What do global warming, the end of “cheap oil” and the Legislature’s refusal to raise gas taxes the 12th session in a row have in common? Together they are creating the perfect storm for transportation as we know it.
Storms sink most boats but they also give rise to great surfing for those who anticipate and are prepared to ride out the waves instead of fighting them. Every community in the US is facing the same storm in one form or another. No place has enough money to build its way out of congestion, and Portland is no exception (compare congestion numbers at the Texas Transportation Institute’s website).
No place except maybe Texas has oil to meet its local needs (US production peaked in 1970’s and the world production peak is fast approaching) and burning all this fuel to accomplish errands we could do on foot, by bike or on transit is having major impacts on the survivability of our species.
How do we keep commerce flowing if the roads are clogged with commuters? When gas goes to $5 a gallon what will people living in north Clark County (where they can still buy a 1 acre lot in sprawlurbia) and commuting to Hillsboro do? Can bikes really save the world? If everyone wants to live in the city, where will they live? And just as fundamental to our sustainability, where will people of lesser means live if the well-to-do continue to bid them out of their conveniently located homes?
These are themes that I will be exploring in future contributions to this blog. Stay tuned!
8 responses to “Another Metro Councilor Lays Out a Vision”
One wonders which unit of government has or should have the responsibiltiy to prepare Portland for “life after the oil crash” lifeactertheoilcrash.net
This website provides a wealth of information about this topic and also has a short section at the end about “what can I do to prepare”. It references Yahoo Groups called Running on Empty and Oil Awareness Meetup Groups.
Is this a Metro responsibility? I’d be interested in the answer to this question.
Peak oil is a very pressing thing, and I am excited to see you pursue its implications on the Rose City. I’ve been studying it for about 18 months, and all signs point to peak oil occuring sometime very soon… possibly now plus or minus a year. Definitely by 2008.
Consider: no new oil refineries or oil tankers built for the past few years. Clearly those who invest in this stuff don’t expect any new growth past 2007.
As far as what I think PO has to do with transportation planning — a few points come to mind.
1) No new road projects whatsoever. If peak is even five or ten years away, that is money and valuable resources spent on something that will not be needed within a decade.
2) Advocating for more bicycle lanes is probably not our biggest priority. If peak oil eliminates most cars relatively soon, bikes are suddenly not limited to our own measly lanes — within a few years after peak I’d wager it won’t be out of the question for us to EASILY be able to bike over the Marquam bridge.
3) Any mass transit expansion Tri-Met does MUST be 100% not dependent on fossil fuels. No petro-based busses or natural gas trucks… we’re going to run out of ’em, so no reason to invest in the infrastructure which has made peak oil such an imminent problem now.
Finally for anyone reading this that isn’t aware of peak oil too much, I highly reccomend the above poster’s link to http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net , as well as a Eugene/Lane County site at http://www.permatopia.com , and for the geopolitical implications http://www.fromthewilderness.com .
Peace,
Brandon
Peak oil is a very pressing thing, and I am excited to see you pursue its implications on the Rose City. I’ve been studying it for about 18 months, and all signs point to peak oil occuring sometime very soon… possibly now plus or minus a year. Definitely by 2008.
Consider: no new oil refineries or oil tankers built for the past few years. Clearly those who invest in this stuff don’t expect any new growth past 2007.
As far as what I think PO has to do with transportation planning — a few points come to mind.
1) No new road projects whatsoever. If peak is even five or ten years away, that is money and valuable resources spent on something that will not be needed within a decade.
2) Advocating for more bicycle lanes is probably not our biggest priority. If peak oil eliminates most cars relatively soon, bikes are suddenly not limited to our own measly lanes — within a few years after peak I’d wager it won’t be out of the question for us to EASILY be able to bike over the Marquam bridge.
3) Any mass transit expansion Tri-Met does MUST be 100% not dependent on fossil fuels. No petro-based busses or natural gas trucks… we’re going to run out of ’em, so no reason to invest in the infrastructure which has made peak oil such an imminent problem now.
Finally for anyone reading this that isn’t aware of peak oil too much, I highly reccomend the above poster’s link to http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net , as well as a Eugene/Lane County site at http://www.permatopia.com , and for the geopolitical implications http://www.fromthewilderness.com .
Peace,
Brandon
What level of government is responsible for anticipating and responding to the future, especially threats as dire and all pervasive as the loss of a major input to our lifestyle and economy?
One would think that all levels of government would mobilize to address such a calamity. And would do it in an organized, comprehensive manner. Which, in the United States, would mean federal leadership. I don’t have much hope for that, to put it mildly. Even the Democratic leadership is ignoring the signs of major changes fast approaching. When the power of “business-as-usual” is so great, and well funded (check out http://www.publicampaign.org/) especially by the energy lobbies and auto manufacturers, threats like global warming and fossil fuel scarcity are ignored.
But this doesn’t mean we do nothing. Already there are over 160 cities pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, pulled together by Seattle Mayor Nickles. Obviously we need to start a similar grassroots effort on peak oil. There is a lot of precedence for federal action to follow local and state action, like increased CAFE standards and the No Call list.
Here at Metro we are beginning two major public education and involvement efforts on transportation and land use. One is to update the Regional Transportation Plan and the other is to re-visit the region’s 50 year plan, known as 2040. I am committed to ensuring that both include in depth discussion of both global warming and fossil fuel depletion as major trends that we need to address.
Will the state and federal governments follow our lead? I really don’t know. Knowing the incredible changes that are required to adapt to a not very pleasant future I have my doubts. People usually ignore bad news until it hits them in the face. Elected officials are no different. Denial is comfortable.
My personal experience as a grassroots organizer tells me not to expect leaders to be able to make massive changes unless there is public agitation. We all need to work to get these issues in the forefront of the public and demand response from all levels of government.
One major effect of “peak oil” which I believe we are already seeing directly in the marketplace is in the airline industry. Their government hand outs are all well known. But the price of jet fuel will require more hand outs going forward to keep them afloat. At some point, the airlines will not be able to find the jet fuel.
Our planners, leaders, business owners, and public need to understand the reality now and prepare. Saudi Arabia made it official, reduced production starting in 2015. Once the Saud fields start drying up, the world will change overnight.
Using High Speed Rail will be our answer (just like Europe), or we will be isolated without jet fuel, diesel, or gasoline. If we plan now, and start building in 2010 we can help Portland stay connected to Seattle and Vancouver BC..
We have to start acquiring the land corridor now for HSR from the Columbia River Crossing down to Eugene. That is phase I with phase II to the California border. We are way behind the curve here. Going east is another story. Getting connected to Seattle is critical, in my mind. We will need to support each other.
We are ahead of the game in alot of ways in Portland compared to alot of US cities. We have close farmland; a maturing light rail system; the 2040 Concept to support light rail; hydro-electric and wind power nearby; and a population that is progressive and forward looking. We can do this if we talk it out and plan for the day to come.
Ray Whitford
As a college student at SJSU 50 years ago we were taught that there was a 10 year supply of Oil. Now it looks like 40 to 500 years left. We were also taught there was Global Cooling and now it is Warming, I think. There is a profit in spreading BS. Get the facts.
The third rail in transportation planning that no one wants to touch is DISINCENTIVES. Even Metro president David Bragdon, hardly a toady to big oil, has come out strongly in favor of adding lanes to the Sunset Hwy to reduce congestion. In other words, he wants to make it easier for people to drive.
But until the stick goes along with carrot and driving becomes harder to do – all the “ride your bike, get a free water bottle and save the planet” campaigns we can mount will have only fringe appeal.
We are evolved to be as lazy as possible. It is a survival technique. Despite the Nike ads, we didn’t run for fun out there on the savannahs of Africa, we ran when something big was chasing us. Or we were chasing dinner. Similarly, most Americans (Chinese, Austrailians, humans) are not going to do something that takes more effort than driving until driving costs them a lot more – either in terms of time or money.
So far – even the most enlightened politicians have deemed DISINCENTIVES for driving, be they passive or active, to be political suicide. And they are probably right. David Bragdon won’t stay in office if he opposes widening the Sunset Hwy. But until disincentives come along, either through political will or by disaster, not much will change.
Lowell wrote:
“As a college student at SJSU 50 years ago we were taught that there was a 10 year supply of Oil. Now it looks like 40 to 500 years left. We were also taught there was Global Cooling and now it is Warming, I think. There is a profit in spreading BS. Get the facts.”
Fact: Your statement and belief structure (paradigm) is based on a professor in a classroom fifty years ago and your own personal opinion. I personnally need alittle bit more data from you because current and former oil industry employees plus independent groups not financially connected to the oil industry are all saying the same thing. Peak Oil is coming.
Fact: Consumption is growing worldwide (duhh, population is growing and getting access to the middle class) with the two countries with the largest populations (China and India) growing faster then we are. Result? Accelerated consumption of oil products.
Fact: There has not been a major oil field strike in thirty five years! Do you think oil riggers has stop trying to find new oil fields? Come on! Smell the dinosaur bones, Lowell. Those big lizards were only in control for 50 Million years or so. They were finite too and fossil fuel will be to.
Fact: The largest oil field in the world, Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, is having salt water injected into the perimeter of the field to kept pressure up for extraction of the remaining oil. At soom point, this process will not kept the pressure up or the cost/benefit ratio will be negative to the Saudi owners of the field. Kept your eyes on that oil field for it is keeping us from seeing $4.00 per gallon. That one oil field supplies 5 percent of the world supply (50% of Saudi production, Saudi supplies 10# of world production).
Deal with it. Get the Facts, Lowell