« January 2010 | Main | March 2010 »

February 26, 2010

Metro President Candidates on Bikes, Peds and Freight

The fifth and final installment of our series on responses to our candidate questionnaire. Please remember the ground rules on comments for this series

There are some special rules for comments on these posts. As a 501(c)(3), Portland Transport cannot and does not endorse candidates. So please no comments of the form "you should vote for _______ because he said...". Feel free to comment on the policies, their implications and your feelings about them, but refrain from turning that into encouraging votes in a particular direction.

6. Bicycles and Pedestrians:

Do you support the "Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030" that will be before City Council in February?

[Burkholder] Yes. I sat on the Steering Committee and helped develop the vision. I would like to see a commitment to increase funding to speed implementation.

[Stacey] Yes. More than tripling the mode share of bicycling in the City at an estimated cost of $30 million a year would be one of the most cost-effective expansions of accessibility and mobility in our region's history.

Would you support a comparable level of bicycle access in other parts of the region?

[Burkholder] Yes. As a founding member of the Bicycle Transportation Alliance and Metro's Blue Ribbon Committee on Trails (now the Executive Council for Active Transportation), I have led the effort to make bicycling and walking integral to safe and sustainable communities. Bicycles are smart investments as they are cheap to accommodate, affordable and easy to operate, increase health and are easy on the environment. They also require very little space to store, a good thing as we lose much of our best land for development to car parking.

[Stacey] Yes. Success in Portland will be critically important in making the case that such investment will work elsewhere as well.

How would you propose to fund "The Intertwine", Metro's recommended regional trail system?

[Burkholder] Just like any other part of the transportation system, building the trail and on-road Active Transportation component of the Intertwine will require multiple funding sources: Metro's regional funds, local, state and federal. I am Council Project Lead on the Active Transportation (as well as lead on Conservation Education). Under my leadership, the region applied for $100 Million in TIGER stimulus funds for four projects around the region. Rep. Earl Blumenauer has introduced the Active Transportation Act of 2010 modeled on Metro's work.

[Stacey] The trails component of the Intertwine (a multi-government, public-private partnership for an integrated system of trails, parks and natural areas) should be funded with a combination of Metro and local park and natural areas bond resources and transportation funds (federal flexible funds and--for the portion of the trail network located within road rights of way--at least one percent of road capital expenditures in the region).

Development has occurred in many parts of the region (including some Portland neighborhoods) under standards that did not require sidewalks to be constructed at the time of development. Current policy holding property owners responsible for funding sidewalk construction has seriously hindered filling gaps in the sidewalk system. How would you propose to accelerate bringing streets without sidewalks within the UGB up to urban standards?

[Burkholder] Sidewalks are transportation facilities. Lack of them puts more people in cars and has real, negative impacts on our transportation system. They should be funded just as other parts of the system. They must also be required to be built as part of all development as part of a complete street. However, retrofitting areas with sidewalks is very challenging. I support focusing on mainstreets and centers, especially accessing business districts and transit lines; ideally each community would develop a fund to infill sidewalks in all areas. Also funding partnerships with regional stormwater agencies can help provide innovative funding partnerships.

[Stacey] Priority for publicly funded sidewalk construction should be given to completion of the pedestrian network in town centers and along main streets and other 2040 corridors, plus connections to schools and other community facilities not located on main streets or in centers. Pedestrians in every neighborhood should have safe, universally accessible routes to schools and to transit and the other amenities and services in main streets and centers, although this may not mean publicly-funded sidewalk improvements on all local neighborhood streets.

Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure have historically received the smaller piece of the infrastructure pie relative to roads and transit. Given regional goals for more active transportation in what specific ways would you prioritize investment in these modes?

[Burkholder] Funding must be increased for walking and biking facilities. They are the lowest cost, highest return way for us to spend our transportation dollars. The vision that is laid out by Metro's Blue Ribbon Committee makes a very strong case for significantly elevated funding for active transportation. I have been actively seeking find ways to move the delivery of these projects forward, including leading the $100 million metro region TIGER grant application and seeking ways to package federal flexible dollars to go directly towards these projects.

[Stacey] As I have noted in answers above, our region will have an opportunity to reprioritize transportation investment in light of the responsibility to plan for dramatically reduced transportation greenhouse gas emissions over the next five years. I believe the scenario plans for emission reduction will show a need for more walking and biking opportunities in addition to more transit service and reduced investment in highway expansion. Aligning our transportation investments with our policy commitments will be necessary. It will no longer be acceptable to adopt progressive transportation policies and simultaneously approve transportation projects that will lead us to violate those policies.

7. Freight:

Metro's role in planning for the movement of goods and services is primarily focused on trucks and how they fit into the street/road system. Should Metro undertake a stronger role in rail and marine freight planning? If so how would you accomplish this?

[Burkholder] Projections show that trucks will continue to carry about 80% of freight and almost all local freight movement. The greatest impact on local communities will therefore be truck movement, but these investments must be made strategically, focusing on the key freight and intermodal corridors. Currently trucks just sit in traffic with other vehicles. I support creating targeted and innovative sets of solutions to effectively move freight without adding freeway miles. I also have successfully advocated for rail investments in the region, especially in the congested "Portland Triangle" through Oregon's Connect Oregon program.

Marine and rail are national or multi-state issues. My efforts to change federal transportation policy include calls to create a national rail policy (both passenger and freight) which the new administration has responded favorably to.

[Stacey] Metro should focus on (land-side) surface transportation and rely on the Port of Portland to provide planning leadership for air and marine transportation. Metro should be able to rely on the Oregon Department of Transportation for rail freight and intercity passenger planning. However, in the past ODOT has lacked the resources to pursue comprehensive strategies for improving intercity rail service, either in partnership with the railroads or independently. My initial approach will be to advocate for a comprehensive state rail transportation strategy led by ODOT and supported by the Obama administration's strong interest in improved passenger rail service (which, to be cost-effective and well-designed, must take into account existing and future demand for rail freight). Ideally, Metro and the region's local governments will be able to serve as active participants in such a state-led effort. Failing that, Metro should seek to form a consortium of local governments in the Willamette Valley to explore opportunities for improving freight service and passenger rail service.

Posted by Chris Smith at 6:54 AM | Comments (2) | Permalink

Quote of the Week: "Of course, one planner's sprawl is another's economic development."

From an article in the Daily Journal of Commerce suggesting that just maybe the Columbia River Crossing is going to increase sprawl.

Posted by Chris Smith at 12:13 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink

February 25, 2010

Metro President Candidates on Transit

Part Four of our series on responses to our candidate questionnaire. Please remember the ground rules on comments for this series

There are some special rules for comments on these posts. As a 501(c)(3), Portland Transport cannot and does not endorse candidates. So please no comments of the form "you should vote for _______ because he said...". Feel free to comment on the policies, their implications and your feelings about them, but refrain from turning that into encouraging votes in a particular direction.

