say, much smaller. This is what people get stuck with when Metro drives up the price of land with its idiot policies.
There are plenty of larger lots available out there which offer more private space than the lots at Orenco. It just so happens that Orenco was designed to a different pattern of development, and it worked.
The 2500 was a flippant comment to indicate tiny lots as was indicated by the 2501
It may have been flippant, but it was also incorrect by a ratio of about 1.5:1.
When an area is more desirable, nearby land prices go up.
Here’s a larger house in Forest Grove, inside the Urban Growth Boundary, built in 2004, on a 7,000sf lot, for less than the typical home price in Orenco Station.
Looks to me like some people are willing to pay a premium to be in Orenco Station.
JK:“And if the consultant didn’t deliver the conclusion Metro’s zealots wanted, they would not get future work. And they know it.
If building out is so expensive, how come a completely private development, with new roads, parks, lakes, waterways and schools ALL PAID BY THE DEVELOPER, not government provides single family homes on 1/4 acre lots for under $200,000. Not even enough to buy a 1/4 acre lot in Portland’s Planners’ Paradise.
Metro lies. Quit believing their crap.
Next you will try to tell us that WES is a success.”
ws:That is completely wrong regarding private consultants being blowhards to Metro to get “business”. Metro is a planning agency, I don’t think they write RFPs for construction projects, nor are they the head of any of that, *but I could be wrong*
Nonetheless, it is a completely unfounded claim. More often than not, new transportation infrastructure is very expensive, and is the largest portion of new home construction.
Developers don’t always (and traditionally have not) paid fees to schools, though this is changing. Traditionally they have had to pay very little in traffic impact fees, though that has changed recently too.
Cities still have to extend some of their infrastructure (or update it) to meet up with new development pressures – even if developers are now having to pay for stuff inside theirs. Many times new development is not drawing in enough tax dollars to pay for the infrastructure demands they are using.
In regards to your hypothetical situation, what if that development was near a new highway constructed on the heels of other drivers and citizens? Are they really paying for their development or are they just relying on tax dollars and gas fees that should go to maintenance in higher growth areas?
Land is cheaper at the edges of cities, but in order to get to the edge it takes other peoples’ diverted taxes.
It’s “funny” that so many of the people who are against that Metro report are the players of sprawl: HBA, real estate agents, etc.
Here’s an article regarding the cost of new homes:
http://www.clackamasreview.com/news/story.php?story_id=124215636781513400
“School advocates often argue that homebuilders get off easy when it comes to system development charges here, because the Oregon Legislature, under pressure from the homebuilders lobby, barred the charges to pay for new schools. In other states, development fees for schools often are the costliest system development charge.”
These are just cost of services for houses that are not on .25 acre lots. Imagine what they’d be for those types of lots?
Spread the infrastructure out and it costs more.
How come you can buy a new house in 1/4 acre with roads and schools included for under $200k?
Thanks
JK
jimkarlock Says:
How come you can buy a new house on 1/4 acre with roads and schools included for under $200k in Dallas?
Thanks
JK
jimkarlock Says: How come you can buy a new house on 1/4 acre with roads and schools included for under $200k in Dallas?
Because no one wants to live in Dallas?
According to recent reports, you can buy a home in Detroit for US$1.
Obviously people DO want to live in Dallas–it’s one of the larger metros in the US–but it isn’t a place that’s growing by leaps and bounds.
Jeff F Says: jimkarlock Says: How come you can buy a new house on 1/4 acre with roads and schools included for under $200k in Dallas?
Because no one wants to live in Dallas?
JK: Sorry. That price is for a newly constructed home, constructed to meet market demand before the price recent, planner caused, price bubble burst.
Sorry, the cost of materials is about the same in both places. The cost of labor is similar. There is only one major difference: government policies, mainly Metro’s insane policies and a lot of system development fees used to enrich favored developers at the expense of everyone else.
BTW, I am proud of you recognizing basic economics of supply and demand. Since you recognize that less demand than supply causes prices to decline, I’m sure you can also recognize that more demand than supply can cause prices to rise. Now here is the hard part: if there is little demand, but even less supply prices will also rise. That is Portland under Metro.
