I mentioned that I was reading Resilient Cities.
From the book, here are the key elements for a resilient transport city:
- A transit system that is faster than traffic in all major corridors.
- Viable centers along the corridors that are dense enough to service a good transit system.
- Walkable areas and cycling facilities that can mean easy access by nonmotorized means, especially in these centers.
- Services and connectivity that can guarantee access at most times of the day or night without time wasted.
- Phasing out freeways and phasing in congestion taxes that are directed back into the funding of transit and walk/cycle facilities as well as traffic-calming measures.
- Continual improvement of vehicle engines to ensure emissions, noise, and fuel consumption are reduced, especially a move to electric vehicles.
- Regional and local governance that can enable visionary green transport plans and funding schemes to be introduced.
What do we think of the list?
26 responses to “Characteristics of a Reslient Transport City”
What do we think of the list?
What problem are we trying to solve?
What will it cost compared to today’s costs?
Obviously, Metro has ignored item #1 on the list in its plan for high-capacity transit.
I think the list is great… too bad Portland/TriMet aren’t quite there on most of them.
– MAX/Streetcar are slow
– TriMet/Streetcar could do much more to integrate with bike traffic (rails are hazards, capacity and parking issues remain a problem)
– We are years from a real congestion tax… and as for phasing out freeways… Mt. Hood and Harbor drive happened 30+ years ago.
– Visionary funding schemes? I just wish one would be introduced so the people could vote on it. I think if Adams or someone else introduced a green transportation bond measure (like the one Metro passed in 2007) it would pass.
Resilient – in what way? Certainly not flexibility in that a web of streetcars is extremely rigid; and certainly not with a negative attitude towards motor vehicles and driving that allows freedom of mobility. Certainly not expandable either with the line in the sand of the urban growth boundary, and the concept that everything constructed within the boundary adhere to the concept of high density – in other words, more urban heat island development. ..
Additionally, sustainability starts with financial self-sustainability – including NOT subsidizing a project from other resources or a source of revenue outside of what the project itself generates. Providing transit services, infrastructure for bicycling, and even many of the subsidized tenement style TOD developments do not pencil out as self generating the funds to cover the costs. It is socialistic to suggesting that somebody other than the users of transit and bicycle infrastructure (such as motorists) or the developers of the TODs be taxed to pay those costs.
Moreover, the affordability of any such scheme will place an undue burden on taxpayers in general which in turn will create a decline in the quality of life for most people. Further reducing the quality of life will come from diminishing affordable freedom of choices and having to adhere to schedules to move about.
When I was in high school, one of the assignments the teacher gave to the students in the class was to write an essay describing the worst possible society a person could live in. Most essays described some kind of controlling government where the people’s lives were controlled by some sort of socialistic or dictatorial regime. The key elements here seem to be an extension of that assignment. Maybe the name of the book should be: A Guide on How to Implement Socialism. .
I wish that TriMet would focus more on #1 than spending money on the two HCT corridors parallel to the Westside MAX they’re currently planning for.
As Bob has mentioned in another active thread, I’d like to see some method of a downtown bypass that would allow for express trains.
Beyond that, is there a way to allow MAX trains to run any faster in the grade-separated areas (Banfield, for example) or is that the limit for that track/train combo? What about newer trains?
Maybe the name of the book should be: A Guide on How to Implement Socialism.
I was impressed that Terry made it almost two paragraphs without mentioning socialism.
You want sustainable?
Why not make ALL of downtown Portland a car free zone? (Waterfront to I405; Ross Island br to Broadway bridge.)
And I mean REAL sustainability – no cars. No trucks. No fossil fueled anything. Including only sustainable electricity. And the residents get to pay all the costs and keep all of the allegedly huge savings.
Thanks
JK
“Phasing out freeways and phasing in congestion taxes that are directed back into the funding of transit and walk/cycle facilities as well as traffic-calming measures.”
I really like this idea, but as Jonathan mentioned, the freeways to have been phased out/prevented happened a while back. Given the down economy, the interesting dynamics on the City Council and the changing of the guard at Metro pretty soon, it seems that we won’t know how ambitious we can be until Portland figures out what it really wants.
As I see it, we’ve got great ideas, like repurposing the East Waterfront from freeway to mixed-use development, but that idea has been lingering without any wind in its sails for over a decade.
So I guess the question is, yes, our leaders are figuring out some of the greatest problems we’ve faced economically and otherwise, but when do we start making freeway repurposing and more carless places part of the solution instead of the “radical biker solution?” The support for a more livable city is here, but I guess time will tell whether our leaders will reflect and our citizens will act on these beliefs.