5. Transit:

There are competing perspectives on the priority of expanding the regional and local (e.g., streetcar) rail transit system versus investment in the bus system. One argument is that per-trip operating costs for rail are lower than for buses and that rail is more successful at attracting choice riders and supporting compact development. On the other hand, many transit-dependent families must rely on bus service which has seen level funding or cuts in recent years.

Should the current practice of allocating growth in transit operating revenue primarily to rail expansion continue?

[Burkholder] We must continue to invest in the most cost-effective transit options. Light rail provides high quality service to large numbers of users and is a good investment. I also support the focus that transit agencies have put on frequent bus lines. These create a more fiscally sound transit model and reward communities that build at the density that good transit service requires. Transit agencies, especially Tri Met, find that frequent bus service that connect to light rail is very effective. We need to better connect walking and biking to transit stops, as well, with secure, sufficient parking for bicycles.

[Stacey] No. Transit operating revenue should be applied to transit operations. There isn't enough payroll tax and farebox revenue to maintain current transit service hours; siphoning off revenue to bond for capital expansion is a mistake.

Do you support using funds that would otherwise be available for operations to bond for capital construction?

[Burkholder] It is key that transit agencies have the resources to operate the systems that they build. I have supported bonding regional flexible transportation funds to pay for the capital costs of light rail extensions as well as streetcar matching funds. I have also advocated at the state for using ODOT's federal flexible funds for transit funding (the Transportation Vision that formed the basis for HB2001 included state transit funding equal to 20% of the state highway budget). These are better sources than operating funds.

[Stacey] No. In addition to the "user pays" transportation funding concept I describe above, the region should consider expanded transportation system development charges on new development (also known as "transportation impact fees") that include the cost of future transit capital improvements required to serve new development. These charges could be used to generate all or part of the local match required to obtain federal funds for transit capital.

How should equity considerations be factored into transit planning?

[Burkholder] Equity is addressed directly through performance measures in the updated RTP and shall be addressed by all transportation investment decisions, whether transit, road or other. Affordable housing must also be provided along HCT routes. Metro's Transit Oriented Development program has helped build 800 units of affordable housing close to transit. Transportation related fees would ideally be progressive, one reason why taxes on property value or auto values are effective to address equity.

[Stacey] Every community in the region should have access to high quality, reliable transit service, with the density and frequency of service determined by the population and employment density of the service area. By the same token, every community in the region should provide access to housing and services to households at every income level. Equity of opportunity will be possible only when housing choice and transportation choice are available to all.

Is TriMet's current governance structure with a board appointed by the Governor and State Senate appropriate and does it provide sufficient accountability to TriMet's constituents? If not, what alternatives would you suggest?

[Burkholder] I very much respect the hard work of the Trimet Board, yet, with very little State financial contribution to this region's transit system, it is odd that the board is not regionally appointed. That said, I would need to see significant failures in meeting regional needs to change a system that has been successful.

[Stacey] TriMet's governance structure is essentially the same as the Port of Portland's or the Oregon Department of Transportation: governor-appointed citizen commissions head all three. ODOT has an even larger impact on the transportation system in the metropolitan area than TriMet, and the region has less ability to influence appointments to the Transportation Commission. I would be interested in facilitating a review of the governance of the metropolitan transportation system as a whole, rather than focusing solely on TriMet.

Is transit operating funding adequate? If not, what additional sources of revenue would you propose/support?

[Burkholder] It is clear that we will need more transit service in the future (we actually could use it today). I would like to replace the Payroll tax with a Carbon tax so that we aren't dis-incenting employment, rather encouraging lower consumption of petroleum and other fossil fuels.

[Stacey] Operating revenue is obviously not adequate: we're cutting service on core trunk lines and MAX. Regarding revenue increases, see my discussion, above, of "user pays" funding possibilities for the transportation system generally. One specific concept that would not require constitutional changes is a per-space excise tax on business-owned parking--or that portion that is in excess of required minimum parking standards. A nickel-a-day per space fee on all parking region-wide would generate an estimated $125 million a year for transit operations.

Should TriMet have a rainy-day fund to protect operations during economic downturns? If so, how would you fund it?

[Burkholder] This is an obvious but not so easy to implement idea. As someone responsible for a large government agency's budget, I understand how difficult it is to put aside reserves for future needs when current needs exceed revenues.

[Stacey] This is very desirable. Of course, to get there we first need an economic upturn, and then TriMet would either need new revenue sources or would have to restore or increase service less than it has during past periods of economic growth, despite urgent demands for more service. Any effort to create a reserve fund will depend on adopting new revenue sources and eliminating the practice of bonding anticipated future operating revenues to pay for capital improvements.

Posted by Chris Smith at 7:41 AM | Comments (18) | Permalink

City Club's Big Ideas for Transportation Governance

City Club of Portland has just released its transportation governance study report: "Moving Forward: A Better Way to Govern Regional Transportation" (PDF, 5.5M).

Among the big ideas for reforming transportation governance in our region:

• Shift most of the money that ODOT spends inside the region (other than for the freeway system) to be programmed by (but not necessarily spent by) Metro.
• Form a bridge authority under Metro that would manage the Willamette River bridges (including those owned today by the County and ODOT) and a number of other regionally significant bridges.
• Shift to a "utility" model of transportation planning that would more rigorously do cost-benefit analysis and ensure adequacy of funding for the transportation system (analogous to what State law and the PUC require of private utilities).
• Reform the membership and voting structure of JPACT to give more voting power to the Cities and Counties, in contrast to the significant power held by Metro Councilors and agencies (TriMet, Port, etc.) in today's voting structure.

I'm sure some readers will be interested in what the report does not recommend:

• Having Metro take over TriMet (not enough reason to do so)
• A bi-state transportation planning body for the whole Portland/Vancouver region (desirable from a policy point of view but politically infeasible today due to very divergent views about transportation on each side of the Columbia)

A must-read for anyone interested in transportation in our region. If nothing else the review and discussion of the current system is very educational - probably the best single place to get a primer on how things work.

And I hope our local leaders will seriously review the recommendations.

I look forward to the discussion at City Club on the evening of March 3rd (5:30-7pm at the Club offices as 901 SW Washington) and the vote at the Friday Forum on March 5th (11:45 at the Governor Hotel).

Posted by Chris Smith at 12:56 AM | Comments (3) | Permalink

February 24, 2010

Oregonian Lays Off Transportation Reporter

Dylan Rivera, who for the last several years has covered the transportation beat, was laid off from the Oregonian today, along with more than 30 others from the newsroom.

This will likely leave Joseph Rose, who has lately transitioned from the 'commuting' beat (and still maintains the "Hard Drive" blog) to a more general transportation focus as the main writer on the topic we love so dearly.

A hat tip and best wishes to Dylan...

Posted by Chris Smith at 2:45 PM | Comments (4) | Permalink

Metro President Candidates on Funding

Part Three of our series on responses to our candidate questionnaire. Please remember the ground rules on comments for this series

There are some special rules for comments on these posts. As a 501(c)(3), Portland Transport cannot and does not endorse candidates. So please no comments of the form "you should vote for _______ because he said...". Feel free to comment on the policies, their implications and your feelings about them, but refrain from turning that into encouraging votes in a particular direction.