Metro has created an artificial shortage of land. That is why one can build a home on a 1/4 acre lot in Houston for about what 1/4 acre lot costs here.
EngineerScotty Says: Obviously people DO want to live in Dallas. . .but it isn’t a place that’s growing by leaps and bounds.
JK: Its growing a lot faster than Portland! A LOT!!
Face it – the only people that like Metro’s policies are the rich developers and their duped followers.
Thanks
JK
BTW, I am proud of you recognizing basic economics of supply and demand. Since you recognize that less demand than supply causes prices to decline, I’m sure you can also recognize that more demand than supply can cause prices to rise. Now here is the hard part: if there is little demand, but even less supply prices will also rise. That is Portland under Metro.
“Little demand”? You really haven’t been around here the last decade, have you?
Bob said,
“Looks to me like some people are willing to pay a premium to be in Orenco Station.”
Really?
And SoWa, Villebois, and other TODs too!
I guess we need more of them?
More rail transit, more Urban Renewal and more TODs?
How about in Rockwood where light rail has been for 25 years?
How is it the Rose Quarter/Lloyd District needs more public subsidies to spur more development?
It has every imaginable new urbanism-smart growth advantage.
It would be prudent to have a thread about the falure of TriMet.
http://vimeo.com/4873493?pg=embed&sec=
JK:BTW, I am proud of you recognizing basic economics of supply and demand. Since you recognize that less demand than supply causes prices to decline, I’m sure you can also recognize that more demand than supply can cause prices to rise. Now here is the hard part: if there is little demand, but even less supply prices will also rise. That is Portland under Metro.
ws:You’re going to have to prove that there is a housing shortage. The UGB has to provide 20 years supply of land for growth. This in itself cannot create speculation nor can it physically raise the price.
It would be nice to prove that there is a shortage of homes on the market, but that is not the case!
John E.:It would be prudent to have a thread about the falure of TriMet.
ws:It would be prudent to have a discussion about subsidies to the automobile, too. Personally, I don’t like the payroll tax to Tri-Met.
Though, it would be interesting if we had a payroll tax that went to automobiles, instead of taking that money out of property/income taxes. At least that would be fair and people could see where their money is going.
We should get rid of the income tax and have a sales tax to fund transit, instead.
ws:
It would be prudent to have a discussion about subsidies to the automobile, too.
JK: Sure! Lets start with the well respected Access magazine:
External costs and subsidies for different passenger- transport modes in cents per passenger mile: [Numbers in brackets are the author’s best estimates]
GASOLINE AUTO……..5 to 28.4 [6.9]
ELECTRIC AUTO……8.8 to 24.8 [16.8]
TRANSIT BUS………33 to 57 [40]
LIGHT RAIL……….27 to 109
HEAVY RAIL……….17 to 53
From Mark Delucchi, ACCESS NUMBER 16 • SPRING 2000, page 12
americandreamcoalition.org/transit/Delucchi.pdf (for article only, full issue #16 online – google it) also: portlandfacts.com/Roads/Docs/Delucchi_Chart.htm
Notice that buses are subsidized SIX times as much as cars, according to this source. And light rail is off the scale!
Albert John Mallinckrodt, Engr., Ph.D., puts the subsidy to transit at about 70% and cars at -44% (cars pay more than their fair share, including to subsidize transit.) See: THE PUBLIC COST OF URBAN TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES, urbantransport.org/costcomp.pdf
Then there are the Feds. They said:
* Highway passenger transportation system paid significantly greater amounts of money to the federal government than their allocated costs.
* Transit received the largest amount of net federal subsidy
* federal subsidy to passenger railroads was the third largest, except for the years 1998-2000 (Figure 1), when it was second.
See: portlandfacts.com/Roads/RoadSubsidy.htm for overview with links to the bts.gov source.
What about our military to get oil?
Surprise! – transit uses oil too. Buses use about the same as the average car on a passenger-mile basis. (the average bus has 9 people in it.) Small cars beat the pants off of buses and more or less match light rail. So, save energy, drive a small car!