Daniel Ronan Says:
“Phasing out freeways and phasing in congestion taxes that are directed back into the funding of transit and walk/cycle facilities as well as traffic-calming measures.”
I really like this idea
JK: Why do you want to see everyone’s standard of living go down?
Why do you want to see more traffic in our neighborhoods?
Why do you want to see unemployment increase?
Why do you want to see more pedestrians killed?
(Freeways take traffic out of neighborhoods, reduce accidents and increase our standard of living by allowing more rapid transportation.)
Thanks
JK
“Phasing out freeways and phasing in congestion taxes that are directed back into the funding of transit and walk/cycle facilities as well as traffic-calming measures.”
What we have here is a failure to understand the principals of a democracy. It seems the (often younger) generations that propose this type of socialism do not believe in the freedom of choice and want somebody other than themselves to fund the choices of lifestyle they make. Additionally, they want to control and have power over what other people do. Instead of just freeloading and attempting to order other people around, deadbeat bicyclists need to replace their lip service with a bicycle tax – dollars from their own wallets that will cover the costs for the specialized bicycle and niche infrastructure they want while not taking away from the motor vehicle infrastructure already in place. Transit riders too need to pay their own way with fares that actually cover the costs of providing the costs of the service.
Terry Parker: What we have here is a failure to understand the principals of a democracy. It seems the (often younger) generations that propose this type of socialism do not believe in the freedom of choice and want somebody other than themselves to fund the choices of lifestyle they make.
Your constant accusations of “socialism” are the evidence of a failure to understand democracy, Terry. We have a City Council and a mayor who are freely elected by the citizens of Portland. The County Commissioners are freely elected, as is the Metro Council. And so is the Legislature of the state. These are the people we have freely chosen to develop policies around transportation, housing, planning, etc. There is no coercion here, no oppression and no totalitarian rule.
If the people of the city and the region don’t like these policies, they are free to elect officials whose policies they do approve of. What part of that do you not get? You only cry that it’s “socialism” because you disagree with the policies, but you know what? Tough. That’s how democracy works.
Rarely are politicians “freely” elected anymore. Those who receive the most votes simply have name familiarity and are usually backed by organizations with money and people of power in the private sector that have an agenda to push. Additionally, someone new to politics, and even some seasoned politician, rarely provide any details to their own personal agendas.
“If the people of the city and the region don’t like these policies, they are free to elect officials whose policies they do approve of. What part of that do you not get? You only cry that it’s “socialism” because you disagree with the policies, but you know what? Tough. That’s how democracy works.”
Sounds good in theory. There is nothing to guarantee that democratically elected leaders will not blunder their constituents in to oblivion. Elected leaders in numerous societies have done so. Our current crop in Portland seem to believe in some construction frenzy. “Bulldozer Buddies!”
“As I see it, we’ve got great ideas, like repurposing the East Waterfront from freeway to mixed-use development, but that idea has been lingering without any wind in its sails for over a decade.”
What kind of repurposing do you envision for the UP rail line which runs in the heart of that area, in its own privately owned ROW?
Not to leave you with no solution: I do believe there is a way to make very good use of that area without an excessively expensive project. And it could seismically reinforce the existing I-5 route, which, if anything, it needs. It does involve some coexistence with the freeway, though.
As other cities have done with success. One example is north of us at the Washington State Convention Center.
Terry Parker: Rarely are politicians “freely” elected anymore. Those who receive the most votes simply have name familiarity and are usually backed by organizations with money and people of power in the private sector that have an agenda to push. Additionally, someone new to politics, and even some seasoned politician, rarely provide any details to their own personal agendas.
You didn’t know Sam Adams’ agenda?
The land use laws in Oregon have been in place since the early 1970s, Terry. That’s plenty of time for the voters to wise up and rise up and throw da bums out. Why is it that this hasn’t happened? Could it possibly be that the voters like those land use laws? Or are they simply deluded, or misled, or buffaloed — because otherwise they’d agree with you?
There’s nothing particularly new about the electoral process, Terry. People with better name recognition have always done well — going back at least to the Roman Republic. Same for politicians with powerful backers.
Face the reality: the majority of people in the Portland Metro region disagree with you. At least a plurality of people in the state of Oregon disagree with you. It doesn’t make them stupid, or venal or even confused — it means they do not agree with your view of society, land use, transportation planning et al.