4. Funding:

How we pay for transportation has impacts both on the adequacy of funding and the way the transportation system is used.

Is the current level of resources sufficient to fund our transportation system? If not, how would you persuade voters and local, state and national leaders to increase funding?

[Burkholder] No. There are two big holes in the funding picture: one is maintaining the infrastructure we have; the other is to provide the transportation framework for high quality, compact and mixed use urban development throughout the region. I support increased funding at the regional, state and federal level. My leadership in the T4America Coalition and with the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations has given me the ability to push both greater funding as well as significant policy changes in the proposed federal transportation act including strong support for metropolitan role in planning and funding.

After serving for a year on the Governor's Transportation Vision Committee, contributing to the most progressive transportation funding bill in this state's history, I led a statewide effort through an organization I founded (Oregon Metropolitan Planning Organizations Consortium) to rally support for what became HB2001, raising much needed resources for local governments and creating new progressive policies such as GHG emission and least cost planning, mandating using federal transportation funds for non-road purposes as well as establishing a Urban Trails program for the first time at the state level. I was not happy with the earmarking (for the first time at this scale) of projects. Projects should be chosen based on clear outcomes and performance measures.

[Stacey] Our region has hundreds of miles of substandard streets and deferred maintenance. The Sellwood Bridge is near failure and many more bridges require seismic and other upgrades. Transit fares are rising as service hours are cut. At the same time, we expect our region to grow by a million people over the next 20 to 25 years, and the needs of that larger population will require billions for improvements in local street systems, transit, and cycling and pedestrian facilities. The region needs more resources for transportation, and needs to demonstrate to the public that those resources will be spent in accordance with a least-cost approach.

Any discussion of revenue for government service should begin with, and focus on, the service to be provided and the reliability of the estimated cost of that service. Transportation should be no different. Rather than seek the least objectionable tax, leaders should engage in a broad public dialogue about what transportation improvements the region needs, and then offer the public options for funding those improvements. I would start that process by framing it in terms of the scenario planning that Metro must do to develop strategies for reducing transportation greenhouse gases. This will enable the public to participate in selecting a desirable future development pattern and the transportation system for serving it, and then turn to the question of how best to fund that system.

Subject to that public process, my own views are that we should attempt to fund the transportation system with revenues derived from the transportation system. The "highway trust fund" (allocating all revenue from fees on fuels and vehicles solely to roads and bridges) has long been perceived to be a "user pays" system (despite the fact that local and state general fund resources have long supplemented highway trust fund dollars), and this has been a source of considerable popular support. The "user (or beneficiary) pays" model should be continued to the extent possible. Fees for services (examples include transit fares, charges based on vehicle miles traveled, parking charges, and congestion pricing tolls that ensure predictable travel times) can be combined with fees on undesirable aspects of the existing transportation system (e.g., surface parking spaces in excess of local requirements, greenhouse gas emissions, and peak-hour driving on congested facilities). Many of these approaches will be subject to the limitation of the "highway trust fund": fees on vehicle or fuels must be spent only on roads. Accordingly, it will also be necessary to explore with the public its willingness to modify the "highways-only" limitation in the Oregon Constitution.

Many funding tools have been proposed that have greater or lesser impacts on demand management. How would you deploy tools like gas taxes, VMT taxes, street maintenance feeds or various forms of tolling (or other tools) to meet our region's goals?

[Burkholder] User fees must become part of our toolbox. Congestion and parking pricing have great potential for raising needed revenue as well as reducing need for additional built capacity. In addition, traffic impact fees can effectively allocate costs to traffic generators as can system development charges. General property taxes are a good source for non-road investments as they are not limited by the state Constitution.

At Metro, I am working now on a potential infrastructure funding measure designed along the same lines as our successful Natural Areas Bond Measure to put before the voters in 2012.

[Stacey] See response to previous question. Charging fees for things we don't want--excess parking, low density auto-dependent development, greenhouse gases and other pollution, or peak-hour driving--can send market signals to consumers of the transportation system that will help the system work better.

Posted by Chris Smith at 7:40 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink

Coming Up on the KBOO Bike Show: Family Cycling

Join hosts Lindsay and Elly for a discussion of family bicycling. Our guests will share how they've mastered the fine art of carting toddlers around, riding with elderly parents, and juggling work, school, errands, soccer practice, and even long distance travel by bike.

11AM-Noon, Wednesday, March 3rd
KBOO FM 90.7
Streamed live at KBOO.fm
Podcast here later that day

Posted by Chris Smith at 12:55 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink

February 23, 2010

Metro President Candidates on the CRC

Part Two of our series on responses to our candidate questionnaire. Please remember the ground rules on comments for this series

3. Columbia River Crossing:

The CRC, even with the cost reductions currently being discussed, would represent a significant fraction of all transportation investment in the region in the next 20 years. What is the priority of the CRC versus other transportation investments?

[Burkholder] Interstate 5 is a major trade route for this region and the country. The bridge over the Columbia is a major choke point for freight and commerce. 25% of Jobs in the region are directly related to trade and this project addresses significant travel delays for freight in the center of the region and of the Ports of Vancouver and Portland. For these reasons, the Region, through the action of the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation, the Metro Council and the SW Washington Regional Transportation Council have declared this to be the number one regional transportation priority.

Of note is that the majority of funding for this project is project-specific, ie, without the project there would be no revenue from tolls, New Starts grants or special earmark for Project of National Significance.

[Stacey] The CRC alternatives recommended by the ODOT/WDOT project steering committee are unacceptable in part because of the disproportionately high cost of constructing them--a cost that would prevent the region from achieving other needed transportation investments. It is important to provide congestion relief on I-5 over the Columbia; but it is also important to address congestion that delays freight movement and commuters on every other stretch of the region's highway network. Temporarily reducing hours of delay at the bridge with a $3.5 billion to $4.2 billion investment, and thereby hastening an increase in hours of delay on I-5 at the next "choke point" on I-5 south of the bridge, is an unacceptable misallocation of resources. I have proposed lower-cost alternatives for the CRC that are aimed at easing congestion on the bridge without significantly increasing highway capacity.

Do you support a CRC project and if so, what is your preferred configuration?

[Burkholder] I believe this project must meet our sustainable economic and environmental principles, and reflect our region's clear outcomes for smart transportation investments.

My support of a Columbia River Project hinges on the inclusion of:

• Transportation choices - light rail, safe bike and pedestrian options, and freight mobility;
  
• A commitment to reduce the current environmental, financial and neighborhood impacts;
  
• A financially responsible pricing plan that is acceptable to citizens of this region.
  

[Stacey] The draft Environmental Impact Statement for the CRC shows that the proposed 10 to 12 lane bridge will support a 35 to 50 percent increase in traffic crossing the Columbia on I-5, with an attendant increase in global warming pollution. This increase in traffic cannot be accommodated by the six-lane freeway system on the Oregon side, leading to large increases in hours of delay on southbound I-5. This means hours more of slow and idling traffic spewing pollutants in North Portland neighborhoods adjoining the freeway, and significant increases in cut-through traffic on Interstate, Denver, Vancouver-Williams, and MLK. Coupled with massive expansions of interchanges and the freeway itself from Marine Drive to SR 500, this will render much of the corridor a very hostile environment for cyclists and pedestrians, whether or not improved pathways are made part of the bridge itself.

