In 1973 the Oregon Legislature passed SB 100 creating a strong statewide land-use planning program. A set of 19 Statewide Planning Goals, are at the foundation of this planning. Every city and county is required develop local comprehensive plans that are consistent with these goals.
Statewide Planning Goal 12 is Transportation. Division 12, OAR 660-012-0000, is known as the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) and provides the details for local communities to implement Goal 12. The TPR specifically sets details for developing Transportation System Plans, or TSPs, that guide local transportation investments.
On July 19th a Joint Subcommittee of the Oregon Transportation Commission and Department of Land Conservation and Development is set to recommend a complete overhaul of the purpose statement of the TPR! In almost complete secrecy, the process that was sparked by a few stakeholders’ concerned with the words “reduced reliance of the automobile” has turned into a total policy gut and stuff.
The First sentence of the current TPR currently reads:
The purpose of this Division is to implement Statewide Planning Goal 12 (Transportation) and promote the development of safe, convenient and economic transportation systems that are designed to reduce reliance of the automobile so that the air pollution, traffic and other livability problems faced by urban areas in other parts of the country might be avoided.
The TPR provides the teeth to alternative mode advocacy and vision to Oregon’s transportation planning. ODOT is quietly behind gutting it. I appeal to you to get involved demand a transparent and full process.
The LCDC Commissioners on the Subcommittee are: Hanley Jenkins, Ron Henri and Marilyn Worrix
Contact members of the LCDC at: http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/lcdc.shtml#Current_Members
Read the Proposed Changes to the TPR Purpose Statements:
http://www.bta4bikes.org/act/advocacy.html
Read the TPR at: http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_600/OAR_660/660_012.html
[Thanks to Rob Zako for a primer on the TPR]
Updated July 20, 2005
ODOT has posted a better side-by-side comparison of the old and new language (PDF).
37 responses to “[Updated] Secretly Gutting the Transportation Planning Rule”
Rob Zako is vacationing, but asked me to pass along the following info:
1) ODOT and DLCD each have web pages related to amendments to the TPR:
ODOT: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/TPR.shtml
DLCD: http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/transplan.shtml
The ODOT page tends to be more up-to-date.
2) The first page gives notice of the next meeting:
The Joint Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC)/Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) Transportation Subcommittee will be held on July 19, 2005 from 1-4 pm at the ODOT HR Center located at 2775 19th Street SE, Salem, OR 97302-1503. Meeting materials have been sent to members of the subcommittee and interested parties. Map.
The subcommittee will discuss:
a) Amendments to TPR Section 0070 concerning exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals for transportation projects.
b) Amendments to TPR’s purpose statement.
c) Amendments to the TPR that apply to metropolitan areas.
d) Guidelines for following the recent amendments to TPR Section 0060 concerning the effects of land use changes on the transportation system.
e) Discussion of adding a creating a list of transportation projects that are “reasonably likely” to be constructed during the planning period.
f) Discussion of zone changes and land use changes made for the benefit of a single developer.
g) Amendments to TPR Section 0050 concerning transportation project development as separate from transportation planning.
Finally after all of the above, the subcommittee has set aside 15 minutes for public comments.
[Editorial note from Rob: It takes my breath away to consider the amount of changes the subcommittee is rushing through.]
3) The next meeting of the TPR Work Group, which advises the Joint OTC/LCDC Transportation Subcommittee, will be held on August 2, 2005 from 9:00-12:00 at the ODOT HR Training Center, located at 2775 19th Street SE in Salem. Meeting materials and directions/map will be sent out a week in advance of the meeting.
I would also add that earlier this year ammendments were made in a very last minute manner (bundled with ammendments resulting from the Jaqua case) that created the so-called “1/2-mile rule” that may create issues with high-density development in the Portland Metro area.
Here is the first paragraph of the memo fond by following the article’s links:
This issue was originally identified through the Stakeholder Interviews conducted in August 2004. Stakeholders indicated that there is the perception that the Purpose Statement (Section 660-012-0000) of the TPR, by including the phase “reduce reliance on the automobile” and not including references to “supporting economic development” has created a negative perception of the intent of the TPR. The “reduce reliance” phrase is derived from language in Goal 12 that directs a transportation plan to “avoid principal reliance upon any one mode of transportation”. The phrase is viewed by some as problematic and an obstacle for local jurisdictions to overcome when they work with the local community to prepare a TSP. (Bold added)
Two things are apparent here:
1. Reduce reliance on the automobile was not in the original goal, but added by some anti mobility person.
2. Who can disagree with adding “supporting economic development”. Do these objectors want Oregon’s economy to get further behind the national average. Are they really trying to emulate Mississippi instead of LA?
They must be ignorant of basic facts:
Cars use less energy than mass transit.
Cars save money compared to mass transit.
Cars save time which is either more leisure time or more time earning money.
Cars are more convent. They are at you doorstep and carry you to the door step at the local strip mall, or close to the doorstep of the local WinCo. (I choose Winco as an example of where one can go to increase your standard of living by having more money left over after shopping for the necessities. That more money can get a better house, or better education or a vacation. All things that are more difficult for the transit dependant.)
Thanks
JK
references:
http://www.saveportland.com/Car_Vs_Tri-Met/TriMet_vs_Car5.htm
Page 2-14 of TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 24 ORNL-6973 (download from: http://cta.ornl.gov/data/download24.shtml
Page 7 of Metro’s “metro measured”, available at: http://66.78.76.163/metrodocs/metro_measured.PDF
At issue here is Goal #1, public involvement. what started as a minor fix of the administrative rule to respond to the case of Jaqua vs. City of Springfield has morphed into a major rewrite of the rule that some would argue changes the intent of the statute, something only the Legislature is empowered to do.
That there are contrasting views of the policies and goals of the State is not the issue here, its whether a very quiet, virtually closed process is appropriate for this discussion. Just to let you know, both the Metro Policy Advisory Committee and the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation, made up of elected officials and agency heads from the whole Metro area (including the suburban reps) supported sending a letter and promising a heavy lobbying effort with the two state commissions to open this discussion up to a broader group of stakeholders and to specifically oppose the adopted amendments which place freeway interchange protection above economic development in urban as well as rural areas.