JeffF Says: The land use laws in Oregon have been in place since the early 1970s, Terry. That’s plenty of time for the voters to wise up and rise up and throw da bums out. Why is it that this hasn’t happened? Could it possibly be that the voters like those land use laws?
JK: Oh, I don’t think so. Portland soundly rejected higher density in 2002 by a minimum of 65% against more density. See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/Smart/MetroDensityVote.htm
Oregon voters also passed a measure requiring complementation for land value stolen by the planners and only repealed it when the legislature lied to them with a deceptive ballot title and then forbid court review said title.
Thanks
JK
jimkarlock Says: JeffF Says: The land use laws in Oregon have been in place since the early 1970s, Terry. That’s plenty of time for the voters to wise up and rise up and throw da bums out. Why is it that this hasn’t happened? Could it possibly be that the voters like those land use laws?
JK: Oh, I don’t think so. Portland soundly rejected higher density in 2002 by a minimum of 65% against more density.
You completely avoided a response, JK. Pointing to a single ballot measure in 2002 says nothing at all about the larger question: why do we keep electing city councilmen, Metro councilors and county commissioners who have consistently supported our land-use laws if we don’t want them?
And, please, none of this silliness about how voters don’t really know the agendas of people like Bragdon and Adams.
Wasn’t Neville Chamberlain democratically elected?
Quote:
“Whatever the reason — whether { } thought he might get away, one thing is certain, he missed the bus.”
As to our present crop of “Bulldozer Buddies” in METRO and Portland City Hall, I am sure they have picked up from fellow Party members tips on securing their own future.
Lots of bad leaders were democratically elected.
Lots of good ones, too.
The point isn’t that democracy is perfect; the point is that democracy is what we got, and its how we got Mayor Adams, for better or worse.
You would think that conservatives–and they do exist in Portland–would be able to find some credible candidate for mayor, to run on an “anti-government-waste” (quotes because I’m not endorsing the core of such an agenda) platform. But no–the conservatives who do sign up are invariably loons who ramble on about the gold standard and such, as if the City government has anything to do with that.
I’d actually like to see Bojack run for mayor.
He’s intelligent, he knows the issues well, and his particular brand of libertarianism (unlike most right-wing libs, he’s in no hurry to protect the poor corporations from the mean oppressive gubmint) might play well in some quarter in Portland. He also doesn’t appear to be a bigot FTMP, though some of his writings regarding Sam Adams’ sex scandal are a bit–over the top.
OTOH, he’s hurled plenty of abuse at the current council over the years; it would be interesting to see if he could roll up his sleeves and work with them–and if he can take it as well as he can dish it.
I’d actually like to see Bojack run for mayor.
Now this is a good idea!
He says he won’t entertain the notion at all.
I even have my own bojack for mayor sticker!
“You didn’t know Sam Adams’ agenda?”
Which agenda? The one where he trashes his opponents and lies to the public to get elected, or the one where he wants to implement social engineering to become the totalitarian dictator of Portland.
Trashing opponents and lying to the public are campaign tactics; not agendas. Not to excuse the mayor, but the conduct of his campaign is part of the “how”, not the “why”.
The “why” part of Adams’ campaign–as in “why Sam is running for mayor”–is no secret and no surprise. Sam’s a thoroughly liberal pol; he campaigned as such, and he’s governed as such; subject to his weakened political stature.
“Social engineering” is a useless buzzword that can be applied to any act of governance. As far as “becoming totalitarian dictator”, I’ve seen no evidence of Adams attempting to interfere (legally or otherwise) with the powers of his office, or with the process for electing mayors. If anything, Adams has undone some power-plays undertaken by his predecessor Tom Potter, a rather self-righteous fellow who thought of himself as above politics–and who did attempt (via legal means) to increase the powers of his office, for better or worse; one that got crushed by the voters of Portland.
Terry Parker Says: Which agenda? The one where he trashes his opponents and lies to the public to get elected, or the one where he wants to implement social engineering to become the totalitarian dictator of Portland.
Did you write that with a straight face? Really? “Totalitarian dictator of Portland”? You are too funny.
JeffF Says: You completely avoided a response, JK. Pointing to a single ballot measure in 2002 says nothing at all about the larger question: why do we keep electing city councilmen, Metro councilors and county commissioners who have consistently supported our land-use laws if we don’t want them?