The increase in capacity on the bridge and on I-5 on the Washington side (expanding from six through lanes to eight, plus two additional on-off lanes) will induce low density auto-dependent development along the I-5 corridor in northern Clark County and increase political pressure on Oregon to "relent" on the long-standing policy of limiting the metro-area freeway system to six lanes and investing in alternative transportation choices instead.

I have recommended a package of least-cost improvements that will reduce peak-period congestion on the bridge, assist the region in achieving its greenhouse gas reduction goals, add diversity to transportation choices in the I-5 corridor, and not increase highway capacity in the corridor. I believe the following elements should be seriously considered:

1. Retain and seismically strengthen the existing I-5 bridge spans (estimated cost is roughly half the cost of demolishing the bridges);
2. Relocate the movable span of the downstream railroad bridge so that it is aligned with the highest span on the existing highway bridges, eliminating nearly all need for I-5 bridge lifts to accommodate commercial river traffic;
3. Apply variable-rate congestion pricing to the existing I-5 and I-205 bridges to maintain efficient traffic flow at peak periods;
4. Utilize tolling revenue to provide frequent express bus service during peak periods between Clark County and the TriMet transit system, until and unless Clark County elects to participate in extending light rail across the river;
5. Construct an additional bridge that can accommodate high capacity transit, bike and pedestrian facilities, and local traffic between Hayden Island, mainland Portland, and downtown Vancouver; and
6. Close the Hayden Island interchange on I-5 once the local traffic bridge is constructed, and redesign the SR 14 and Marine Drive interchanges to facilitate operation of the existing six lanes on the I-5 bridges as through lanes relatively free of merge movements.

There may well be other alternatives that also achieve balanced transportation and land use benefits. The current proposal is not one of them.

If you support the CRC, how would you propose to fund it and what impact would your funding proposal have on the availability of funding for other regional transportation priorities?

[Burkholder] The majority of the cost of the project is projected to be dependent on the project itself (Projects of National Significance, tolling, New Starts). Significantly, this project will not be able to be built without large federal investments--out of competitive programs like New Starts--supplemented by user fees, rather than out of local or regional pots of money. New Starts program provides funding for large, High Capacity Transit projects. Vancouver/Washington are well positioned to qualify for this program as there have been few HCT projects built in Washington State. In addition, Senator Murray has passed legislation that allows the road portion of the project to be used for local match for the New Start funds that could pay for most if not all of the Light Rail extension to Vancouver.

If the project does not get the New Starts funds and light rail is not included I will not support the project.

A second key difference with this project is that significant share of the project funding will come from tolls, not from general transportation funds. Tolling will also be useful in managing demand.

[Stacey] My proposal, outlined above, would cost significantly less because it does not require tearing down and replacing the existing bridges, and would not include widening I-5 in Washington north of the bridge. It would more likely be capable of funding, with smaller contributions from each, from the same combination of federal, state and local sources contemplated for the $4 billion version, including a significant contribution toward construction and operation of both highway and transit improvements from congestion-pricing toll revenue. My proposal could also be built in phases if necessary, rather than requiring an "all or nothing" $4 billion megaproject.

Posted by Chris Smith at 8:04 AM | Comments (11) | Permalink

New Desktop Widget for Transit Arrivals

If you're a user of iGoogle, you'll want to check out this new Google Gadget from one of our readers.

Posted by Chris Smith at 12:42 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink

February 22, 2010

Metro President Candidates: Vision and Policy

This week we'll be publishing the responses to our candidate questionnaire, starting with the vision and policy questions today.

Unfortunately Mayor Hughes has yet to reply to our questionnaire. If he does respond, we'll include his responses and update these posts when he does.

Meanwhile we'll proceed with the responses from Rex Burkholder and Bob Stacey. The order of responses was determined by a coin toss, and we'll use this order throughout the responses.

Other than formatting to fit consistently in the post format, the responses have not been edited, these are the words of the candidates. Where I thought adding a link to an external site provides useful context, I have have added links. If you question the choices of these links or have other suggestions, please provide comments on that.

There are some special rules for comments on these posts. As a 501(c)(3), Portland Transport cannot and does not endorse candidates. So please no comments of the form "you should vote for _______ because he said...". Feel free to comment on the policies, their implications and your feelings about them, but refrain from turning that into encouraging votes in a particular direction.

DO feel free to pose questions to the candidates themselves. We'll be alerting the campaigns as each of these post go up, and invite them to participate in the dialog.

Here we go...

1. Vision:

Assuming you serve two consecutive terms and are able to accomplish your goals, describe how mobility and access in the region will have changed.

[Burkholder] The Portland Metro Region will continue to lead the nation in active and healthy transportation infrastructure, including bicycling, walking and transit. In eight years I will have advanced practical strategies to most cost-effective integrate all modes of travel to move people and goods.

• Complete the Active Transportation vision I have led, exemplified by the $100M TIGER grant application Metro submitted on behalf of the region. More communities will have safe, attractive options for walking and cycling because of this investment. This will provide a transportation system that is affordable to all.
• Complete light rail to Milwaukie and be on the way to finishing the line to Tigard,
• Focus on key intermodal freight districts to strategically advance our position as a transportation and shipping hub.
• Work with federal government, and our bi-state region to advance intercity passenger rail and removing congestion for both freight and passenger rail.
• Forge a substantial commitment to get higher speed rail to Eugene, with an alignment agreed upon and first projects in place,
• Deliver key strategies for advancing transportation efficiencies in the region, including successfully piloting the first congestion pricing model project to better utilize our road capacity.
• Complete a sustainable and practical new transportation corridor between Oregon and Washington that fits within the region's financial constraints, that provides transportation options for all including a much needed light rail connection, world-class bike and pedestrian connections, and that targets freight improvements. Fund the non-federal component of the project through user fees, not regional funds.

[Stacey] By January of 2019 the Metro region will be in its fifth year of implementing major revisions of the 2040 Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan--revisions that successfully accommodate hundreds of thousands of additional residents without any increase in regional vehicle miles of travel over 2005 levels. The region will be on target to continue this pattern of robust growth without growth in driving, all the way to mid-century. Most new employment and housing will be located in town centers and on main streets, including such unconventional main streets as McLoughlin Boulevard, the Tualatin Valley Highway and east 122nd Avenue. Every neighborhood will be connected--or scheduled to be connected--to nearby town centers or main streets by a system of trails and pathways for pedestrians and cyclists, and a program of rebuilding main streets as green "complete streets" will be underway. Light rail will have reached downtown Vancouver and downtown Milwaukie, with the line to Tigard at least under construction; and bus rapid transit lines operating in dedicated lanes will move passengers on a growing network of main streets. The region will have realigned transportation spending to match policy goals, and will have developed new approaches to funding balanced transportation investments through a system of transportation user fees and fees on harmful impacts of some elements of the transportation system. Focused mixed use development and increasing availability of alternatives to driving will make it possible for most residents of the region to reduce their reliance on driving without reducing convenience or reducing their access to jobs, services or favorite destinations.