JK wrote:
> They must be ignorant of basic facts:
Oh, really?
> Cars use less energy than mass transit.
Your reference uses an idealized car that gets much higher MPG than the USA fleet average. Your statement should say “Usually, transit uses less energy than cars, but under idealized hypothetical conditions with an efficient enough car and enough passengers, cars can use less energy than mass transit.”
> Cars save money compared to mass transit.
Your cited reference omits the cost of insurance, fuel, parking (when necessary) and maintenance for the car.
Try harder next time.
– Bob R.
Here is the letter that Councilor Burkholder mentions in his post, minus the maps referenced as Exhibit A:
___________________________________________________
July 14, 2005
John VanLandingham, Chair
Land Conservation and Development Commission
635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150
Salem, OR 97301-2540
Dear Chair VanLandingham:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the recent update to the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). We commend the joint OTC/LCDC Transportation Subcommittee for producing these amendments in such a short time frame, in support the Commission’s desire to remedy the critical issues raised by the Jaqua vs. City of Springfield case. However, we view some of the new provisions as substantial changes to the rule that go beyond the needed remedy to the Jaqua case and shift the purpose of the rule away from the intent of Goal 12 Transportation. This change in scope calls for a broader consideration of how the rule is being amended, with more opportunity for stakeholders to participate.
Specifically, we are asking the Commission to reopen discussion of the “1/2 mile rule” interchange protections and “reasonably likely” process for ODOT’s involvement in land use planning. Our concerns are primarily over how these provisions would frustrate our efforts to accommodate growth and implement the 2040 Growth Concept in our region, and would actually increase transportation liabilities in the long term by encouraging urban sprawl. There is a consensus in our region that these changes warrant much more discussion and analysis before they are implemented through local plans. We are confident that more effective solutions than a “one size fits all” approach could be developed if we worked in partnership with the Commission. We also know that other communities in the state will confront some of these same unintended consequences, and should be part of this larger discussion.
When the Commission adopted these recent amendments, you encouraged local agencies to work with the Commission to fine-tune the rule to best meet state and local planning needs. While our conclusion is that the “1/2 mile” and related “reasonably likely” provisions should be revisited and discussed much more broadly, we have also gathered specific comments on the impacts of the new rule in our region. The following is a more detailed discussion of our concerns with these provisions, and how we think they could be improved to reflect the complexity of planning in larger urban settings.
The 1/2 Mile Rule
The “1/2 mile rule” represents a shift in purpose for the TPR away from the notion that land use and transportation are inseparable policy realms that must be considered jointly and comprehensively in order to achieve vibrant, desirable communities for Oregonians to live and work in. The “1/2 mile rule” deviates from this past practice by separating one set of transportation investments from the larger transportation system in the planning process, and elevating the issues of transportation revenue constraints above other urban planning concerns.
One of the unintended impacts of the “1/2 mile rule” in the Metro region will be to frustrate our efforts to implement the Region 2040 Growth Concept in many areas. The maps shown in Exhibit ‘A’ show how numerous station communities, main streets, town centers, regional centers and the central city called out in the 2040 Growth Concept are affected by the rule, since several existing and planning light rail corridors are located adjacent to affected interstate highways. The first map shows the 2040 designations, and the second shows the local jurisdiction progress in actually implementing these designations through local zoning. The second map shows local zoning, and reveals the degree to which the Interstate and I-205 light rail corridors, in particular, would be affected by the rule. In these areas much of the local planning to implement station communities has yet to be completed. In this way, the “_ mile rule” does not even acknowledge neither the presence, nor benefits, of high capacity transit in highway corridors.
Attachment ‘B’ provides more detail on local planning efforts that will likely generate plan or zoning amendments within the affected “1/2 mile rule” area, and is a first draft that will be expanded to include additional efforts in the I-5 south and I-205 south areas. There are similar activities underway in the Highway 217 and 26 corridors, though it is unclear if the TPR provisions affect these areas.
We also see an unintended effect of this new regulation, which we believe will simply push development from congested, older interchanges to the urban fringe or neighbor cities, where road capacity is still available or new investments have just been completed. For example, while the rule might prohibit a desired mixed use development at an older I-5 interchange in a Portland station area, it would allow a less-desired big box retail development at the recently rebuilt 242nd Avenue interchange on I-84, where surplus highway capacity exists.
The “1/2 mile rule” also fails to protect facilities adequately in an urban setting, where interchanges generally serve much larger areas, and the most critical interchange access considerations fall outside the _-mile radius. While we share the state’s commitment to protect the public investment in highway interchanges against inappropriate land use actions, we also believe that a more effective alternative to the “1/2 mile rule” is needed in urban areas. Though a small share of the state’s highway interchanges are located in the Metro region, they are among the most heavily used and serve as gateways to the state’s most important marine and air terminals, and provide primary access to public facilities like the Oregon Convention Center, Oregon Health and Science University, Central Post Office, Portland State University, Oregon Zoo, Metro Expo Center and many other cultural, commercial, medical and recreational destinations that serve residents of the entire state. Thus, we are keenly aware of the need to protect these access points over the long term.
We believe that some other mechanism is needed to protect these interchanges, but that such strategies ought to be part of the comprehensive planning process. The Commission has already called out special provisions for the state’s metropolitan regions in the TPR, including a regional transportation plan in the state’s six largest urban areas, so this existing forum could be used to determine interchange policy in urban areas. For example, the TPR could distinguish between different urban areas by size and establish tailored expectations for managing interchanges according to the specific needs of each region.