JK: They get elected by carefully avoiding telling people what they are going to do to them. At election time:
1. None of them talk about taking money from basic services and feeding millions to developers.
2. None of them talk about increasing density in our neighborhoods.
3. None talk about raising our water/sewer bills.
4. None talk about driving jobs out of town to get more space for subsidized condo farms.
5. None talk of increasing traffic congestion with light rail/ streetcars.
6. They talk of fixing potholes while they spend most of the transport the money on transit, bikes and peds.
7. They get huge amounts of money from developers for their campaigns, while most challengers are broke.
JeffF Says: And, please, none of this silliness about how voters don’t really know the agendas of people like Bragdon and Adams.
JK Are you seriosly saying that the general electorate knows that ths clowns at Metro want to turn Porltand into Los Angelas? (Metro Measured page 7: In public discussions we gather the general impression that Los Angeles represents a future to be avoided . By the same token, with respect to density and road per capita mileage it displays an investment pattern we desire to replicate.)
Or that Metro wants to increase density in our neighborhoods?
Or that Metro wants to increase traffic onour streets to the point travel is not possible for many people for most of the day?
Or that Metro considers “F” an acceptable level of road congestion?
Unlike, most fiscally responsibility critics, it have hope that publically financed elections will turn some of this around.
Thanks
JK
JK: They get elected by carefully avoiding telling people what they are going to do to them. At election time:
So, your theory is that the voters in the region sleep through the intervening years between elections, and pay no attention at all to the policy direction of their elected officials?
None of them talk about …
They probably don’t talk about those things because that isn’t what they’re planning to do, rather it’s your characterization of what happens here. Ditto the commentary on Metro.
With all due respect JeffF,
There are very few people in this metro area that are active in political or planning issues, other than voting. If there were some way to gauge their offhand remarks to people they know that would probably give someone a better survey. Plus these issues are also frequently dealt with in sudden changes of opinion.
ws said: “”Social engineering” is a useless buzzword that can be applied to any act of governance.”
Social engineering is actually two words. As applied by government, it is an act for the purpose of controlling the choices people are allowed to make. Sam’s blatant scheme to excessively increase taxes and fees on driving and motor vehicles, including congestion pricing, and then using the money for bicycle infrastructure and transit which would tax many low income and modest means people out of their cars is an example of social engineering using the tax codes in the transportation sector. Curb extensions are another example of social engineering as are many of the building and zoning codes being adopted. An example of a current buzzword, actually a buzz phrase can be found with the words “12 lane bridge” as it applies to the CRC.
“If anything, Adams has undone some power-plays undertaken by his predecessor Tom Potter, a rather self-righteous fellow who thought of himself as above politics”
Other than setting aside policy to rename some streets, which the whole City Council did, Sam has made far more power plays than Potter ever dreamed of during his whole time as Mayor. Sam’s whole 100 first days in office agenda were all about power plays. Ramming the Streetcar agenda down the throats of neighborhoods and his bicycle master plan are both power plays. His 89 member stacked deck transportation committee along with just about every other one-sided citizen committee he has put together are all power plays. His appointments to boards and commissions are power plays. His replacement of bureau heads are power plays. Even his lying and the conspiracy cover up of the Breedlove matter along with trashing his opponents and the canceling of funds for general public involvement in what was Potter’s visioning project are all a form of power plays. As for Potter being rather self-righteous fellow who thought of himself as above politics; Sam far and away leads the way there too considering himself above all others. The proof lies within his collectivism ideas and his social engineering agenda that aims to control the lifestyles, transportation, housing and even food choices of Portlanders. There is little humility in people who consider themselves progressive. They are all about telling others what to do.
Regarding WS’s appropriate criticism of the phrase “social engineering” as a buzzword, Terry responds with:
Terry, can you spend even just a moment to look up the definitions of a term before you engage in another hyperbolic exercise?
Meanwhile…
Remember way back on the evening of August 24th, when Terry wrote this…
And then today, the night of August 26th, Terry completely abandons his thesis by writing:
Terry, that “blatant scheme” was presented _prior_ to the election, and was quite well-publicized.
You’ve just provided one more piece evidence that Adams’ agenda was pretty well-defined to voters. I know that you very strongly disagree with that agenda (for reasons which are often disputed endlessly in this very forum), but you just can’t assert with any credibility that Adams has a secret agenda unknown to voters.
The only policy surprises so far, in fact, have been that Mayor Adams has not pushed his agenda as far in the directions that you oppose… he’s compromised repeatedly on the CRC, he’s set aside his street maintenance fee proposal (the tax you decry), etc.
Beyond that, and this is me speaking as moderator, drop the insult-ridden style. People are sick of it. It serves no purpose other than to denigrate, annoy, and irritate, and it’s not welcome here.