2. Policy Priorities:

The business community in conjunction with Metro has produced a "Cost of Congestion Report" that argues that congestion is a drag on our economy. Others would argue that safety or environmental concerns are more important factors. How do you balance these issues?

[Burkholder] What we have found through a focus on outcomes in the Regional Transportation Plan process that I led is that these are not mutually exclusive goals. Decreasing congestion through investments in getting people alternatives to driving alone has strong environmental and safety benefits, as well. The key is targeting investments smartly and using new tools to increase capacity.

[Stacey] I favor a "least cost planning" approach to transportation investment, in which multiple objectives (freight movement, commute travel time, growth management, climate change mitigation, equity, safety and others) can be optimized simultaneously and in which transportation demand and transportation supply are both assumed to be variables. A least-cost approach to congestion relief would look first to managing peak-hour demand (e.g., interchange and intersection management, ramp metering, and congestion pricing) before building highly expensive capacity expansions. Least-cost planning would next examine lower-cost accessibility improvements in a congested corridor (e.g., arterial and collector street improvement where expressways are burdened with local traffic that lacks surface-street alternatives; bike and pedestrian improvements; and increased service on existing transit lines serving the congested corridor). Finally, least cost planning would assess the performance and cost of various capacity expansion alternatives, together with the impact of such expansion on the full range of objectives being measured. In least-cost planning terms, capacity expansion includes construction of arterial or collector streets and construction of new transit facilities, not solely construction of wider or longer highways.

The Columbia River Crossing proposal provides a great laboratory for applying least-cost principles. See my responses to questions about that project below.

Adopted State and local policies have strong goals around vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) reduction in support of avoiding impacts from climate change. To a lesser extent there are also policies that recognize the risk of energy price or supply uncertainty due to peak oil. How should these issues be incorporated in regional transportation planning?

[Burkholder] These issues ARE incorporated into the updated, outcomes-based Regional Transportation Plan due to my insistence and advocacy. Through my leadership, the region has developed rigorous performance measures and investment criteria aimed at creating a transportation and urban fabric that is more resilient and less reliant on petroleum.

[Stacey] I authored and successfully lobbied for the legislation (2009 HB 2001, Section 37) creating the requirement that Metro undertake "scenario planning" to identify the transportation and land use strategies that will be needed to reduce global warming pollution from cars and light trucks to the levels prescribed by the 2007 Oregon Legislature (75% below 1990 emission levels by 2050). Under that law, Metro will receive federal pass-through funds from the state to fund a broad-based public involvement process to engage the people of the region--and Metro's local government partners--in deciding the best package of policies and actions to reduce Metro area residents' need to drive, so that we get sufficient cuts in vehicle emissions. This will involve reviewing the region's performance to date in achieving the smart growth and transportation-choices strategies of the 2040 Plan, and identifying the improvements or changes to that plan that will enable us to do better.

The 2007 ULI-published report Growing Cooler, a nationwide analysis of smart growth strategies like those at the core of Metro's 2040 plan, show that compact, mixed-use development can significantly reduce driving compared to the driving behavior of residents of standard suburban development. Cambridge Systematics' 2009 Report Moving Cooler outlines a series of transportation management and investment strategies that can further reduce dependence on driving. Metro's HB 2001 scenario planning can build on these reports' findings.

We know from the current update of the Regional Transportation Plan that we are not yet on track: current transportation investment strategies will lead to increases in the amount of driving in the region between now and 2035--increases that are inconsistent with achieving greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The region still plans and builds too many projects designed to increase highway capacity--including the proposed 10-to-12-lane "Columbia River Crossing"--that use scarce transportation dollars to move us in the wrong direction. We are also laying plans for future expansions of the regional UGB in the Urban and Rural Reserves process, without clearly understanding the greenhouse gas emission implications of such expansions. I will work to complete and adopt the results of the greenhouse gas reduction planning process before approving further UGB expansions or major highway expansions.

This scenario planning process for greenhouse gas reductions will be--at a minimum--a major update of the 2040 plan, and will require major revisions to the regional transportation plan. Accordingly, Metro should pursue it with the ambition of exceeding the public engagement successes of the 2040 adoption process 15 years ago, when an estimated 19,000 citizens participated. Done well, civic engagement on this scale will be a major opportunity for regional government to establish and renew relationships with the people of the region and demonstrate its value as a government, by providing us a path toward a future that is more sustainable economically as well as environmentally, one that leaves us better protected from the inevitable increases in energy costs that our nation and world face. It's an important job, and one that Metro should embrace as central to its mission.

The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) currently in the process of adoption is the first to model for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. The modeling shows that all versions of the plan increase GHG emissions, even more so that then the no-build scenario. JPACT has taken the position that the plan cannot be conformed to GHG goals in this cycle. How and when should the RTP be conformed to GHG goals?

[Burkholder] This updated RTP is a key first step in a larger process that includes all local jurisdictions updating their transportation plans to reflect the regional plan. This iterative process will drive further progress and climate improvements. I will continue lead Metro on this issue; we will develop a more intensive climate protocol for transportation as is expected to mandated by the Oregon Legislature. We will also be using the new tools we are developing to recommend changes in land use, urban design and building technologies to further reduce GHG emissions.

[Stacey] As noted in the above answer, Section 37 of 2009 HB 2001 directs Metro to conduct "scenario planning" utilizing its transportation demand and land development models (with needed refinements to both), to generate two or more visions of how the region can grow as expected by a million more people while staying within its assigned VMT target. Metro, in coordination with local governments, is directed to engage the public in an evaluation of the alternative scenarios, adopt one that achieves the greenhouse gas reduction goal for the transportation sector, and implement any needed changes in transportation and land use plans to implement the scenario. The law sets out time frames for this work between now and 2014. In other words, Metro will be required by state law to conform the RTP to GHG goals by the next update, due about four years from now. In the meantime, I will press to ensure that the region does not build major highway expansions that could take us in the wrong direction with global warming pollution, absent the kind of project-by project emissions analysis that Portland Mayor Sam Adams requested and that JPACT and Metro have so far declined to require.

Jobs/housing imbalance has been identified as a component of VMT growth. What policies can/should Metro adopt to redress imbalance?

[Burkholder] There are three actions Metro can and is taking under my leadership: Adopt new local plans for increased efficiency in land use including increase of mixed use zoning (using Construction Excise Tax revenues allocated through Metro); targeting transportation dollars to projects that leverage jobs where they are short and housing where it is short; protect industrial lands near population concentrations with Regional Significant Industrial Land designation.