Clarifying Funding Plans vs. Funding Mechanisms
The recent amendments to the TPR also resulted in a confusing mix of transportation funding terminology that requires clarification, at a minimum. But on a larger level, the amendments also shifted the TPR from a philosophy of developing aspirational plans to a much more pessimistic vision, where land use plans are constrained by current funding shortfalls. The flaw in this philosophy is that growth in our region will come, no matter our transportation funding levels. Thus, limiting development in existing urban areas based on funding constraints has the unintended effect of pushing out our urban growth boundary (UGB) since we are required by state rules to maintain a rolling, 20-year supply of developable land. This strategy is the highest-cost approach, and inconsistent with the argument that the “_ mile rule” will protect the state and ODOT from transportation improvement liabilities.
A related issue is how the region would actually expand the UGB in the future. The recent expansion in the Wilsonville area, for example, would likely be affected by the new TPR regulations, since I-5 is near capacity at the North Wilsonville interchange. In this case, the state has established conflicting rules, where one policy directs urban expansion by Metro through a UGB amendment, and another discourages local jurisdictions from applying local zoning that would make the land developable.
At a minimum, the rule should be amended to clarify the confusing overlap between the terms “funding plan” and “funding mechanism”. Neither is defined, and there is a disagreement between state and local staff on whether the LCDC intended to change the purpose of a “funding plan” with the recent amendments in an effort to adopt the more pessimistic approach to urban planning. For the purpose of the rule, we recommend that “funding plans” be defined as a TSP element where a strategy, or range of strategies, establish a road map for funding transportation revenue shortfalls during the 20-year plan period. Conversely, “funding mechanisms” would be identified as adopted or approved sources of transportation revenue that can be used to fund projects and programs identified in TSPs. In doing so, the Commission could restore the original concept of a “funding plan” that seeks to map out possible funding solutions for meeting growth demands, but not be limited to a certain set of funding mechanisms.
A better definition of funding terminology could replace the need to rely on ODOT interpretations of “reasonably likely” transportation improvements in local planning decisions. This new process will introduce great uncertainty and ambiguity (and likely litigation) into local planning decisions, adding an unnecessary new step in the already complicated land use planning process. Local officials in the Metro region expressed concern over placing the role of an ODOT administrator above that of elected policy makers in making land use decisions, a significant departure from current practice. Instead, we believe that better interchange protections are possible through improved consultation and coordination between ODOT and local governments, using existing plans in most cases, and possibly interchange area management plans for locations where interchange function is deemed to be at risk.
Conclusion
We look forward to continued participation and comment on the remaining portions of the TPR as Commission completes its review. We also hope you will reopen discussion of the recently adopted amendments addressed in this letter, and committed to finding solutions that better match our urban setting, while still meeting state needs. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this important effort.
Sincerely,
Rex Burkholder
JPACT Chair
Jack Hoffman
MPAC Chair
David Bragdon, President
Metro Council
cc: Members of the LCDC
Lane Shetterly, DLCD
Members of the Oregon Transportation Commission
Director, Oregon Department of Transportation
__________________________________________________
Attachment ‘A’
TPR Analysis Maps for the Portland Metropolitan Region
__________________________________________________
Attachment ‘B’
Local Impacts Examples for the Metro Region
The following are local examples of how the “1/2 Mile Rule” could impact current efforts to implement the Region 2030 Growth Concept along interstate highway corridors:
Interstate-84 Interchanges
1. NE 60th Ave and NE 82nd Avenue Station Communities: The City of Portland is seeking Transportation Growth Management (TGM) funds to study eastside station areas; for these two specific areas, the primary goal is the improvement the pedestrian environment for neighborhood access to the light rail stations.
2. Multnomah County Farm property at 242nd Avenue: this 46 acres site across from Edgefield development is currently zoned LIght Industrial, but within Troutdale’s town center boundary. Multnomah County is currently marketing the property, and the City expects it to change to a mixed use or commercial land use designation, consistent with the 2040 plan.
Interstate-205 Interchanges
1. Parkrose/Sumner Town Center: The City of Portland is seeking TGM funds to study this eastside station area located at the Sandy Boulevard interchange, and expects a change in land use designations.
2. Market/Main Street Station Community: this interchange area is within the Gateway Urban Renewal area and it has already been zoned for higher density development; however, additional changes to zoning may accompany the construction of the I-205 light rail line.
3. Stark/Washington and Glisan/Halsey Interchanges: TriMet and the PDC are partnering on redevelopment projects in the Gateway Regional Center, including replacing the existing surface park and ride with a mixed-used development and parking structure. As such developments become more specific, zoning adjustments may be required. The Gateway area is an example where 2040-based zoning represents a substantial change in land use, and as these areas redevelop, changes to refine zoning to match emerging development trends are expected.
4. Powell Boulevard Station Community: the 2040 plan calls for a station community at the Powell Boulevard interchange upon completion of the I-205 light rail extension, and will require changes to existing plan and zoning designations to allow redevelopment to occur.
5. Fuller Road Station Community: this area is currently zoned for low traffic commercial, but the development on the ground is primarily (nonconforming) residential and is surrounded by big box retail. The station area is being considered as a site for a North County Clackamas Community College campus, which would probably have a medical training focus. Both transit and freeway access would be highly desirable for this facility, but new zoning would be required to permit a campus and accompanying mixed-use development at the Fuller Road station area.
6. Clackamas Regional Center: the County expects to complete additional station area planning in response to the I-205 light rail extension that will result in changes to the Clackamas Regional Center plan designations.
Interstate-5 Interchanges
1. Central Eastside Development Opportunity Strategy: The Portland Development Commission have been developing an investment strategy for this area, which includes most of the land between the Willamette River and Third Avenue in the Central Eastside. In conjunction with this effort, the Portland Bureau of Planning is proposing modifications of existing zones in the area to allow a broader range of uses that would create a more lively, diverse area than currently exists under the industrial sanctuary zoning. This area is served by the Water Avenue and Morrison Bridge interchanges.