PS: Don’t be fooled by the lies coming out of the center for transportation excellence – they were created by, and are controlled by, the transit industry.
PS2: The Sierra club also lies about this and driving vs. density – see: portlandfacts.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm
Oh, and while we’re at it, here is Trimet’s study showing how density increases congestion:
portlandfacts.com/Smart/TriMet-Hovee.htm
Thanks
JK
JK:
I have never doubted that other modes of alt transportation are subsidized. You’re missing the point that if people are realizing just how much their transportation costs for whatever mode; this will have broad implications on settlement patterns and mobility (i.e. A return to denser or village living). Also, denser living will support more mass-transit investment, and make it a for profit entity once again. You won’t see silly light rail lines going into inefficient suburbs like Hillsboro.
Even if the local bus costs more in subsidies, it doesn’t take away from the fact that the automobile is still a serious cost to the consumer: 20k+ for the car, gas to fill it up, maintenance, etc.
The chart you show displays the subsidy in terms of miles traveled, but the average person in a car travels more miles than someone via transit – this is important to note, because the more miles traveled the higher the cost to the individual.
A car with a lifespan of 150,000 miles @ having to pay 16.5 cents a mile (in externalities as outlined in Deluchi’s #’s) will have to pay an extra $26,400 in externalities alone!!! ON TOP of private costs. Even @ 1.6 passengers, it would still add about $16,000 to costs not being paid by automobile driving.
No mode of transport will be very cost effective at long distances and such market based practices would impact land-uses drastically. Utlimately, land-use changes will impact transportation.
Here is another of Deluchi’s papers:
“Results for Sacramento analysis.
The total external costs can be put in perspective by expressing them per gallon
of fuel consumed. In the 2025 scenarios, total fuel consumption is about 1.4 billion
gallons. Total external costs of $2.5 to $9.5 billion thus imply approximately $2 to almost
$7 per gallon.”
http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2005/UCD-ITS-RR-05-18.pdf
(page 64)
The externalized costs of the automobile add an additional 2$ – 7$ on the price of gasoline (in Sacramento). Let’s *assume* the price is 3$ a gallon, then that it will cost anywhere from $5-$10 to fill up your car at the pump.
These are just externalized costs, not private costs.
Even with reduced taxes that go to automobiles from your general taxes you pay; people will not stand for living in ultra low-density of modern day suburbia where you have to drive for every need.
The subsidization of any mode of transport will have broad implications on settlement patterns. Even with externalities included, we’d still have cars and mass transit lines, but sensible development and transportation would occur that attached actual economic costs to them.
It may be that cars would still be “kings” of the roads in terms of trips taken and miles traveled, but it would be so much different than what we have today, and even the most ardent car hater will understand that this is a true market reaction.
I would also predict that it would shift some long distance trucking freight over to railroads, not to mention fewer vehicles owned by families. Most families need at least three cars to stay mobile today.
You’d still have distant McMansion suburbs, but would still be for the elite.
WS wrote:You won’t see silly light rail lines going into inefficient suburbs like Hillsboro.
Uh, where exactly is the western terminus of the Blue Line? Or were you speaking hypothetically?
At any rate, Hillsboro was long an independent agricultural community before sprawl from Portland reached its borders. It’s still a fine place to buy a combine or other farm machinery–stuff that you won’t find for sale in downtown Portland. Downtown Hillsboro, which is where the Blue Line ends, is a mixed-use neighborhood, and has been for years. Of course, the further you get away from Baseline; the more residential it becomes.
Most Portland suburbs were freestanding cities prior to the arrival of PDX sprawl. The phenomenon observed in many other metropolitan areas, where incorporated communtities consisting mainly of segregated housing, retail, and commercial/light-industrial, sprang up on the outskirts of town where there was little before, is largely absent in the Portland area–at least south of the Columbia. The only new city to be chartered in years is Damascus–and Damascus incorporated to AVOID an influx of sprawl, not to enable it.
ws: Here is another of Deluchi’s papers:
“Results for Sacramento analysis.
The total external costs can be put in perspective by expressing them per gallon
of fuel consumed.
JK: Is there a reason that he didn’t look transit USING THE SAME METHODS? Probably because transit is still far worse than cars.
Thanks
JK
JK: “Is there a reason that he didn’t look transit USING THE SAME METHODS? Probably because transit is still far worse than cars.”
ws:That is not what the paper covered. It covered societal costs of the automobile. He has a website with many more articles, including the one you inked to. He might have some there.
Expressing rail costs in terms of gasoline cost at the pump is not very relevant or useful.
Two Cents: From a Potential Resident
Reading this thread makes me wonder if there are people out there who there who really think this country is short on raped land for suburbs and superhighways.
I live in a suburb of Tampa, FL. I don’t know my neighbors because they all get into their cars in their garages to drive to the 5 acre Walmart parking lot that is only 3 miles away (FYI there are 6 Walmarts in a 10 mile radius). The “good” news is that there are wide 6 lane streets with no sidewalks or bike trails to get, well, anywhere. Of course, there’s really no place you could walk/ride anyway. No local shops, coffee houses, bookstores, community centers… the nearest park is 6 miles away and convienently they had to cut down a bunch of trees to allow for car parking. Every house in our sub-division has one car per inhabitant (approx. 2 – 5 cars per SF home), so the intersection on the main throughfares have gas stations on every corner. And, truth be told, Tampa is a pretty dinky city compared to Houston or Atlanta.
My point is that I’m researching Portland as a potential city to raise my child. I’ve heard great things about the quality of life and community orientation. One of the things particularly pleasing is the idea that there is not a great deal of sprawl and the need to get into a car every time you run out of milk. That during a commute on public transport, you can read a book or have a live conversation versus one on a blue-tooth. If you really want to live in a car-friendly, spread out, impersonal suburb, there are plenty of them in the country. It doesn’t sound like the majority of Portland citizens are interested in becoming like them.
I’m looking forward to my next trip to Portland later this summer.
Sandy:
I think you summarized the sentiments of many citizens. While you live in sprawl, you do not necessarily enjoy it or “choose” it. It purveys so many aspects of daily life it is unavoidable and is the only option.
I would like to note that there is plenty sprawl in the Portland metro area, but even so, it is a million times better than many places in the US.
Sandy Says: My point is that I’m researching Portland as a potential city to raise my child. I’ve heard great things about the quality of life and community orientation. One of the things particularly pleasing is the idea that there is not a great deal of sprawl and the need to get into a car every time you run out of milk.
JK: Before you fall for all those planner lies, is suggest you have a look at:
Higher Density Means Less Social Contact
One of the standard tenets of New Urbanism is that suburbanites have lost their sense of community and social capital, and that higher-density housing can restore these things. These ideas received a boost when Robert Putnam’s 1996 book, Bowling Alone, argued that America was experiencing a severe decline in social capital, and blamed much of this decline on the suburbs.
Now, Rich Carson, who calls himself the Contrarian Planner, points out in a new article that Putnam’s thesis is simply wrong. Instead, Carson observes, recent research from UC Berkeley has found that people living in denser areas have fewer close friends and fewer soclal interactions than people in low-density areas. In fact, as density increases by 10 percent, social interactions decline by 10 percent.
(http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=459#more-459)
And DenunkingPortland.com, especially debunkingportland.com/Smart/SmartGrowthLies.html
PS: Keep some powdered milk handy.
Thanks
JK
JK Some people say we just need to get more people onto transit to save energy – run the busses fuller. To do that, they say, we need high density. Well lets look two high density cities: (Using NTD 2007 data from http://ti.org/NTD07sum.xls)
New York:
xls line 7:
New York City Transit: 1812 million passenger-miles, 4,576 vehicles, 17.9 passengers/vehicle, BTU/pass-mile = 3,322 (average American car (2006) = 3,549 – not much saving here )
Chicago:
xls line 100:
Chicago Transit Authority, 762 million passenger-miles, 2163 vehicles, 11.2 passengers/vehicle, BTU/pass-mile= 4,590 (average American car (2006)= 3,549 – oops – no saving)
But boats are sooooo efficient:
xls line 14:
Ferry Boat: Capacity=4032, average load=537, BTU/pm=6,108 (average American car (2006) = 3,549 – oops – approaching DOUBLE that of a car.)
And we all know that cars that beat the American average are readily available at low cost. So even in the city with the highest density core, newer cars match or beat bus transit and the new ObamaMobiles will kick ass. Save energy, save money, save time, drive a small car!
This is a really fun file. I’ll bet even transit lovers can find something there.
Thanks
JK
JK: Now, Rich Carson, who calls himself the Contrarian Planner, points out in a new article that Putnam’s thesis is simply wrong. Instead, Carson observes, recent research from UC Berkeley has found that people living in denser areas have fewer close friends and fewer soclal interactions than people in low-density areas. In fact, as density increases by 10 percent, social interactions decline by 10 percent.
(http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=459#more-459)
Your link doesn’t work. It would also be nice if you refrained from referring to theories or opinions as “lies” just because your own pet planner has a theory or opinion that conflicts.
Some of us, like Sandy, have anecdotal evidence that conflicts with your “antiplanner.” And, whether or not the social aspect improves with increased density, there is nothing there to refute the idea that amenities are more available to pedestrians in urban areas than suburban. It’s a simple, observable fact.
Sandy –
If you haven’t guessed yet, you can safely ignore EVERYTHING that comes from Jim Karlock. His “data” is about as unreliable as it can get. (It’s really funny when HE accuses “planners” of lying.)
That said, I want to raise a couple of potential red flag when looking at Portland for a place to raise a child:
First take a close look at the public school situation. Oregon schools have a really unstable funding base. In lean times, it’s often touch-and-go whether students will even GET a full school year, or whether the schools will need to close early to save money. Because of this, we’ve also seen a lot of activities like arts and music cut to the bone.
Second, check out is the job situation — particularly salaries in your particular field compared to housing prices in the neighborhoods you like. A lot of the highly desirable neighborhoods (the ones with local shops, coffee houses, bookstores, community centers, highly walkable, well-served by transit) have pretty expensive housing, simply because they ARE highly desirable. The trade-off for that kind of neighborhood often a small home on a tiny lot, and maybe spending a bigger share of your income on housing than most financial advisors would recommend.
I have a number of friends who moved out of Portland to the suburbs simply because they couldn’t afford the family-sized home they were looking for in the city, or for the school situation, or both.
For better or worse, Portland is a work in progress. Opportunity lies at the edge of established neighborhoods where housing prices are still reasonable. Despite systematic dis-investment in schools, quality varies enormously depending on community involvement…again an opportunity to make a local school better. The same can be said for crime, transit, parks, libraries and retail districts.
If you come to Portland thinking its all ready to go and all you have to do is sit back and enjoy, you will be disappointed. If you want to pitch in and help transform a neighborhood, you will soon be a real player in an evolving community.
Jeff F Says:
(http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=459#more-459)
Your link doesn’t work.
JK: It just worked for me.
Jeff F Says: It would also be nice if you refrained from referring to theories or opinions as “lies” just because your own pet planner has a theory or opinion that conflicts.
JK: It is so difficult to talk about a profession that is wrong about most things that they claim without concluding that they know better an thus are lying instead of stupid. I do tend to go back and forth on this though. Just to review,
Contrary to planners claims:
High density DOES NOT reduce traffic congestion.
High density DOES NOT reduce pollution.
High density DOES NOT reduce commute times.
High density DOES cost more.
Mass transit costs more than cars per passenger-mile.
Land use controls increase housing costs.
Light rail kills people at a higher rate than cars.
Most people DO NOT want to live in high density.
Light rail dose not cause development, the government incentives do.
Jeff F Says: Some of us, like Sandy, have anecdotal evidence that conflicts with your “antiplanner.”
JK: Please keep it accurate, you are not conflicting with the antipanner, you are conflicting with the article.
Jeff F Says: And, whether or not the social aspect improves with increased density, there is nothing there to refute the idea that amenities are more available to pedestrians in urban areas than suburban.
JK: What does that have to do with the point under discussion – social interactions.
After all social interactions are not casual encounters with strangers, unless you are a drug dealer or horny teenybopper.
Perhaps you are changing the subject because you cannot refute the original article.
Thanks
JK
Lenny Anderson Says: For better or worse, Portland is a work in progress. Opportunity lies at the edge of established neighborhoods where housing prices are still reasonable.
JK: Unaffordable housing is a downside of failed Portland Planners’ Policies.
Lenny Anderson Says: Despite systematic dis-investment in schools, quality varies enormously depending on community involvement…again an opportunity to make a local school better.
JK: Planning schemes at the PDC suck up over $70 MILLION in tax money every year. That is part of why we don’t have money for schools.
Lenny Anderson Says: The same can be said for crime, transit, parks, libraries and retail districts.
JK: Planning schemes at the PDC suck up over $70 MILLION in tax money every year. That is part of why we don’t have money for basic services. See SavePortland.com
Lenny Anderson Says: If you want to pitch in and help transform a neighborhood, you will soon be a real player in an evolving community.
JK: Be sure to recognize that most of what any city planner tells you will be wrong.
Thanks
JK
JK: Jeff F Says: And, whether or not the social aspect improves with increased density, there is nothing there to refute the idea that amenities are more available to pedestrians in urban areas than suburban.
JK: What does that have to do with the point under discussion – social interactions.
After all social interactions are not casual encounters with strangers, unless you are a drug dealer or horny teenybopper.
Perhaps you are changing the subject because you cannot refute the original article.
Or perhaps not. Perhaps you forgot this:
Sandy: One of the things particularly pleasing is the idea that there is not a great deal of sprawl and the need to get into a car every time you run out of milk.
JK: PS: Keep some powdered milk handy.
At the time, you were aware that more than one topic was under discussion, because you certainly responded to the “no sprawl, buy some milk” topic.
Hey guys, thanks for the feedback.
I’ve got to say that I’ve lived in both urban (Chicago, IL and Lyon, France) as well as suburban (Orlando and Tampa, FL) and in between areas like a college town (Tallahassee, FL) so I can make comparisons in what appeals to me…
I wondered only if there are pro-car, pro-suburb folks in a city like Portland, why they simply don’t move to a pro-car, pro-suburb environment, seeing as there are many, many of them in this country.
It is anectodal (as I don’t have any research numbers I can quote) however, I never owned a car until I moved to Florida. In Chicago, I could walk to the corner grocery or the neighborhood park. In France, I would take a bus or subways to get to university or the library or the museums. And, in these settings, I would talk to people. I did have more social encounters. I heard about things going on in the community. I was definitely more engaged with other people than I have been since I have been forced into a rather ‘isolationist’ exisistance in the ‘burbs.
I am concerned about the comments about the school situation though. (I know this is a site dealing with transporation, but if you will indulge me…) Oregon is ranked very highly in teacher pay and school conditions.
What areas should I be looking at to avoid the sprawl factor and still have the benefits of living in a city?
BTW, JK, I have never actually run out of milk. Please, spare me your malcontent snark. The issue is not being a survivalist with gallons of canned milk in the basement. It is that if I want to go for a walk with my baby in the stroller, there would actually be a place to go. Where I live now, I walk around the subdivision for an hour and never see another human because they are either still in their cars on their commute, or sitting in front of their TVs exhausted by it.
Sandy, while the comments about the instability of school funding are dead on, you should evaluate it in the full context. Portland’s schools are still considerably stronger than most central-city school districts around the country.
Yeah, I’m not trying to scare you off, Sandy. Just suggesting that you take a good look at the school situation. I don’t have kids myself, so a lot of what I get is second- and third-hand.
As for what areas to look at to avoid the sprawl situation, we really do have an embarrassment of riches in Portland itself when it comes to livable, walkable neighborhoods. One fantastic resource for someone looking for a walkable neighborhood: the free Portland Bike/Walk Maps published by the Portland Department of Transportation. There is one map for each of Portland’s quadrants (actually, we have five, so they aren’t technically “quadrants”) and they have everything someone looking for a pedestrian-centered lifestyle would want — right down to the locations of schools, parks, grocery stories, bus stops, water fountains, heritage trees … everything.
Also, if you want to go car-free but still have access to a car when you need one, Zipcar has a pretty strong presence through many of Portland’s central neighborhoods,
Oops… apparently I didn’t close that tag properly. Bob or Chris, could you fix?
Sandy, while this isn’t exactly useful in terms of figuring out what neighborhoods would be good, have you seen the Portland entries on Fortworthology? It’s an outsider’s look at Portland, with an eye to effective urban planning and general livability. It helps get a general sense of the culture around here.
Sandy Says: I wondered only if there are pro-car, pro-suburb folks in a city like Portland, why they simply don’t move to a pro-car, pro-suburb environment, seeing as there are many, many of them in this country.
JK: You really know how to make friends – before you even move here you are suggesting that 80% of the people move out because they disagree with you on the value of a car. I was born here and find a car is cheaper, more convenient, more comfortable and a big time saver compared to mass transit. Besides, I don’t to sponge off of others by letting others pay 80% of my transportation costs as is the case with mass transit. And I don’t like newcomers telling the long timers to leave. You have it backwards.
Sandy Says: In France, I would take a bus or subways to get to university or the library or the museums.
JK: Your experience was that of the typical tourist, not a native. In case you don’t know, 78% of the motorized person-kilometers in the EU-15 countries is by private car. All forms of mass transit, except air, have lost double digit percentages of market share in the last 20 years (1980-2000). See: ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/eu_glance/44/en-3.pdf.
Sandy Says: And, in these settings, I would talk to people. I did have more social encounters. I heard about things going on in the community. I was definitely more engaged with other people than I have been since I have been forced into a rather ‘isolationist’ exisistance in the ‘burbs.
JK: Why did you choose the burbs if you didn’t like it.
Sandy Says: Oregon is ranked very highly in teacher pay and school conditions.
JK: Just another example of money not necessarily improving things. Especially in big institutions – it tends to encourage waste.
Sandy Says: What areas should I be looking at to avoid the sprawl factor and still have the benefits of living in a city?
JK: Try North Macadam. I hear there area lot of really good buys on the taxpayer subsidized condo towers there. Seems few people want to pay the actual cost of high density living.
If you want good schools, decent sized lots and low costs, try the Portland MSA’s fastest growing county – Clark County.
Sandy Says: BTW, JK, I have never actually run out of milk. Please, spare me your malcontent snark.
JK: And please spare us your phony, thinly disguised, planner propaganda.
Sandy Says: The issue is not being a survivalist with gallons of canned milk in the basement. It is that if I want to go for a walk with my baby in the stroller, there would actually be a place to go.
JK: So, move near a Wallmart. Lots of milk, friendly people and prices much lower than you will find in the high density mixed use store. And they probably pay property taxes that actually go to government services, unlike most of Portland’s showcase areas. Lents area has a nice big park (for the time being anyway) and a close by Walmart.
Sandy Says: Where I live now, I walk around the subdivision for an hour and never see another human because they are either still in their cars on their commute, or sitting in front of their TVs exhausted by it.
JK: You might try taking your walks in the daytime. Again, why did you choose the burbs if you didn’t like it.
Thanks
JK
The Portland we have is the result of a lot of hard work and community involvement going back to the 70’s. Some here don’t like it, but they are a distinct minority. And there are still plenty of suburban sprawl type opportunities in Clark county, WA and Washington county, OR.
The Swan Island TMA in North Portland has a project, “N/NE PDX TNT…Trip Not Taken” that has produced a map/guide to North and inner Northeast Portland. It shows business districts (mostly on old streetcar lines), schools, bike routes, transit routes and major employers; all are within easy reach in this part of town. Check it out on the web at http://www.nnepdxtnt.org A full web site is coming soon on http://www.neighborhoodnotes.com with housing/employment/entertainment and transportation information. Stay tuned. Please excuse this “advertisement.”