[Stacey] The growing number of two-worker households makes "jobs-housing balance" a difficult target for individual communities or even "sub-regions" of Metro. Our best strategies are maintaining a compact urban form within a relatively stable urban growth boundary and accommodating most future regional jobs and housing growth in the designated 2040 Plan "centers" and along the transportation corridors connecting those centers. Building more walkable mixed use neighborhoods that are well served by all transportation options increases the likelihood that at least one worker per household can walk, bike, or take a short driving or transit trip to work, and that a wide range of other household trips can also be served by non-driving modes

How can regional policy improve combined housing/transportation affordability for households in our region?

[Burkholder] Car ownership and use is a major, sometimes the greatest, cost to households. Continuing to promote safe, attractive and practical alternatives throughout the region and working to increase mixed use (including employment/housing balance) are the most effective approaches. One sign of the importance of my championing innovation is that the measures of housing/transportation affordability developed at Metro under my leadership are a key component of the new Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities at HUD.

[Stacey] Every part of the region should have access to convenient transit service and safe bike and pedestrian connections to nearby destinations. Every part of the region should also provide access to affordable housing at below market rental levels and at prices affordable to first-time home buyers. Regional policies should encourage public and private provision of affordable housing in all communities, conveniently located in or near centers, main streets and other corridors well-served by the full range of transportation options. If elected I will work to ensure that affordable housing is on the list of critical urban infrastructure for which public resources should be allocated, along with transportation, sewer and water service, parks and natural areas, schools, and other community facilities.

Posted by Chris Smith at 8:24 AM | Comments (7) | Permalink

City Club Report on Transportation Governance Due Thursday

A City Club of Portland research committee has been looking at transportation governance in our region for the last year or so, and they are scheduled to release their report this Thursday, February 25 (look here on Thursday).

I had the privilege of helping brief the committee at the outset of their work on how transportation in the region is organized, and look forward to their thoughts on how it can be governed most effectively. As many of your know, transportation decision-making authority in the region is spread among many entities: the State (ODOT), region (Metro), TriMet and each County and City.

City Club will hold a program on March 3rd (5:30pm at the Club Offices at 901 SW Washington in Portland) and the membership will vote on the report at the March 5th Friday Forum.

Posted by Chris Smith at 12:21 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink

February 19, 2010

Sam Looking for Some CRC Nuance?

At both last week's Transportation Cabinet meeting and during a panel discussion on KBOO, I've heard Sam express some ideas that I find encouraging as ways to focus the Columbia River Crossing project:

1. The CRC acts as a freeway, an arterial and a local street at the same time. The design should comprehend these different uses.
2. The key economic benefit is increased freight capacity, but the current design delivers general-purpose capacity.

I suspect that a design that truly incorporated these two ideas would be a lot more appealing that what we're looking at now.

Posted by Chris Smith at 1:24 PM | Comments (26) | Permalink

Second Best ROI: ITS

For the last month or so I've been banging the drum that cycling is the absolute best return on investment for transportation dollars (and Thank You! Portland City Council for adopting the Bicycle Plan for 2030). So what comes after that?

I think Intelligent Transportation Systems are a good candidate for next highest Return on Investment. The Daily Journal of Commerce details some of Portland's efforts and aspirations in this area.

The basic idea is pretty simple and pretty smart - instead of investing in concrete and asphalt to expand capacity for mobility, work the existing system smarter to produce more effective capacity out on the street. Signals, sensors and communications are a lot cheaper than building new lanes...

Posted by Chris Smith at 12:10 AM | Comments (7) | Permalink

February 17, 2010

Guvs Talk Tough on CRC

Governors Kulongoski and Gregoire have responded to the letter from local officials asking for more local control and review of the Columbia River Crossing project: NO.

"We feel strongly this project must go forward without delay," Kulongoski and Gregoire wrote in their letter.

Coverage by the Trib and a particularly trenchant comparison to the Alaska Way Viaduct in Seattle from the Merc's Sarah Mirk.

Of course, when local leaders shook out the envelope the letter came in, they did NOT find the check for $1B that the two state governments are going to have to cough up to make this project go forward as currently conceived.

Posted by Chris Smith at 8:16 PM | Comments (35) | Permalink

What to Do About 217?

Portland State University
Center for Transportation Studies
Winter 2010 Transportation Seminar Series

Speaker: Randy McCourt, President, DKS Associates

Topic: Innovative Solutions for OR 217

When: Friday, February 19, 2010, 12:00 - 1:00pm

Where: PSU Urban Center Building, SW 6th and Mill, Room 204

Posted by Chris Smith at 12:29 AM | Comments (17) | Permalink

February 16, 2010

Getting Transit into the Jobs Bill

This from Transportation for America:

We just got word from our team on Capitol Hill - despite the massive blizzard bearing down on the East Coast this week, the Senate is pushing forward on an $85 billion jobs bill.

But the draft being circulated has not a single dollar to address the crisis in transit funding, which threatens severe cuts to essential service and the loss of thousands of jobs.

Tell your senators: Public transportation investments create jobs!

Posted by Chris Smith at 12:50 AM | Comments (2) | Permalink

February 15, 2010

CRC on KBOO Today

Locus Focus February 15: What the Heck is a Green Bridge?

KBOO's February 15th Locus Focus Program will focus on what to do with the controversial Columbia River Crossing Project. Guests include Metro Councilor Robert Liberty, Portland Mayor Sam Adams, and Vancouver's new mayor Mike Leavitt, all leaders who have spoken out against the 12-lane mega-bridge proposal.

Tune into Locus Focus this Monday, February 15, at 10:15 AM on KBOO-FM community radio 90.7; 91.9 Hood River; 100.7 Corvallis. And if you can't listen then, or if you live outside of KBOO's broadcast area, you can catch a podcast of the show anytime at http://kboo.fm/LocusFocus. You can also listen on your computer anywhere in the world to our live stream at http://kboo.fm/.

Posted by Chris Smith at 12:24 AM | Comments (5) | Permalink

February 12, 2010

A Good Day for Bikes in Portland

Thursday was indeed a good day!

The Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030 passed City Council unanimously, and Mayor Adams has promised to return in 30 days with a plan to kickstart $20M in new funding to get it rolling.

Obscured by that headline, earlier in the day City Council put all-but-the-finishing touches on the RICAP 5 zoning amendment package (one unrelated item needs to come back for further scrutiny in 3 weeks). This package includes an amendment increasing the required bicycle parking in new multi-dwelling buildings (condos and apartments). The current requirement is 0.25 spaces per unit (1 bike parking space for every four apartments or condo units). Under the revised code that ratio will go to 1.5 spaces/unit in the Central City and 1.1 in other parts of the City.

Posted by Chris Smith at 12:44 AM | Comments (13) | Permalink

February 11, 2010

TOD Never Gets Dull

Portland State University
Center for Transportation Studies
Winter 2010 Transportation Seminar Series

Speaker: Rick Willson, PhD, Professor, Cal Poly Pomona

Topic: Transit Oriented Development 2.0

When: Friday, February 12, 2010, 12:00 - 1:00pm

Where: PSU Urban Center Building, SW 6th and Mill, Room 204

Posted by Chris Smith at 12:24 AM | Comments (5) | Permalink

February 10, 2010

Better Choices than Wringing Our Hands?