2. Interstate Avenue Station Communities – The Portland Development Commission and Planning Bureau are engaged in a major update to zoning along the new Interstate MAX corridor that includes new land use designations, and urban renewal investments to spur mixed-use development. The zoning has not been fully implemented in these areas. They are largely with the continues half-mile radius that includes the Broadway/Weidler, Going/Greely, Portland Boulevard, Lombard, Columbia and Marine Drive interchanges on Interstate-5. The specific 2040 plan designations include station communities at the following light rail stops within this corridor:
• Interstate/Rose Quarter
• Albina/Mississippi
• Overlook Park
• N Prescott St
• N Killingsworth St
• N Portland Blvd
• N Lombard TC
• Kenton/N Denver Ave
• Delta Park/Vanport
• Expo Center
3. Burnside Bridgehead Planning: the City of Portland is involved in new planning for the Burnside corridor and bridgehead area that will likely result in changes to zoning. This area is within the half-mile buffer of the Morrison Bridge interchange on I-5 and the Grand Avenue interchange on I-84.
Interstate-405 Interchanges
1. River District Floor-Area Ratio Increases: the City of Portland is involved in an update to River District zoning that would increase allowed floor-area ratios for development north of Lovejoy Street. These areas fall within the half-mile radius of the Everett Street ramps in I-405.
Future Effects on Implementing the 2040 Plan
1. Barbur Corridor: other corridors slated for high-capacity transit service would likely be impacted by the _-mile interchange rule. In Portland, this includes the Barbur corridor, would have multiple high-capacity transit station areas within _ mile of the Corbett, Terwilliger, Taylors Ferry and Multnomah Boulevard interchanges along I-5, and the West Portland Town Center at the Capitol Highway interchange.
2. Washington Co. Commuter Rail: of the five planned commuter rail station areas, two, Wilsonville and Tualatin, would be affected by the _-mile Interstate highway interchange rule.
3. Additional Interstate Light Rail Station Communities: the 2040 plan calls for station communities at Delta Park/Hayden Meadows and Hayden Island.
4. Northeast Broadway Main Street: a plan for redevelopment of lower Broadway as a 2040 Main Street has not been implemented, and would fall within the half-mile radius of the Broadway/Weidler interchange on I-5.
5. Macadam/Johns Landing Main Street: a plan for redevelopment of SW Macadam as a 2040 Main Street has not been implemented, and would fall within the half-mile radius of the Macadam interchange on I-5.
6. University District (PSU): Plans call for a major update to zoning in the vicinity of Portland State University, which would be impacted by the Fourth, Sixth and Twelfth Avenue interchanges on I-405.
7. South Waterfront/Ross Island Bridge: continued refinement of zoning in the South Waterfront area is expected as the market matures for this district. The area falls within the half-mile radius of the Macadam interchange on I-5.
I think Rex has hit the key point at the moment. There are literally hundreds of people whose work to preserve neighborhoods and protect the environment involves the TPR who will likely not even hear about this change until after it has been implemented. Even if one agrees that a modification of the rule is necessary, and I think it isn’t, a new rule will likely benefit from the experience and expertise of all those who have been working within the current rule. Limiting the discussion to a handful of professional lobbyists and activists is unlikely to produce a very good result.
Bob R. July 15, 2005 04:30 PM (Quoting JK):> They must be ignorant of basic facts:
Bob R. July 15, 2005 04:30 PM : Oh, really?
Bob R. July 15, 2005 04:30 PM (Quoting JK): Cars use less energy than mass transit.
Bob R. July 15, 2005 04:30 PM : Your reference uses an idealized car that gets much higher MPG than the USA fleet average. Your statement should say “Usually, transit uses less energy than cars, but under idealized hypothetical conditions with an efficient enough car and enough passengers, cars can use less energy than mass transit.”
JK: My source is the government mandated, government method measured milage sticker on that new car. My point is that we would be better off with small, energy efficient cars than we are with welfare transit. What is your source for attacking the posted MPG? (Credible – no green advocacy groups please).
JK: However if you would rather used national data, here is a link to the definitive Federal data. It gives Automobiles: 3,581 BTU/passenger-mile; Transit buses: 4,127 BTU/passenger-mile. Automobiles are 15% more efficient. See Page 2-14 of TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 24 ORNL-6973 (download from: http://cta.ornl.gov/data/download24.shtml)
JK: Due to the nature of real world data, one cannot really say cars are more efficient than buses when there is such a small difference as 15%. But, NEITER CAN YOU SAY THAT BUSES ARE MORE EFFICIENT.
Bob R. July 15, 2005 04:30 PM (Quoting JK): Cars save money compared to mass transit.
Bob R. July 15, 2005 04:30 PM : Your cited reference omits the cost of insurance, fuel, parking (when necessary) and maintenance for the car.
JK: That car had 100,000 mile warranty = No maintenance for 5 years, then buy a new one. I did keep it simple but that $13 dollar a month cheaper could buy about 8 miles per working day of gas. The average TriMet Trip was about 5 miles, so we are not too far away form paying for gas. Remember under the car replace bus scenario, there are a lot of well paid government employees and lawyers that take the bus and toy train to work who don’t need public welfare, so they could pay for their own car (this is probably 1/3 – ½ of the riders). That saving would be a good start on the insurance. A group policy for the truly needy would probably be fairly cheap.
JK: Again I want to say this type of exercise does not prove that cars are a bit cheaper, or the buses/transit is a bit cheaper. There are too many real world considerations for that . What it DOES PROVE is THAT PEOPLE ARE WRONG WHEN THEY THINK TRANSIT SAVES MONEY – TRANSIT IS ABOUT THE SAME COST AS CARS. The difference is in who pays. Today transit is mostly paid by non users, while cars are entirely paid for by users and cars even contribute a bit to the transit welfare.
JK: If transit is in the same ballpark as cars for both energy and cost why do we try to force people to put up with its downside such as slowness, having to stand up for the whole ride (rush hour), being pan handheld etc. This type of social engineering is doomed to failure. Wouldn’t it be better to work towards the reachable goal of encouraging small car use?
Bob R. July 15, 2005 04:30 PM : Try harder next time.
JK: No need to my case was solid, but you should wean your self off of the green non-profit corporation rhetoric and look at real world facts.
Thanks
JK
See Page 2-14 of TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 24 ORNL-6973
From the top of that page in the report:
“Great care should be taken when comparing modal energy intensity data among modes. Because of the inherent differences between the transportation modes in the nature of services, routes available, and many additional factors,it is not possible to obtain truly comparable national energy intensities among modes. These values are averages,and there is a great deal of variability even within a mode.”
If someone says you can look it up, look it up. I guess this demonstrates no matter what cautions the authors might make about data, people will misuse it for their own purposes.
I don’t know why we are comparing autos to transit in any case. Most transit users also are auto users. Almost all of us walk on occasion. The question is which mode is more appropriate for particular trips. When one looks at trips during rush hour to densely developed areas, transit has tremendous advantages both for the users and for society general.
Comment removed for violation of Rule # 1.
[If you’re wondering, Jim, the line ‘TriMet … are better liars’ is what got this bounced. You can question the data, but if you question people’s integrity, you’ve violated the rule.]
Ross Williams July 16, 2005 08:46 AM (quoting JK) See Page 2-14 of TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 24 ORNL-6973
Ross Williams July 16, 2005 08:46 AM From the top of that page in the report:
Ross Williams July 16, 2005 08:46 AM“Great care should be taken when comparing modal energy intensity data among modes. Because of the inherent differences between the transportation modes in the nature of services, routes available, and many additional factors,it is not possible to obtain truly comparable national energy intensities among modes. These values are averages,and there is a great deal of variability even within a mode.”
Ross Williams July 16, 2005 08:46 AM If someone says you can look it up, look it up. I guess this demonstrates no matter what cautions the authors might make about data, people will misuse it for their own purposes.
JK: First, that is a bit of a boilerplate. Second, did you have trouble reading the appendix where they describe the data gathering methods? Or did you have a problem figuring out what it meant? It is a valid comparison of all cars nationwide with all bus systems based on national fuel consumption and national passenger miles. It includes small cars, Hummers, lousy transit and good transit. Where is the problem? If you want to have some fun, compare the national average transit energy usage with that of small cars. That is what you should be promoting if you really care about saving energy and reducing pollution – small cars. Did you happen to calculate the average number of passengers in the average bus? It is 9.08 – most vans can carry that many people with a lot less energy that a many foot long bus. This is a clue to transit’s lousy performance.
Ross Williams July 16, 2005 08:46 AM I don’t know why we are comparing autos to transit in any case. .
JK: We are comparing autos to transit to debunk the claim that transit saves energy (it does not), that transit saves money (it does not) that transit is superior to the auto (it is not). All of the popularly promoted advantages of transit are false. It does however appear to be an effective means of exporting parking spaces to the burbs Once people realize that mass transit is just another obsolete technology, then they might start making rational decisions about a future path for our society.
Ross Williams July 16, 2005 08:46 AM Almost all of us walk on occasion. The question is which mode is more appropriate for particular trips.
JK: The question is why should other people pay for your free ride on transit. Non-users are picking up OVER 80% of your cost.
Ross Williams July 16, 2005 08:46 AM When one looks at trips during rush hour to densely developed areas, transit has tremendous advantages both for the users and for society general.
JK: More importantly, once you realize that transit’s only real function is exporting parking spaces, then you have to question the reason for high density anything. High density’s downside of congestion, pollution, lack of living space and excessive monetary cost is simply a price not worth paying. Certainly we should stop giving corporate welfare to developers to encourage high density like the over $100 million on the Pearl or around $250 million for N. Macaddam. That money would be better spent on schools and public safety. And a little job retention.
JK note: My basic position is that we should be promoting smaller, privately owned cars instead of mass transit. They are much better than the average mass transit system. TriMet appears a bit better than average, but they are still matched or beat by small cars. Cars also make it easier for people to get a better job as the area over which car users can hunt for, and accept jobs is much larger, perhaps 2-3 times more. See the Urban Forms video on http://www.saveportland.com for a graphic of this.
Thanks
JK
Chris Comment removed for violation of Rule # 1.
Chris [If you’re wondering, Jim, the line ‘TriMet … are better liars’ is what got this bounced. You can question the data, but if you question people’s integrity, you’ve violated the rule.]
JK: Thanks for saying why it was removed. I assume that means that one cannot call Bush a liar either.
JK: Did TriMet ever come up with that data you asked them for, to refute my claim of their energy efficiency being about the same as a small car. Or my claim that their cost is about the same as just giving every rider small car? (I we were to only give cars to NEEDY riders, I’ll bet it would be no contest)
Thanks
JK
Some comments on TriMet’s public relations.
1. Trimet reports the number of people that “board” their vehicles as ridership. The reality is that boardings is literally a count of the number of times that a person boards a vehicle, and as such, count transfers once for each boarding. If you transfer twice on the way to work you get counted as three boardings. If you go home each day (most of us do) you get counted as six boardings total. This is reported to the public as ridership. There is a name for this, but I am not allowed to say it here.
2. Trimet reports an increase in ridership of around 75% in the last 10 years. Here is the reality from the Federal Report, “means of travel to work”. The data is 1990 and 2000 from the US census and is for the Portland census tract which means the Portland-Vancouver region including Gresham, Beaverton etc. As the name says it is only travel to work.
The regain’s workers increased from 861,141 to 1,105,133 an increase of 243,992 or 28.3%
Of those 243,992 new workers, 196,687 drove and 61,887 took transit.
When you work the numbers, transit usage increased from 4.7% to 5.6% of workers going to work. A not very impressive 0.9 point increase in market share. However it is also a 19% increase in market share. Their actual number of workers riding to work went form 40,474 to 61,887 an increase of 52.9% (combines market share and population increased) This is probably an accurate and HONEST number to report. However there was a light rail line opened in that period with a lot of bus riders being forced to transfer to toy train to complete their journey. Naturally these people were double counted. I suspect that is how 53% became 75%. Of course this is only ride to work, so other minor factors may also come into play.
Feel free to check this with Mary Fetch, I probably have a few details wrong, but I am quite confident of the overall picture.
Thanks
JK
Why is it that some are so willing to sacrifice efficient bus service to more neighborhoods, road maintenance, sidewalk upgrades, road improvements and billions of dollars for light railand streetcars which contribute relatively little to our transportation needs?
Former Metro Executive Mike Burton said it best in his 2000 state of the region speech.
—“Traffic congestion is bad and getting worse.
It is a nightmare for commuters and it is choking freight mobility.
There is no more clear illustration of our inability to meet growth needs than our failure to address our transportation needs.
Within the transportation arena we are facing utter chaos.” —
Obvioulsy there is good reason for “Department of Land Conservation and Development set to recommend a complete overhaul of the purpose statement of the TPR”
“Secret or not”
They are doing so to stop the deliberate ruin of our region’s transportation system.
Steve, the short answer is that buses don’t change land use development patterns, while rail does. Part of the planning goal is to reduce total VMT (vehicle miles traveled) by getting more trips into the range of distance where they become walkable.
I also think Mike’s comments were not so much about the modal investment choices, but about the fact that the total pot of dollars for all modes is inadequate.
Chris said, —-“Steve, the short answer is that buses don’t change land use development patterns, while rail does.”—-
What a worn out Portland myth.
That simply is not true. It has NOT been rail that changed any pattern. It has been people, bad policies and tax subsidized development of which there is no evidence it has or is acheiving the desired outcome. Not the TODS, not the Centers, not the reduced car trips.
As has been the Round, failure is clear and your answer is do more.
No one ever voted for this high density scheme to begin with and light rail was voted down twice.
Interstate light rail took heavily used buses out of use while the PDC steered property tax dollars skimmed from the 3744 arce Interstate Urban Renewal district into development of questionable public interest. And so you and others could keep claiming development was spawned by light rail.
Government spending was the only thing spawned.
The pot will always be inadequate as long as billion are wasted on modes whose relative contribution to our road and transit system is inadequate.
It’s OK to advocate for walkable trips but our planning has completely ignored the most widely used mode and commerce mobility both.
There has been zero planning for traffic. Only the assumption it will somehow go somewhere or work itself out.
Failing to plan is equal to planning to fail.
That is the agenda of transportaion advocates such as Rex Burkholder. In his case he is using his official capacity to deceive the public while deliberatly planning failure of our vehicle dominated transportation system.
Planning to fail our economy and job base is also underway.
The staunchest advocates are out there calling for lighr rail around the State and for Portland version of the Big Dig for subway rail.
These ideas would devour every dollar in sight for decades while producing nothing but calls for even more.
“First, that is a bit of a boilerplate.”
No it isn’t. Its a warning not to use the data the way you did.
“It is a valid comparison of all cars nationwide with all bus systems based on national fuel consumption and national passenger miles.”
What don’t you understand about “it is not possible to obtain truly comparable national energy intensities among modes.”
“It includes small cars, Hummers, lousy transit and good transit.”
I believe Hummers are classified as light trucks. The data table lists light trucks separately and shows them using more energy per passenger mile than transit.
” The question is why should other people pay for your free ride on transit. Non-users are picking up OVER 80% of your cost.”
I thought Trimet got most of its money from a payroll tax on employers. Employers are hardly “non-users”. Frankly, transit ought to be free to everyone like in Wilsonville. But that is a much longer story.
“No one ever voted for this high density scheme to begin with”
No one ever voted to have laws against murder either but they elected people who did. The same is true for the Region 2040 Plan that decided to create density in specific centers while providing those centers with improved transportation facilities, including transit, to support those high intensity uses.
Ross said —“Region 2040 Plan that decided to create density in specific centers while providing those centers with improved transportation facilities, including transit, to support those high intensity uses.”—
You just don’t get it do you. There is no improved transportation. That’s the farce. There is only more traffic because our “planners” and Rex and company don’t plan for it while spedning huge sums on that non-planning.
It may well be the concept and theory to improve things this way but it doesn’t work when implemented so blindly. Ignoring all of the missed opportunities and sacrifices while pushing for more of the same is irresponsible bad for our region.
“There is no improved transportation.”
I’m sorry but I disagree. There have been transit improvements for most of the town centers and all the regional centers. There have been street improvements in Beaverton, Hillsboro and Gresham. There have been investments in transportation demand management in several of the regional centers.
There is certainly the need for many more improvements than there are resources. And there are plans for doing many of them. But we are not talking about a five year plan – its Region 2040, not 2010.
Ross,
Spending money is not the same as improving.
You see how tough it is for you to site “improvement”.
Boulevarde making, traffic calming, and European street lights are not transportaion demand improvements.
Tell me where in Beaverton, Hillsboro and Gresham have transportation improvements been made?
The Round? Orenco Station? Gresham Station.
They are rat races without any planning for traffic at all. They have light rail but so what?
Light rail has not contributed nearly enough to justify it’s cost.
A seven story parking garage is coming for the Round, Orenco Station is as auto oriented as anywhere in the region and no one takes MAX to go shopping in Gresham.
Rockwood Urban Renewal will be spending property tax dollars to “deal with blight along the Eastside MAX, and Metro’s TOD program has failed miserably to do anything but spend tax money on private development to increase density and more chaos.
We are 20 years along this planning scheme not five. The track record is clear but obscured, ignored and altered by those wanting more of the same.
Yes there are plans for doing a lot more of the same. That’s the problem.
Failing to meet needs. Needs that are not and will not be met with more light rail.
I think you and those pushing more of the same know full well it will not.
Former Metro Executive Mike Burton said it best in his 2000 state of the region speech.
—“Traffic congestion is bad and getting worse.
It is a nightmare for commuters and it is choking freight mobility.
There is no more clear illustration of our inability to meet growth needs than our failure to address our transportation needs.
Within the transportation arena we are facing utter chaos.” —
Steve –
“no one takes MAX to go shopping in Gresham.”
And yet I see people with shopping bags waiting to get on the Max in Gresham.
“A seven story parking garage is coming for the Round,”
That would appear to be a new transportation facility in a location where you claim there haven’t been any. What new transporation facilities would you put in Beaverton to support increased development and make it a better place to do business?
You really have no sense of commerce mobility do you?
A better place to do business would mean easier to get around. The status quo approach is geared towards making it as difficult as possible. Deliberatly cramming more into the same area without regard for that growth and it’s transportation needs.
The parking garage is parking for the auto-oriented Round that planners refuse to ackowledge. They continue to tout the Round as a successful model of something other than what it is becoming.
It’s the classic example of “smart growth’s” miserable failure. Promote the most expensive development, spend tax money on it, pretend it works and ignore all the downsides as you promote more of it.
Is that 7 story parking structure the type of “transportation facility” the new urbanists promote? Not hardly.
As far as shoppers using MAX? Get real. I was talking realitve use not total non-use.
For you to throw out that you’ve seen some folks with bags getting on MAX is nothing but petty rejetion of reality.
I’ve shopped at Gresham Station. I drove there. While waiting for the wife I also paid particular attention to how few trains and passengers arrived there and departed there.
So enough already with the perpetual pretending.
The Round has experienced an almost indistinguishable benefit from being next to MAX.
The whole thing would have been better if it had emulated Kruse way. Less dense, less crowded, more attractive, more green, less expensive and better for Beaverton.
But unfortunatley the narrow push ahs been high density and rail at all costs. And all sacrifices.
Many people are recognizing the dysfunction and detriment to livability that approach represents despite the propoganda comming from all of our planning, transportation and municipal agencies.
Heck, you can’t even explain it.
Comment removed for violation of Rule #1.
Comment removed for violation of Rule #1.
The level of discourse on this thread has seriously degenerated, and I am asking people to remember to keep it about IDEAS. Invitations for people to relocate to other cities do not qualify.
I’ve lived in Oregon 51 years and the Portland area 36 years. Eastmoreland, Hawthorne, Powell, Vermont, Tigard and Tualatin.
Grew up in Coos Bay, Cottage Grove, Grants Pass and Portland.
If anyone wants to suggest I move because they don’t like my opposition to the lousy planning screwing up this state feel free to e-mail me directly. Stevescare@aol.com
You can even call me up. Just ask me for my # with an e-mail.
I would like to comment on two messages that Chris removed for violation of rule#1. First they were a violation and Chris is doing a good job of keeping the personal attacks down.
That particular attack, on a third party, is something that I have received before and is the subject of this posting.
Portland has a number of newcomers who are trying to reshape Portland into their vision. They often forget that other people were here first and may not share their vision.
In fact many older Portland natives think Portland was a better place before these visionary newcomers arrived and decided to make Portland into a national showcase for how people should live. Many old time Portlanders know that:
Portland used to be one of the most affordable places in the country. We lost that.
Portland used to have free flowing arterials and freeways. We lost that.
Portland used to have good schools. We lost them.
Portland used to be able to lockup car thieves. We lost that ability. (One plus here: we ignore pot now)
Portland used to have a better library system.
Portland even used to have a bus system that made a profit. We lost that system.
As a native Portlander, forgive me if I get a little pissed when one of these visionary newcomers tell me to leave if I don’t like what they are doing.
Thanks
JK
JK
I think you mistake these issues as a Portland problem when in reality they are US problems. Our Schools have degraded because Oregonians decided to let Salem distribute our school money giving millions of Urban revenue to rural schools.
The US as a whole has become less affordable over the years, we are just catching up.
Freeways filled up all over the country. Your choice 3 or 4 lanes of traffic or 10 to 12 of traffic.
Actually our libraries are some of the best in the Country. THis maybe more an issue of “in the old days everything was better”
Their is not a transportation system in the country that comes close to making a profit.
JK Your blame maybe a bit misguided. You may not like some of the planning going on, but most of it is trying to solve the problems learned by watching the rest of the nations failings. Seattle built Freeways and look at their traffic, should we have followed their lead? Our Planning is not always successful, but we have done a better job of keeping our livibility then many other places in the US. I don’t know if its so much an issue of newcomers as an age issue. I’m sure when many of us reach the golden years we’ll look back at this time as talk about how much better it was.
Jim,
All of your complaints seem a little misguided. Shouldn’t you be wondering why the items you listed are underfunded? Their being underfunded has nothing to do with Metro 2040. You need to understand that our tax rate on corporations has dropped for the last twenty years. Thats why the school, roads, police, fire, and jails are not funded.
I too am a native of Oregon and have lived throughout Portland (Gresham to Hillsboro). You just refuse to see the obvious. People are moving here because of Metro 2040. We are unique in American cities. Deal with it naturally or find a chemical that mellows you out. Maybe this last line is for Chris.
Ray
I think Chris said it all: Busses don’t result in the proper “land use development patterns.”
So, it is about social engineering, pure and simple. The new urbanists have this vision, and the transportation policies are all about bringing their vision about how everybody should live, work and play to reality.
Regardless of the fact that most of us don’t want their vision. That’s not how we want to live. What do they care? They control the government and civic institutions that can force their vision down our throat, whether we like it or not.
Our job is to shut up and let the elites remake our region along the lines of eastern Europe socialist states.
I get very, very disheartened when I read the threads on this site. They will not be happy until they have driven every last bit of productive capacity out of the region.
Wait 20 years. Clark County will be a fully world class city and tri-county will be a backwater of underemployed “creative class” worker bees and government employees.
“Our job is to shut up and let the elites remake our region along the lines of eastern Europe socialist states.”
Wait a minute, didn’t some other transit skeptic (JK?) post conclusive proof that the social engineers were trying to remake Portland into Los Angeles?
Or is Los Angeles actually a model eastern European socialist state?
I note with mild amusement that my offers of finding common ground with skeptics (my gripes about TriMet, highway projects I would support, etc.) have yet to be taken up.
Instead of casting transit supporters as cult members who all want to force people to live a certain way, why not engage in dialogue where points of common interest can be found?
– Bob R.
If anything planners of today are trying to give an alternative to the 75 years of Massively subsidized Freeway/Suburban development. Freeways are not free and suburbs cannot survive without them. Many of you act like the federal government has been subsidizing rail in the amount of trillions of the years. Never forget private industry built our now decrepit rail system, MASSIVE public subsidizes built our road system before most even had the availabiltiy to use that system. Its thrown off normal development patterns ever since. So place don’t play the oppressed. You’ve benifited from 75 years of a rigged game.
Roads are by and large paid by gas taxes – user fees. Not a subsidy in the same sense as light rail, which is about 90% funded by non-users.
I know – lets put it to public vote. More light rail? Oh, forgot, we did that and voters said no. Got the rail anyway.
Let’s put THIS to vote: west side bypass? Add two lanes to highway 26?
Wonder what the result of THAT would be?
I’ll bet we could even make the bypass a toll road, and build the entire thing with no public $$.
Oh, wait, that might create suburbs. Wouldn’t want that. That’s not the “development pattern” we prefer. Who cares if the people like yards for the kids to play catch in.
We’re in charge, so tough doodoo. Can’t ask the people – they would decide the wrong thing.
“I’ll bet we could even make the bypass a toll road, and build the entire thing with no public $$.”
There have been several studies to build transportation facilities exclusively using tolls, including the Tualatin-Sherwood connector (a part of the west side bypass) and the Newberg-Dundee bypass as I recall. None of them came close to penciling out, as you couldn’t charge anywhere near enough to pay for the facility.
There is little doubt that if we tolled the I-5 and I-205 bridges at a level needed to replace them that there would be no need for new capacity in the near term. The number of vehicles using the bridge would be dramatically reduced as people car pooled and made other adjustments to reduce expensive trips across the river. No doubt the demand for transit from Vancouver to Portland would increase as well.
The last time a statewide increase in the gas tax was put to a vote the Newberg-Dundee bypass was one of the projects to be funded. The measure failed statewide and by a very wide measure in Yamhill county.
So the voters did have the opportunity to pay for new roads and voted it down. That has not kept ODOT or their legislative supporters from going ahead with them anyway through legislation.
I don’t see how the government is responsible for whether someone has a back yard or not. There are plenty of large lots available in the region, they just cost a lot of money. It also costs a lot of money to build transportation facilities and other infrastructure to open up areas to development.
As I understand the economics, if you attempted to add system development charges to new construction that recovered all those costs, home building would grind to a halt. So is it “social engineering” that we subsidize such costs? I suppose it is.
“I don’t see how the government is responsible for whether someone has a back yard or not.”
Density targets resulting in miniscule lots, combined with urban growth boundaries that artificially inflate the price of housing lots are how government has kept people from having large back yards.
Show me a new (last ten years) subdivision that has 15,000 square foot lots that is anywhere inside an incorporated area. Or even 10,000 sf.
The fact is, the local governments will not allow them, because they run afoul of Metro density requirements.
Go take a look at Murray Hill, right off Scholls. A sea of roofs. Houses crammed on small lots, while across the road is an open field. Ugly and cramped.
That is what land-use policies have delivered.
PKR – You are raising the bar pretty high to go from “yards for the kids to play catch in” to “15,000 square foot lots that is anywhere inside an incorporated area. Or even 10,000 sf.”
I live in a 100 year old neighborhood. The typical lot size is 5,000 square feet. Kids all over the neighborhood play in their back yards. And their are three good neighborhood parks a few blocks away, with ballparks and other ameneties.
You don’t need 15,000sf to have a decent back yard.
If you want 10,000sf, there are a number of such parcels as well. Part of the key here is “incorporated area”… people expect cities to have greater population density than unincorporated areas.
But, I’ll take up your challenge. Look no further than Fairview Village. New urbanists like it. Suburbanites like it. Close to the freeway. Close to big-box shopping, but walkable to parks and neighborhood shopping. New homes avialable with back yards on lots that are biger than city lots. Built in 2005, even.
Here is a typical one:
MLS ID#: 5010090
4 Bed, 2.5 Bath
2,330 Sq. Ft.
Lot Size: 0.15 Acres
That’s 6,534 square feet. Nice tree-lined back yard. (Isn’t that a nice photo?)
Oh, but you want kids to play catch in nothing less than a 10,000sf lot. How about this, then?
MLS ID#: 5046738
4 Bed, 2.5 Bath
2,298 Sq. Ft.
Lot Size: 9,258 Sq. Ft.
Well, close, but not 10,000 square feet (sorry! You kids only have 9,258sf to play in! You are so oppressed by government!)
Well, then, how about this one?
MLS ID#: 5034378
5 Bed, 3 Bath
3,488 Sq. Ft.
Lot Size: .23 Acre
That’s 10,018.8 square feet. Phew, I made it! Oh, but it was built in 1999. Sorry kids, you have to live in a home that was once slept in by someone else!
Go take a look at Murray Hill, right off Scholls. A sea of roofs. Houses crammed on small lots, while across the road is an open field. Ugly and cramped.
Suppose then, that the lot sizes in Murray Hill were doubled… where would the other half of the people get to live? Sounds like “social engineering” to me, to force people to live further out from where they want to live.
Unless, of course, you are opposed to minimum and/or maximum lot sizes altogether. But that wouldn’t prevent developers from making subdivisions with tiny lots, would it?
Back to the established neighborhood where I currently live… it is quite clear looking at plot maps that the way people used to do it when they wanted a big yard or garden was to buy two parcels and only build on one of them.
Why not get in touch with a big developer just before one of those subdivisions goes in, and ask to buy two adjacent lots and one of their standard home designs on just one of the lots? If the developer won’t let you, is that really the fault of politics, or is it the fault of a developer that is trying to maximize profit by building on every available lot?
– Bob R.