More bad news for TriMet, and for us - they need to take $27M out of their budget this year, and that implies some big cuts in service.

Suppose as a community we decided it was time to do something else. How would we raise more revenue for transit operations (NOT for capital). How might we do it? Here are just a couple of ideas:

• A local sales tax dedicated to transit operations
• A tax on commercial parking spaces

What's your good idea? What would voters and leaders in this region sign up for?

Posted by Chris Smith at 8:37 AM | Comments (89) | Permalink

TheBus: The Legacy of Uncle Frank

This guest post is from a reader who comments regularly under the name "Engineer Scotty"

Last week, a good friend of mine who hails from Hawaii but now lives in the Portland area, posted a message on her Facebook page stating simply, "RIP Uncle Frank". At first, I thought it was a eulogy for a deceased relative (and so did at least one other local commenter, who offered my friend condolences), but several Hawaiian friends offered praise for Uncle Frank, thanking him for "da bus". Which led me off to Google and Wikipedia to find out just who Uncle Frank was.

Francis Fasi, known as Uncle Frank to many in the 50th state, was a Hawaiian politician who served over twenty years as mayor of Honolulu--six years as a Democrat, and twelve as a Republican. He also launched several unsuccessful runs for Governor from both major parties, and a few minor parties as well (minor parties play a bigger role in Hawaii politics than they do in Oregon). An iconoclast politician, Fasi was quite popular with the common folk in Hawaii's capital city, if not with the political and business establishment. Much as Tom McCall is revered in Oregon, Fasi was well-loved in the islands by many. He died last week at the ripe old age of 89, and had only retired from politics in 2004.

Why, you may ask, am I writing about a Hawaii politician on an Portland, Oregon transit blog? Because of what many consider to be Fasi's most enduring legacy and his gift to the people of Honolulu--the award-winning public transit system known simply as TheBus.

TheBus (or "da bus" to many), is a bus-based public transit system serving the island of Oahu. Similar in size to TriMet; TheBus operates a fleet of nearly 600 vehicles and serves nearly 72 million riders a year. This level of ridership is slightly larger than TriMet's bus system (66 million boardings last year); though when you add MAX into the mix, TriMet's daily boardings last year topped 100 million. The island of Oahu is about the same size as TriMet's service district--just under 600 square miles. The populations are similar--Oahu's population is about 1 million, the Tri-County area is about 1.5 million (most of whom live in the TriMet service district). In terms of per-capita transit ridership in US cities, TheBus claims to be sixth; TriMet claims to be seventh.

There are plenty of differences between bus service in Oahu and Portland. For one thing, the weather in Hawaii is better for waiting at bus stops. :) While Portland's population is spread out through the metro area (with a significant concentration in between the West Hills and I-205), most Oahu residents live in a ring along the coast, rather than in the mountainous interior; with the largest concentration in Honolulu itself. An interesting statistical difference is the number of bus stops; TriMet has almost 7200 stops in its system whereas TheBus has slightly over half that number, at 4200. Driving is much more expensive in Hawaii, and while Oahu has interstates (!), the road system is far less developed in Honolulu. TheBus is the primary means for transporting children to school, as opposed to dedicated fleets of school busses, and the system is frequently used by tourists as well.

TheBus markets itself more aggressively than TriMet, trying to make riding the bus appear "cool". Rotating color schemes are used on the rolling stock, rather than the staid tan/yellow/blue colorscheme TriMet uses (to say nothing of the ugly orange and brown). By many measures, TheBus' efforts are successful--many Hawaiians embrace their local transit agency. There are probably few folks in town who "love" TriMet, and many of its most dedicated customers are also its harshest critics--many of whom often allege that our agency is a bit dismissive of its bus service, preferring rail as a means of attracting "choice" riders. That said, Honolulu is considering a metro service along the SE coast; no word if it will be called TheTrain. :) (In a theme familiar to Portland riders, there's a proposal to divert funds from TheBus to help construct the rail line, which has a $5 billion price tag).

TriMet is a bit of a "faceless" agency, in that no particular public figure is singularly identified with TriMet. As the unquestioned political architect of TheBus, however, Uncle Frank has long been identified with the service, which is commonly known as "Uncle Frank's Limo Service" among natives. (Our last mayor named Frank, unfortunately, was not a friend of transit). Frank Fasi's death seems to have gone mostly unnoticed on the mainland, including on transit blogs; which is unfortunate--under his leadership, one of the best small-city transit systems in the nation has been built.

So, a fond aloha to Uncle Frank, as you journey to wherever the bus carries you.

Guest Column at 12:00 AM | Comments (9) | Permalink

February 9, 2010

Where's That Train?

One of our readers (and Transit Board™ users), e-mailed in this question over the weekend:

I have a question about the GPS real-time transit tracker system for MAX. I've noticed that there has been no real-time information for any MAX stop for many months, at least since the Green line went online. I've sent multiple emails to Trimet and even called, and they've never gotten back to me. Do you know anything about the reason for this lapse?

I don't, but I know we have many TriMet folks in our audience. Any info?

Posted by Chris Smith at 8:22 AM | Comments (14) | Permalink

Designing for Health

Two recent stories (via Planetizen: here and here) make the connection between health and how we design our urban environments and transportation systems:

• Five New York City departments have jointly released a document titled "Active Design Guidelines: A new definition for sustainable cities", covering everything from Urban Design to where to put the stairwells in buildings (hint: make it easier to find the stairs than the elevator).
• A study out of Berkeley has found that kids living in calmer traffic areas are less obese than those living near heavy traffic.

Posted by Chris Smith at 12:52 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink

February 8, 2010

Transportation in the State of the City

In Friday's State of the City address, Mayor Adams outlined several interesting ideas for transporation:

A Streetcar in Lents

Portland was a streetcar city and it shall return to being a streetcar city. And by "city," I mean citywide.

The Mayor showed a visual simulation of a streetcar on Foster, and the development it would stimulate.

And best of all, the streetcars are built right here by Oregon Iron Works - on sale to the rest of the country. The only streetcar that meets the Buy America requirements for federal dollars.

Commitment to the Bicycle Plan

The same goes for our brand new bicycle plan, which elevates our aspirations to one in four trips in Portland to be made on bicycle. It's the most ambitious, most comprehensive plan of its kind in the country. By building it out, we will be on par with the great bike cities of Northern Europe. There's been some chatter out there about cost, and that's fine. But folks, here's the bottom line: we can't afford not to build it. Think about the cost of any given trip made on bicycle versus private automobile. There's no such thing as a pothole caused by bikes. No noise and no emissions. And you're getting exercise, which, frankly, some of us - including yours truly - could use.

Even if you never plan to set foot on a bicycle, you benefit tremendously. Fewer vehicles, less congestion, reduced pollution.

We're Portland and we lead the nation in bicycling, because that's how we roll.

Sidewalks!

And if I'm talking innovation and greater resilience through transportation, I gotta talk about sidewalks. You may remember that the state legislature passed a modest increase in the gas tax last year. I want to put $16 million into sidewalk development in East Portland, North/NE Portland, and SW Portland - the areas of town annexed into the city that have never had sidewalks.

There is a caveat. Anti-tax types from elsewhere have submitted an initiative to the state to repeal that source of funding. When you see one of those signature gatherers on the streets I want you to think about Jean and her two infants. Jean can't afford a car; she relies on transit. Can we really expect her to safely get to her MAX stop - with her stroller in tow - without a sidewalk? Is that fair? Is that Portland? I say no.

Posted by Chris Smith at 4:07 AM | Comments (35) | Permalink

Potholes? There's an App for that

The City of Portland has an iPhone application that lets you report potholes, graffiti or other issues. You can include a photo and/or a GPS or map location.

I don't think I've seen an official announcement, so I suspect this is a beta or soft launch.

Posted by Chris Smith at 12:31 AM | Comments (2) | Permalink

February 5, 2010

CRC as Architecture

From the Architecture Foundation of Oregon:

PDXplore: Design in Progress

February 4 - 26, 2010

Come experience a growing collage of maps, drawings, ideas and questions about the Columbia River Crossing. This dynamic exhibition will evolve throughout the month as members of PDXplore engage in numerous discussions, add information, and accumulate layers of visitor participation.

Pacific Northwest College of Art
1241 NW Johnson | Portland, OR
Free and open to the public

Posted by Chris Smith at 12:04 AM | Comments (2) | Permalink

February 4, 2010

Game Time for the Bike Plan

City Council takes up the plan at 2pm today (Thursday).

Please come out and join the rally at 1:30 outside City Hall and then help fill the chambers at 2.

Find out more about what you can do to support the plan at the Build It campaign site.

Posted by Chris Smith at 12:49 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink

February 3, 2010

KBOO Bike Show: Bike Activism and the 2030 Plan

Listen to the show (mp3, 27.1MB)

The theme of today's show is bike activism in Portland, focusing on efforts to gain support for the 2030 Portland Bicycle Plan, which provides a road map for making Portland a truly world class bicycle city with 25% ridership in the next twenty years. The city council will be voting on the plan tomorrow, February 4th.

Guests include Evan Ross of Portland Bicycle Tours and the Bicycle Business League Ted Buehler, founding member of the Bike Temple; Carl Larson, from the BTA; Mia Birk, bike planner extraordinaire; Jessica Roberts, bike advocate extraordinaire; Joe Kurmanski, author and Jason Meggs, bike activist from the Bay Area.

[Unfortunately, this recording begins a few minutes into the show. We will try to post a replacement later in the week.]

Posted by Chris Smith at 1:50 PM | Comments (4) | Permalink

February, 2010 Open Thread

The original open thread for topic suggestions^* has grown quite large, and isn't always easy to find. I'm going to experiment with starting monthly open threads. Here's one, just two days late...

To get things started, here's a link (sent in by a reader) to an interesting article on how vehicles with bicycles on the roof or cargo carriers were running into trouble with the rules on extra-height vehicles established by the Ohio Turnpike Commission, and having to pay extra tolls:

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/01/ohio_turnpike_commission_rever.html

_{*Topics which have been already declared off-topic for the entire blog need not be re-suggested. :-)}

Posted by Bob Richardson at 10:32 AM | Comments (32) | Permalink

February 2, 2010

Wireless Devices Good for Transit Use?

Over at his Price Tags blog, Gordon Price speculates that bans on driving while texting and calling will encourage people to take transit so they can keep their cell phones active and in-use.

And the Infrastructurist speculates that the iPad will make commuters so productive on transit that they'll leave their cars behind.

Somehow I don't think it's that easy, but we'll take all the help we can get.

Posted by Chris Smith at 9:30 AM | Comments (9) | Permalink

Focus on SB 1059

The Oregon Environmental Council would like you to support SB 1059.

The bill (PDF) would direct the Departments of Transportation and Land Conservation and Development to develop land use and transportation "scenarios" to reduce greenhouse gases and create administrative rules to direct the six major metropolitan areas in the state to create plans to meet State greenhouse gas goals.

This bill is based on the recommendations of a panel created by the last legislative session. One outcome would likely be to create the framework under which Metro would need to conform the RTP to GHG goals.

Here's the direct action link.

Posted by Chris Smith at 12:03 AM | Comments (11) | Permalink

February 1, 2010

First Eastside Streetcar Rails Go Down Today

I just learned that the first segment of rail for the Streetcar Loop project will be laid on NE Grand today!

Posted by Chris Smith at 10:18 AM | Comments (22) | Permalink

What Kind of Traveler are You?

Via World Streets:

A survey in Germany identifies five types of travelers, with respect to their attitudes around greenhouse gases and transportation choices:

1. Public transport rejecters. These believe public transport provides little sense of control or excitement. They are not open to change and see access to mobility as very important.
2. Car individualists. Similar to public transport rejecters, but are open to change and consider privacy more important.
3. Weather-resistant cyclists. Positive towards bicycles and will cycle even in bad weather.
4. Eco-sensitised public transport users. Positive towards public transport and are highly influenced by their environmental conscience.
5. Self-determined mobile people. Perform the highest percentage of trips by foot; they do not consider mobility important and are not open to change.

I'm probably closest to #4, but also blend in some cycling when the situation and the desire/opportunity for exercise support it.

Which are you?

Would an American survey generate a different set of buckets?

Posted by Chris Smith at 6:56 AM | Comments (7) | Permalink

CRC Open House on Hayden Island Issues

From the Columbia River Crossing Project:

PORTLAND - The Columbia River Crossing project and the Portland Working Group are hosting an open house Feb. 10 for the public to learn about improvements to Hayden Island, including the latest roadway and light rail designs; pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle access around the island; strategies for commercial and residential development around the transit station; and safety and security measures.

The Portland Working Group is composed of community members from Hayden Island and North Portland.

CRC and the Portland Working Group are working to ensure that CRC investments on Hayden Island will help realize the neighborhood vision in Hayden Island Plan, the City of Portland's blueprint for planning and development on the island. Representatives from CRC, the Portland Working Group, City of Portland, Oregon Department of Transportation, and TriMet will be available at the open house to provide information and answer questions.

Hayden Island Open House
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
5:30 - 7:30 p.m.
Jantzen Beach SuperCenter, Community Room (near carousel and food court)
1405 Jantzen Beach Center, Portland

Accommodations for people with disabilities or in need of language translation can be arranged with advance notice by calling CRC at 866-396-2726, through the Washington Relay Service at 7-1-1 or the Oregon Relay Service at 800-735-2900.

The Columbia River Crossing project will extend the MAX Yellow light rail line 2.9 miles from the Expo Center in Portland to a station near Clark College in Vancouver. There will be a station on Hayden Island, providing regular transit service to key regional destinations in downtown Portland and Vancouver. The project will enhance pedestrian and bicycle connections between the station, businesses, and residential areas.

Posted by Chris Smith at 12:50 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink