74 responses to “Transportation, Talent and the Traded Sector”

1. Lanny,

   You may be the only person who thinks the I-5 corridor is OK. It is hard to appreciate what all of the stakeholders of the I-5 corridor think and feel everyday from the seat of your bicyle in your short commute from your home.

   Everyone knows about how important it is that we retain the “Quality of Life” in in our region. However balance is needed because not everyone fits into the white-collar world. Not everyone has ability and opportunity to get the job at some of these corporate and regional headquaters and R&D centers.

   I would hope that people read through and understand the elitist attitudes and bias many bring into the discussions when it come to transportation issues and investments.

   We have successes and a lot of them in our region when it comes to successful businesses. Sometimes we are very lucky like in the case of Intel. They heard about us and our region because of Reed College and what a couple of Reed students did, in creating a company called Tektronix. But when Intel tried to make Oregon a major manfacturing site, they could not do it because of our transportation limitations. And luck being on our side, costs and quality of life consideration in California made Oregon look good as a R&D site. We cannot continue to think that Luck will always be on our side.

   We need balance with all of our transportation consideration that includes people without a college educations. We need jobs opportunities for people who produce goods and services and have blue collars and most of those good family wage jobs have have a very high transportation dependancy. Equality and fairness tells me that we cannot go on investing into transportation infrastructure that results in the fact that 90% get little or NO benefit. That to me is elitist.

2. Paul,
   read my piece again…to keep manufacturing here, you must add value. That takes talent…skilled operators and innovative engineers. Transportation is a side issue at best.
   The paper machines at Boise Cascade in St. Helens are running because those people can put out a product on old equipment that can compete in the global market place. Transportation is secondary.
   My perspective is not from some “elitist” white collar office, but from the feeder end of an offset printing press where I worked for 20 years.

3. Put another way, the way to create blue collar jobs is to make the region attractive to college graduates and the knowledge based businesses that depend on them.

4. PLEASE SOME ONE:

   DEFINE LIVABILITY

   Thanks
   JK

5. DEFINE LIVABILITY

   This definition comes pretty close to my understanding of it:

   From:
   http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm97.htm

   Community Livability refers to the environmental and social quality of an area as perceived by residents, employees, customers and visitors. This includes safety and health (traffic safety, personal security, public health), local environmental conditions (cleanliness, noise, dust, air quality, water quality), the quality of social interactions (neighborliness, fairness, respect, community identity and pride), opportunities for recreation and entertainment, aesthetics, and existence of unique cultural and environmental resources (e.g., historic structures, mature trees, traditional architectural styles).

   – Bob R.

6. “DEFINE LIVABILITY”

   It means different things to different people.

   If you define livability by transport trips: To approximately 80% of Portland area people it means driving their cars to get around on a good road system. For 3% to 5% of the people it means it means biking instead of driving and expecting others to pay their way. For some it means riding a good transit system and again letting others subsidize their mobility. For some it is walking.

   When it comes to people owning cars & trucks: For some it is luxury cars, SUVs, pickups, sports cars or classics, and for others it is family transportation, hybrids or basic econo-box transportation.

   If you look at neighborhoods: For some it is single family homes, large, small or in between, either in the city or the burbs. For others it is high density and/or subsidized high density living that does pay property taxes to support schools and other government services. For some it is a big private back yard and a set back from the street while for others it is the public park down the street and the front door step next to the sidewalk. For some people it is preserving historic structures and for others it is having PDC rip them down and make everything modern.

   If you consider amenities: For some people it is public art, subsidized cultural activities, lots of entertainment opportunities, restaurants or just having a bar down the street. For others it is none of those things and/or fast food with drive up windows. For some it is having a subsidized downtown as the central focus of the community and for others more focus should be on the individuality of neighborhoods. For some people the Willamette and Columbia Rivers offer plenty of recreational opportunities. For other people it is that Portland is situated approximately 50 miles from the mountains and about 90 miles from the Pacific Ocean. For still others it is none of those things. For some people it is high end shopping and boutique grocery stores, and for others it is WalMart, Cosco, Target, Winco and Fred Meyer.

   Other considerations for livability involve a strong economy with good paying jobs, low unemployment, the environment and a government that fairly treats, respects, listens and responds to people equally.

   The point I am making is the fact there is no one single definition of livability, yet the Portland City Council, Metro, the state legislature and others in government continually attempt to define livability in a unilateral and socialistic sense. It can not be done, particularly if anybody believes in diversity.

7. Ross,

   In the late 1990’s, I was a participant in the creation of the METRO 20 – 20 plan. The citizens advisory committee had a presentation put on by Intel on transportaion impacts. In this presentation they told everyone sitting there that they could not make Portland/Beaverton/Hillsboro a major manufacturing site/location because they could not in todays world acheive just in time shipping to PDX. The new engineers and R&D staff like our region and decided that it met their needs when compared to California. Yes, transportation does play a major mayor roll in investments and job creation.

   Ross the bias you reflect against the most any transportation investments associated with roads, highways and the need of dredging of our rivers, marginalizes most everything you write and say. A person of balance is apparently not who you are. Not all jobs are going off-shore and I for one am not giving up on fight to protect the people, businesses and environment that are being killed by socially engineered congestion, that is a direct result of not addressing known investment needs.

   Ross you are right that a college education or degree is not the singular determining factor in finding people with a balanced prespective when it come to transportation. At the same time we all know that a college education does not include classes on the realitive importance of common sense. I have a son with 16-years of college and a whole hell of a lot of degrees. With a Dr. before his name most people think he is real smart and I know he is. However he was not required to take virtually any business classes and his level of common sense is OK in relationship to his peers but he confers with his dad one hell of lot to maintain balance and he is smart enough to do it. He knows I care. When people forget and do not care about the great majority (95% of the people of this region rely on rubber tire vehciles and transportation methods in their daily life) we loose balance.

   Bicyles, Light Rail Transit and jogging paths are important but should they continue to receive the lion share of the transportation investment dollars in our region. I think we can see the cost of implementing these transportation investment strategies over reasonable and balanced investment in our roads and highways.

8. Bicyles, Light Rail Transit and jogging paths are important but should they continue to receive the lion share of the transportation investment dollars in our region.

   Bicycles and trails get a few percent of our regional transportation dollars. We certainly invest quite a bit in Light Rail, but roads continue to absorb the vast majority of our transportation dollars. I don’t think saying the “lion’s share” goes to things other than roads is accurate at all.

9. This week’s Business Week has an article, Slicker Cities, that talks about competitiveness and touts Portland on many of the dimensions that Lenny mentions.

10. Chris’s linked article: Factors that lure investment today, like good schools, roads, tax policies, and support industries, are controlled by communities, not national governments.
    JK: So how is Portland doing?
    good schools: (Schopp please anser this one)

    roads: Recently had the nation’s worst increase in traffic congestion.

    tax policies: Among the country’s highest. (per CNN article talked about here a few months ago (or was it BlueOregon?))

    support industries: Moving to Beaverton, Tigard, etc.

    I noticed the writer (from Portland) didn’t mention the $1/4 billion subsidy to the Pearl, or the upcoming $½ billion for Homer’ hole. Or the effect of those wastes on our basic services. (estimates include interest expense guess)

    Chris’s linked article: its economy has averaged 5.5% growth for four years
    JK: Does this mean we are no longer among the highest unemployment regions in the country?

    Thanks
    JK

11. Chris,

    I know that you are realitive new too our region and the legacy Neil Goldsmith and his clones has brought to all transportation considerations, prioritizations and investments. But from the time Neil left Portland to head the department of transportation in Washington DC, our road and highways in Oregon and our region were no longer considered in prioritization. Please look at this regions transportation priortizations as presented to the federal government over the last 25-plus years and you will see that the “Lion’s Share” of investment dollars have not and are not going to our roads and highways.

12. Paul, if 18 years in the region is relatively new, then yes, I am. But I spent 3 of those years on TPAC, one of the bodies where the allocation of transportation dollars is made. So let’s look at the data.

    If you look at the policy memo in preparation for the upcoming MTIP cycle (PDF, 301K), on page two you’ll see a pie chart that estimates total annual regional spending on transportation at $630M spent in the following way:

    36% Road, Highway and Bridge Maint.
    35% Transit Operations
    25% Capital Projects
    4% Flex Funds

    To break down the Capital Projects and Flex Funds, the best source is the Regional Transportation Plan. I downloaded the spreadsheet of projects (Excel, 351K) and pulled out all projects in the fiscally constrained system (the rest are just a wish list). I took the modal categories and simplified them. (I lumped Boulevard projects in Bike/Ped, although they clearly have benefits to cars as well.) Here’s what I got:

    50% Motor Vehicle
    38% Transit
    11% Bike/Ped
    1% Uncategorized Multi-modal

    So it looks to me like roads are still getting at least half of the dollars for transportation in the region. I believe that would be the definition of “lion’s share.”

13. Paul –

    I will let Chris address the finanical balance issue. I don’t think that is central to the discussion – the discussion should be around the results of that spending not how much we spend. Infrastructure for motor vehicles is always going to be more expensive than bikes or most transit.

    As for my bias. I do have a bias in favor of a balanced transportation system. Currently we have a network of streets, arterials and highways that makes using a motor vehicle a realistic option for almost any trip. On the other hand, there are many of those same trips for which there is no realistic alternative.

    I think one way, really the only way, to deal with the congestion in the motor vehicle system is to reduce the pressure created by the lack of alternatives by reducing the number of trips for which there are no realistic alternatives and by making the alternatives that do exist more desireable.

    Not all jobs are going off-shore

    Of course they aren’t. But it would be foolish to focus on trying to compete for the ones that are. Portland, like any city, needs to focus on its strengths. As Lenny points out, those strengths are defined by the talent that is already in Portland and the ability to keep that talent and attract new talent. Of course Portland also has natural resource industries and the Port, but those aren’t areas of growth and aren’t likely to be.

    They told everyone sitting there that they could not make Portland/Beaverton/Hillsboro a major manufacturing site/location because they could not in todays world acheive just in time shipping to PDX.

    I don’t believe you understood that properly because, frankly, it makes no sense. For one thing Intel has two fab plants in Hillsboro that I believe produce their newest and most expensive chips. For another, the locations of their other plants do not seem to reflect any great concern with access to transportation facilities.

    Ross you are right that a college education or degree is not the singular determining factor in finding people with a balanced prespective when it come to transportation.

    Well, whether that is true or not, I didn’t say it so please don’t repeat it as if I did.

14. I left out an important point. There are two ways to reduce the number of trips for which there is no alternative to using an auto. One is by providing alternatives to where those trips are going. Another is by encouraging trip generators to locate in places where there are alternatives available or where it is planned to make them available. That is why transportation and land use are closely linked.

15. (I lumped Boulevard projects in Bike/Ped, although they clearly have benefits to cars as well.)

    Chris –

    Boulevard projects are just road projects with some design features to make them friendlier for bikes and peds – most of the costs are to benefit motor vehicles. For your purpose here it may make sense to error on the side of attributing them to alternatives, but they really shouldn’t be since they include increases in motor vehicle capacity.

16. Ross Williams Says Boulevard projects are just road projects … they include increases in motor vehicle capacity.
    JK: How does putting bus stops in the middle of the travel lane, like they did on Woodstock, increase motor vehicle capacity?

    How does planting trees in the center of the road, like they did on MLK, increase motor vehicle capacity?

    How does removing the left turn lane like, I have been told they did, on Division in Gresham increase motor vehicle capacity?

    Thanks
    JK

17. You are right Jim, there are some aspects of Boulevard’s that don’t benefit autos.

18. Chris,

    How facts are use and presented often present a picture that is less then factual in a total concept. Most recently Highway 26 at Sylvan Hill to west of 217 is to all effect the singular recipent of the vast majority of all new investments dollars in creating new highway capacity in our region. Long before that in what we know as the federal budget cycle there was rebuilding of I-84 which was at approximately the same congestion standard of level-of-Service that we now find on I-5 between the Marquam and Interstate Bridges. If it was not for then Senator Mark Hatfield and the pressure put on by all of the stakeholders of I-84 it would be still congested.

    The way budget dollars are allocated some of the dollars shown and/or calssified as maintenance might also have been used in creating some new infrastructure, I will concede that. The counties Multinomah, Washington and Clackamas have also jumped in and done some creative efforts using Urban Renewal District pots of money to solve and eliminate often critical transportation choke points.

    So when you pull out those dollars (Highway 26 and I-84) and efforts and look at the investments made to create new and critically needed capacity on our highways and major arterials there is very little or nothing that anyone can point to.

    When we compare what transportation dollars have been spent on everything else (Light Rail Transit, Bike paths, PED Paths, and miscellanious others what you are trying to tell others does not present the whole picture. How much money has been spent on Light Rail Transit, bus and streetcar infrastructure over the last 25-years. Compare that to our investments in new roads, highways and arterials capacity excluding maintenance. I am talking new capacity to new capacity.

19. Paul, by that criterion, if we actually build the Columbia Crossing it’s going to swamp all the cost numbers with new capacity for autos.

    But I look at it differently. To my mind we have four different (but interconnecting) transportation networks:

    – road
    – rail
    – bike
    – ped

    For much of the last 50 years we have invested the lions share in the road network, and this network is complete (in the sense that you can get from any point in the region to any other point in the region by road).

    It does not seem inappropriate to me that we play “catch-up” by investing in the incomplete networks. Rail is by far the most expensive of the three but is also has the greatest potential to move people by non-auto modes (the bike fans might argue).

    I would argue that “balance” means making all four networks work well. I understand that the road network is congested at points (and support selective investments to help with that), but I don’t accept that it has some “natural right” to the bulk of investment while the other networks are incomplete. Particularly since I can argue that the road network has greater negative external affects (health and environment).

20. there is very little or nothing that anyone can point to.

    Kruse Way? The HOV lanes on I5 north? I think there are other improvements that have been made in a number of places to the freeway system.

    But in addition there have been numerous upgrades to arterials around the region from Sunnyside Road in Clackamas County to Roy Rogers Road in Washington County. Washington County has had a Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program (MSTIP) for the last 25 years paid for by property tax levies. The there is the state OTIA program, described on the Washington County Transportation web site this way “Oregonians have not seen an investment of this magnitude in highway and bridge construction since the state’s interstate freeway system was built in the 1950s and ‘60s.”

    The idea that we are not investing in new road capacity does not meet any objective evaluation whether in terms of dollars or in terms of results.

21. t does not seem inappropriate to me that we play “catch-up” by investing in the incomplete networks

    I think the idea that there is a competition between Transit, bikes and motor vehicles is a minomer. While certainly there are trade-offs in terms where dollars go, the question ought to be which will get the best return on the investment in terms of improved access to services, jobs and entertainment.

    If adding another bus line will get more drivers off the road, that benefits people who continue to use their autos, that benefits freight shippers, that gives businesses capacity to attract employees from a wider area. Its not a race and its not a competition.

22. Investing in new trasportation ideas, and systems does not have to come from tax dollars.
    By simply opening up the market to competion the area might find that over the coming years a number of business people, both large and small will find the funds to add new equipment and bring a host of new ideas to the area.
    Given that the cost of buying streetcars, and other equipment, from Europe will be more expensive as the dollar falls
    and the increasing need to support the federal deficit private investment may be the only way to go.

23. Chris,

    You with a slight of the hand expand the time frame for comparisons out to 50-years and that is not what I have been talking about. The comparisons start with the Neil Goldsmith and clone transportation era, with the scraping of the Mt. Hood Freeway plan (the right-of-way had aready been purchased) and the switching to NO capacity improvements to our highways. Up until that time we had plans in effect for a westside looping freeway that would bypass Portland and eliminate the congestion emissions problems we now face and a Mt Hood Freeway that would have removed significant amount of the traffic off of I-84. Instead we moved smartly to solutions that centered around transit. I am not against buses and Light Rail all I am asking for is balance and there has not been any balance for the last 25-plus years.

    The life line of Washington County and the high tech industries got addressed with highway 26 improvements. What has been done on highway 26 is wonderful and through these investments we saved jobs and gained jobs and most of them are excellent jobs. Now highway 217 is over-run with traffic and congestion and we could see this coming. 25-years ago everyone told us what needed to happen. Had we continued on what had been recommended it could have been built for 5-cents on today’s dollars. We became green and stuck our heads in the ground and lost balance with the realities of our real needs. 25-years ago we started into the new social engineering era of Neil Goldsmith and clones and suggested that transit, bikes and PED will eliminate the need to add capacity to our roads. This shift took time to get all of the ducks in a row but the anti-development, anti-roads, anti-jobs people finally got in place. The funny thing about this to me is that many of these people wrap themselves up in an environmental flag but in reality they have done more harm to the environment and air quality in our area then most any other thing or event could have done.

    I am as much of an environmentist as most anyone. I fight as hard as anyone to protect the air and water.

    I know that Light Rail, streetcars and buses are not just improtant but very important to the quality of life of our region. I also know that what Jim Karlock said is that Light Rail only services approximately 2% of the people of our region. I would like it to be 6 or 8% but that is not going to happen. I also know that buses are a far more effective solution for a greater number of people in our region then Light Rail and the cost per rider is one whole hell of a lot less in dollars and cents/TCO. I also know that a balance of Light Rail and Buses with effective use of transit centers eliminates a lot of traffic off of our roads and I want that but in balance with the needs of the other 90% plus of the public.

    I am just not one of the people who will suggest that Light Rail, Buses, Bikes and PED will take the place for the other 90% of the people and businesses that need an adequate road, highway and heavy rail system. It makes me cry to think about how this current transportation agenda has brought us to a point where we are killing people and businesses and that is OK, its politically correct.

24. hat has been done on highway 26 is wonderful and through these investments we saved jobs and gained jobs and most of them are excellent jobs.

    The Sunset Corridor has been losing jobs hasn’t it? I thought that was where all the empty office space in the region was.

    Light Rail only services approximately 2% of the people of our region.

    That isn’t true. A large majority of people in the region make direct use of light rail for some trips. And many others benefit from the people who use of light rail at rush hour instead of using the street network.

    I also know that buses are a far more effective solution for a greater number of people in our region then Light Rail and the cost per rider is one whole hell of a lot less in dollars and cents/TCO.

    The capital costs of light rail are higher, but the operational costs where there is heavy transit use are much lower. And light rail is better quality transit, attracting riders who would otherwise crowd streets with their automobiles.

    I also know that a balance of Light Rail and Buses with effective use of transit centers eliminates a lot of traffic off of our roads and I want that but in balance with the needs of the other 90% plus of the public.

    That totally confuses who benefits. The people on light rail are about the only ones who do not get any benefit from removing traffic from the roads.

    I am just not one of the people who will suggest that Light Rail, Buses, Bikes and PED will take the place for the other 90% of the people and businesses that need an adequate road,

    Everyone needs adequate roads. And for most of the day the road network we have is more than adequate. But for a few hours in the morning and late afternoon it isn’t. We can reduce the number of trips people use the roads during those peak hours when the roads are most crowded by providing attractive alternatives for many of those trips. That benefits everyone. EVERYONE. Not motorists, not bicyclists, not pedestrians, not transit users. EVERYONE.

25. Paul –

    There have been many highway improvements in our region in recent years.

    The comparisons start with the Neil Goldsmith and clone transportation era, with the scraping of the Mt. Hood Freeway plan (the right-of-way had aready been purchased)

    I think most Portland-area residents who know anything about the Mt. Hood Freeway plan are glad it did not come to pass (except for the outermost corridor near Sandy which was constructed). To lose Division street and its many homes and businesses would have been a disaster for the livability (there’s that word again) of Portland.

    The freeway would have largely benefited those who chose to live far out and pass through town at a high rate of speed, while providing only negative impacts to the people living closest to it.

    and the switching to NO capacity improvements to our highways.

    That’s just flat-out wrong. The capacity improvements may be slow in coming, but they have been happening. Highway 26 continues to gradually widen with new add-lanes, tunnels, and reconfigured interchanges.

    1.5 miles of Highway 217 in 2 directions are about to get an additional lane and reconfigured interchanges.

    Entire new arterials have been completed in the last 10 years, including Sunnybrook Blvd which takes a lot of the strain off of Sunnyside Road.

    I-205 and the Glenn Jackson bridge were constructed in the timeline you specify, and there is a ton of room along much of I-205 for additional lanes. The new Green Line light rail project does not interfere with plans for future widening of I-205.

    Now highway 217 is over-run with traffic and congestion and we could see this coming.

    See above… Highway 217 improvements are starting in the coming year and the planning has been in the works for some time.

    25-years ago everyone told us what needed to happen.

    No, not everyone. There was significant public opposition. Mr. Goldschmidt was for the Mt. Hood Freeway before he was against it, largely due to public outcry.

    25-years ago we started into the new social engineering era of Neil Goldsmith and clones and suggested that transit, bikes and PED will eliminate the need to add capacity to our roads.

    I just love this “social engineering” schtick. For some bizarre up-is-down reason, constructing roads ever-wider and making setbacks ever-larger so that people can navigate 3000lb toxin-spewing machinery around the landscape is “freedom”, but providing a network where people can move around by walking (the natural basic mode of human navigation), biking (lightweight machine, human-powered, most energy efficient mode of travel ever invented), or transit (public commons as a form of transit, like parks, schools, etc.) is “social engineering.”

    And freeways go even further: Large tracts of homes wiped out (see: Mt. Hood Freeway) so that automobiles can move at high speeds without ever having to stop at intersections or for bikes/peds. That’s not social engineering?

    Pedestrians don’t generally injure each other when they bump into one another, and injuries from bikes are usually not life threatening. But cars striking peds can be deadly, yet the solution is more lanes and higher car speeds, rather than building the environment around the pedestrian? That’s not social engineering?

    And before you jump all over me: Yes, I do drive a car. Yes, freeways have economic and social benefits, too. I just happen to think our priorities are out of whack, and shifting those priorities to favor the person and the built environment rather than high-speed exclusive auto travel is NOT “social engineering”, at least not anymore than building the auto-environment was in the first place.

    This shift took time to get all of the ducks in a row but the anti-development, anti-roads, anti-jobs people finally got in place.

    I’ve never met an anti-development person. I’ve seen many debates over what form of development should take place, how that should be funded, how much role government should have, etc. I’m sure there are anti-development people out there, but they aren’t in city government. All those cranes around Portland and the brisk business at lumberyards tells me that development is happening all over town.

    Anti-roads? We all use roads. The debate is over what form the roads should take and which ones should be expanded, how fast, and for how much money.

    The funny thing about this to me is that many of these people wrap themselves up in an environmental flag but in reality they have done more harm to the environment and air quality in our area then most any other thing or event could have done.

    I’ve been to Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and other big metro areas where there is little transit, few sidewalks, fewer pedestrian crossings, and a priority for wide boulevards and high-speed auto travel. I’ll take our air quality over theirs any day.

    I also know that what Jim Karlock said is that Light Rail only services approximately 2% of the people of our region.

    If he said that, he is incorrect. He did post census data which he claims shows that 2% of daily commute trips are served by rail. I’ve posted my reasons before why I think this is a lowball number, but also that number does not show “people” but daily trips. We don’t know that it is the same people every day. Our household, for example, uses MAX a few times a week, and I have several other friends who use it lightly but multiple times every month. How are we to be counted? I believe that the number of _people_ in the region who utilize the transit network at one time or another is many times that “2%” figure.

    But, I don’t have to guess here. TriMet did an actual survey in 2005 and reported “Forty-three percent of adults (age 16 and older) in the Portland region ride TriMet at least twice a month. That’s up 39 percent since 1997, the year before Westside MAX opened. Since then, two new rail lines opened (the Red and Yellow lines) and Frequent Service expanded bus hours throughout
    the region.”

    I am just not one of the people who will suggest that Light Rail, Buses, Bikes and PED will take the place for the other 90% of the people and businesses that need an adequate road, highway and heavy rail system.

    Show me one of those people. Nobody on this site has ever advocated such a thing. That kind of ratio isn’t even true for heavy transit cities like NYC/Manhattan. You sure do construct a lot of straw men in your posts.

    It makes me cry to think about how this current transportation agenda has brought us to a point where we are killing people and businesses and that is OK, its politically correct.

    Please don’t cry. The straw men you’ve arranged in neat little rows can’t hurt you.

    – Bob R.

26. It makes me cry to think about how this current transportation agenda has brought us to a point where we are killing people and businesses and that is OK, its politically correct.

    Killing people? That’s a little extreme don’t you think?

    By the way, all those who argue that light rail serves only X% of the population keep forgetting that any system that is just starting only serves a small portion of the people.

    The first sewer only served a few percent of the population. The first high-speed internet connection served only a few. The first airport only served a few. The first highway only served a slight percent of the population. Should we have stopped building these things because nobody was using them? Of course not! With any network, the larger it grows the number of people using it grows exponentially. This is no different with light rail or streetcar.

27. 25-years ago we started into the new social engineering era of Neil Goldsmith and clones and suggested that transit, bikes and PED will eliminate the need to add capacity to our roads

    The REAL social engineering came over 50 years ago when the government began giving lower interest home loans to those who built new homes on a quarter acre than those who renovated old ones, built the largest public works project in the world’s history – our highways, and disinvested in public transportation. Oh wait, most of the public transportation was privately owned and suddenly couldn’t compete with the subsidized highways.

    Back then people were happy to live in compact villages and cities and ride the streetcar to work. It was the government’s social engineering that pushed people out into the sprawling suburbs.

28. Let’s get real here.

    Successful cities in the 21st century will attract educated, talented, creative workers and, hence, private investment.

    The way to attract those people is primarily through livability. We all agree that Portland needs to find ways to fund schools and police, etc. But Portland is doing a great job creating one of the most livable regions in the world.

    Although the concept of livability is a matter of debate, most city dwellers would agree that it means a clean, safe, transit friendly city with services within walking distance, access to recreation and short commutes. For the majority of urban Portlanders, this is already reality.

    For an urban person, MAX, walking and biking are healthy, affordable and attractive ways of commuting.

    For a a suburban person, the concept of livability likely means something else.

    But during the next decades, while the suburbs either urbanize or decay, the central city will become a more compact and livable place where more and more people will want to relocate.

    Some people talk about highways and roads as if oil is a viable future energy source. That’s a load of @#%&

    If we’re gonna compete as a city in this century we need to be on the edge of technology and exploring the frontier of the new american city. A dense, compact and ped/bike/transit friendly city is the only type that will survive the next decades.

    The region as a whole is important, and a city doesn’t end at the city limits. We need farms, energy and natural resources. These zones must be connected through roads and rail and powerlines.

    But the suburbs, which require long commutes by car, will not be sustainable. Investing in more highways for suburbanites to make ever longer commutes cannot be justifies when cheap energy is no longer available. That day is coming within a decade.

29. Agreed…let’s put the discussion of more highways vs transportation options to rest. That has been settled. But a good discussion…thanks Ross, Chris, Bob and others.
    But Metro and the City of Portland need to distance themselves from the so called “freight community’s” phony demand for more roads to support economic development.
    Some new data is available as I write on MSN.com regarding gas prices and the future of the suburbs. The trend is toward what we in Portland have been doing for the last 20-30 years, restoring the city and its neighborhoods.
    We are way ahead of the curve in this respect and other newer, western cities are playing catch up…Denver, Salt Lake, Phoenix, etc.
    Yet at a meeting with PDOT yesterday I had to fight off staff insistance that we need to take out parking, retain a right turn lane (meaning peds will need to cross three lanes instead of two) at an intersection in N. Portland that will soon seen a lot more pedestrian activity…vacant lots will be developed into low-rise condos and lofts with retail at N. Williams & Fremont.
    Who runs the show over there?

30. Chris,

    Your figures:

    36% Road, Highway and Bridge Maint.
    35% Transit Operations
    25% Capital Projects
    4% Flex Funds

    and capital project breakdown

    50% Motor Vehicle
    38% Transit
    11% Bike/Ped
    1% Uncategorized Multi-modal

    That means:

    48.25% spent on motor vehicle infrastructure accommodates 84.59% of the trips in the Metro area, or less than 0.57% spent for each percentage point of motor vehicle trips and shared motor vehicle trips accommodated. For home–work trips, motor vehicle infrastructure accommodates 90.29% of the trips, or 0.53% spent for each percentage point of home–work motor vehicle trips and shared motor vehicle trips accommodated.

    44.5% spent on public transit accommodates 2.61% of all trips in the Metro area, or 17% of funds spent for each percentage point of public transit trips. For home-work trips, public transit accommodates 5.21% of trips, or 8.54% of funds spent for each percentage point of home-work trips on transit.

    (Note; School Bus trips that equal 0.01% of all trips and 3.59% of home-school trips were not figured as part of public transit. Also the percentage of funds spent per percentage point does not include any flex fund dollars spent on transit infrastructure, flex funds are not spent on auto related projects

    2.75% (capital only) spent on bicycle/ped infrastructure accommodates 4.16% (0.95% bike & 3.21% walk) of all trips in the Metro Area, or approximately 0.66% spent for each percentage point of bicycle/ped trips accommodated. For home-work trips, bicycle/ped trips go up to 9.32% (1.03% bike & 8.29% walk) or 0.29% of funds spent for each percentage point of home-work trips by bicycle or walking.

    (Note: Without a separate breakdown of bicycle and ped capital costs, percentage point costs individually for bicycle v sped can not be figured. Furthermore, with no maintenance costs for bicycle and ped maintenance costs, they may be included in road and highway maintenance costs, the percent spent per percentage point would be higher. Also the percentage of funds spent per percentage point does not include any flex fund dollars spent on bicycle/ped infrastructure – flex funds are not spent on auto related projects

    Mode percentages are based on PDOT Transportation Option Facts.

    Conclusions:

    Since the bicycle/ped numbers do not include all aspects of taxpayer spending on the two modes of transport, the amount per percentage point of usage can not be accurately figured or divided between the two modes. With maintance added in, the figures of 0.66% for each percentage point for all bicycle/ped trips in the Metro area and 0.29% for home-work trips would also be higher.

    The clear winner however for the efficiency of transportation dollars spent between motor vehicle infrastructure vs transit is motor vehicle infrastructure with 0.57% spent for each percentage point for all trips in the Metro area and 0.53% for each percentage point of home-work trips. Transit looses 17% of funds spent for each percentage point for all Metro Area trips and 8.54 spent for each percentage point of home-work trips. In addition, drivers contribute a larger share of user fees and taxes for motor vehicle infrastructure than do transit riders with current 20% fares only covering 20% of operations costs.

31. Lenny, Ross, Chris, Bob and others:

    The discussion of adequate and balanced roads and highways investment vs all other transportation options is not over.

    Reasonable people with a little common sense, (we are talking about the majority of the public) who do not have their heads in the sand know that that when cars and/or trucks sit on a road or highway surface with little or NO movement with there engines running that there is a resulting cost to our environment. Its more then putting an un-reasonably level of emission into the air under those conditions, it also means that a business has an asset costing them money, that is less then productive. It is more then a fixed asset like a truck or a soft asset like a human being, most everything gets affected in someway and how they get affected IS NOT GOOD.

    A good example of these condition is I-5 corridor between the Marquam and Interstate bridges where those conditions exist for 6 to 8-hours most every work day. This section like many sections of roads and highways in our area give us this Level-of-Service condition of LOS “F” on a scale of A to F. Lenny and many others do not think that this is bad and un-reasonable and that has to tell you something about them.

    Reasonable and balanced people know that what I have been trying to talk about is not from the extreams but the main stream.

    I like it when the extreams try to frame a discussion and refer to it as “phony demand for more roads to support economic development”. They should talk to the Teamster’s or the Long Shoreman’s Union but those jobs are not important to them in their eyes, they are not high tech.

    They have not gone down to any union hall’s like the carpeters and asked how important it is to get building materials to a wholesaler and on to a job site. None of that requires using our roads and highways to them. Its called putting your head in the sand syndrome, to me. I remember one of the principals of the annual Swap Meet and Gun Shows at the EXPO Center told a group that it is hard for someone to carry a hood away or rifle on a MAX train. It was related how much money and jobs that these events bring to our region but to many of these people it is just not important.

    Density is good and I for one want all of you who want to live in high rises and condo’s and to give up your car to do so. I want good high density transit center housing complexes for everyone who wants to live in one of them. Some balanced investment to achieve that is not all that bad. For those who want to live on top of each other please do not let me get in your way.

    However for the rest of us, can you respect our rights to live where we think is best for our families and allow us to get to work or a job, that cannot be serviced by Light Rail or buses and use a car. Or are you going to take a socialist/communist approach and force me to live the way you know I should. Social engineering me is a hard sell but for those of you who think you know better how I should live my life go ahead.

    Issac said: Killing people? That is a little extreme don’t you think? The answer to that is NO! I was refering to the fact that it has been reported that in north Portland we have the 3rd worse air quality conditions in the nation. The congestion (LOS “F” conditions) in the I-5 corridor certainly does not help and/or reduce or eliminate this problem that results in some of the highest level of airborne illnesses to a group of people in the State of Oregon. This group of people also have some of the lowest levels of health insurance on anyone in the state. Yes, known congestion problems of this type that are not addressed and/or given priority to where they can be fixed, is called “Planned Congestion”.

    To be balanced and in the middle of the road on transportation investments and infrastructure is difficult. I support the use of Light Rail, Streetcars, buses and PED but and I know that it will service a lot of people from our region. I want these modes to be as successful as possible. I know that they are gaining in their use and acceptance and I like that. We have invested a lot of money to ensure that these options/modes of transportation get a fare shake.

    We have spent a couple of dollars over the last 25-years of the Neil Goldsmith transportation era investing into creating NEW alternate modes of transportation. In doing so we virtually eliminated priority and investment into our roads and highways in comparison. By the way I-205 was planned, prioritized and funded prior to Neil Goldsmith and clones gaining influence and control of our transportation agenda. Can you imagine how bad everything would be without it.

    Bob R.

    The proposed Mt Hood Freeway may not have been the best solution to moving people and goods up to Highway 26 and up to and over the mountain but it would have been better then what ended up being the alternatives. By the way Bob R. is was not Division Street it was Powell Blvd where the Right-of-way was purchased. Powell Blvd. had the ROW and when the plan was abandoned, it left the street and region worse off. I am a skier and there are a lot us who know that this impediment to reasonable access to mountain and east has not been solved. I don’t know what precentage of the cars, buses and trucks heading that way brought I-84 to its knee’s in congestion. Right now the City of Gresham wants to build a freeway connection from I-84 to highway 26 in an effort to eliminate the problems that exist because we do not have a Mt. Hood Freeway. I think we should provide a grant and/or assistance to the Mt Hood Rail Road to extend its passenger service to Mt. Hood Meadows and on to Government Camp. UP should re-establish a stop in Hood River to enable this option. In fact smart people with vision would create a Rail Road loop that would allow people and product to get to the mountain in both directions from Portland. I lived and skied in Europe and Sun Valley and I know the importance of rail methods.

    Highway 26 west and the westside Light Rail have gobbled up a lot of our money and what I have seen I like. The growth of the service area’s in jobs and investment has been excellent. The same has been true on the east side from the time that I-205 came on board. For those who say that transortation has NO effect on the economy had better open their eyes.

    Oh, by the way do any of you like to eat food that you might buy at a grocery store. Or does your Pearl District Condo provide you with an adequate plot of land to where you can grow you own food. Well on highway 224/212 jsut off of I=-205 is the central distribution for Safeway and Fred Meyer and a lot of others. They need the connection to I-205 and I-84 and I-5 to fan out product that we eat and use everyday. The congestion is so bad that Clackamas County and its leaders have made it one of there number one priorities fix. They have thrown money at it and Sunnyside Road. They have used LID’s and UR District funds and any and ever creative way to try to get ahead of the problem. They have people who know the importance and dependance that they have to an adequate transportation system. Washington County put all of it eggs into highway 26 and the westside MAX. Portland and Multinomah County with the aid of Metro at the same time in my mind stuck their heads into the sand.

    By the way if you want to solve some to safety and congestion problems that cannot and will not get addressed in the I-5 corridor put your money into the I-205 corridor. It has the ROW/ability to be expanded and it would bleed off a lot of traffic out of inter-city Portland that does not need to be there. If I-205 was expanded out to 4-lanes minimum for its full circumference it would really help Portland and its environment, citizens, stakeholders and all businesses.

    State Highway 217 needs improvements. Making it a toll road to gain these needed improvements does not make sense. So if you think that 217 is going to get improved and the problem solved guess again because that is not going to happen.

    There are those of you who think that the people of Washington County brought the problem on themselves that now exists on 217. But it is truly a regional problem. How do you move goods and people in and out of the high tech area’s and Washington Square from and to highway 26 and I-5 without 217. The answer is you do not without an adequate 217. I hope the commuter rail effort has some success/ROI but in my mind it will be a great experiment with marginal success in eliminating the problems that exist in the 217 corridor.

    I am going to end this too. All I am going to say all I have wanted is balance.

32. Terry, your math is off a little bit. By your method it would be 50.5% auto (the 4% flex funds are also programmed in the RTP, so half of those get counted for cars too). [Not that I agree with the rest, but I wanted to clarify the calculation.]

33. Paul,

    In summary:

    Road congestion hampers commerce and freight, so we have to expand road capacity to accommodate SOVs carrying people to and from work. The way to reduce pollution is to enable more cars on the road. Highway 217 desperately needs expansion, but it doesn’t make sense for those who benefit from the expansion to pay for it. The way to make roads safer is to enable more cars to travel on them at higher speeds. Any further expenditures on rail and transit will only deepen the historical imbalance of transportation investments, unless it’s directed toward getting recreational skiers up to the mountain.

    Did I miss anything?

34. A good example of these condition is I-5 corridor between the Marquam and Interstate bridges

    And its a good example, too, of why you are lumping me in with the wrong crowd. I’m all for removing bottlenecks and improving interchanges, and I’ve advocated on this very site for doing so. However, upgrading I-5 through the entire corridor is so costly that there is no political will to do it.

    To upgrade I-5 from the Marquam Bridge to just past the Fremont Bridge, even to add just one lane, would require burying/trenching the freeway (a la Vera), moving it east several blocks, or completely tearing down and reconstructing the existing freeway and the following streets, overpasses, and interchanges:

    Morrison Bridge – Yamhill St. Ramp
    Morrison Bridge – Belmont St. Viaduct
    Morrison Bridge – Morrison St. Viaduct
    Morrison Bridge – I-5 City Center Off-Ramp (In 2 places!)
    Burnside Bridge
    I-84W to I-5S Ramp
    I-5S to I-84E Ramp
    I-84W to I-5N Ramp
    I-5 Viaduct between UPRR/Lloyd Blvd and Multnomah St.
    Weidler Overpass
    Williams Overpass
    Broadway Overpass
    Vancouver Overpass
    Flint Ave. Overpass
    Most of the Fremont bridge ramps (do I have to list them? At least 6 or 7)

    Further north of there, I don’t know… but the ones I have listed are constructed in such a way that their primary supports constrain further widening of the freeway.

    To widen I-5 and remove all bottlenecks in that stretch would cost more than all the MAX lines completed so far and would be extremely disruptive not only to freeway traffic but every surface street going over or under I-5 in the construction zone. It would have to be done in phases and would take many years to complete.

    Are you ready for that? And the pricetag?

    By the way Bob R. is was not Division Street it was Powell Blvd where the Right-of-way was purchased.

    Every map I have ever seen of the Mt. Hood Freeway shows it running in the vicinity of Division/Clinton out to 52nd, and then jogging over to Powell, including the only 2 maps I can find online: This One and This One

    All I am going to say all I have wanted is balance.

    All you have done so far is accuse others of being unbalanced using straw-man arguments.

    – Bob R.

35. However for the rest of us, can you respect our rights to live where we think is best for our families and allow us to get to work or a job, that cannot be serviced by Light Rail or buses and use a car.

    There is not a job in the Portland region that is not accessible by auto, no matter where you choose to live. The frustration people feel from congested roads is caused by the number of jobs that are only accessible by auto no matter where they choose to live and by the number of people who live in places where any job is only accessible by auto. The solution to that problem is to provide more options that are attractive to people so that they aren’t trapped behind the wheel in congestion.

    That is called a balanced transportation system. And Portland is a long way from having one.

36. One last thing that hasn’t been said here. There is really no combination of transportation investments that will solve all the region’s transportation problems. Without changes in land use that create walkable business districts with a mixture of services, all those investments will eventually hit a brick wall as demand for transportation increases.

    The Washington County Transportation Alliance of did a survey to find out why people at a business that provided a free monthly bus pass didn’t make more use of it. The most common reason given was that there wasn’t any way to go to lunch or run errands. If you used transit you were trapped in an office park with no sidewalks, no stores and almost no place to eat. Just putting in sidewalks won’t change that if the stores and restaurants are still two miles away.

37. Chris,

    “Terry, your math is off a little bit. By your method it would be 50.5% auto (the 4% flex funds are also programmed in the RTP, so half of those get counted for cars too).”

    I did not add in Flex Funds (or the Uncategorized Multi-modal capital funds) to any of the computations. I only made a note about them. 4% is not going to make a big difference to any of the percentage point figures.

    Nathan,

    “Although the concept of livability is a matter of debate, most city dwellers would agree that it means a clean, safe, transit friendly city”

    Clean and safe I agree. Transit friendly – not necessarily true.

    With approximately 60% of the home-work trips to downtown Portland made in motor vehicles vs approximately 31% of the trips made by transit, with approximately 63% of all the trips made to downtown Portland by motor vehicle vs approximately 15% of the trips made by transit, with approximately 85% of all trips made in the Metro area by motor vehicle vs approximately 3% for the trips made by transit, and with approximately 90% of all the home-work trips made in the Metro area by motor vehicle vs approximately 5% of the trips by transit; the silent majority by more than two to one apparently think good roads and highways out pace transit alternatives to make a community livable.

    As for my two cents worth, what makes a community livable in addition to good roads and highways is a financially sustainable economy. That includes an abundance of family jobs, the elimination of property tax abatements and other tax incentives for high density housing (except low income) and TOD development so that all who live in the community financially support schools and other government services in an equal manner, and where bicyclists directly charged a user fee or tax to pay their own way for bicycle infrastructure and where transit riders pick up more of the tab for the service they use.

38. With approximately 60% of the home-work trips to downtown Portland made in motor vehicles

    Terry, you are citing the 1994-95 survey done by metro before light rail was open to the West Side? Because it appears that way from the numbers you are using. A lot has happened in 10 years …

39. Terry, I’m sorry, are you serious?

    Most Portlanders I know would choose to walk, bike or take convenient transit over driving. Why? Its cheaper, healthier, easier on the environment and sometimes faster! If you’re talking about. suburbanites than you’re comparing your apples to my oranges.

40. Terry makes the common mistake of most automobile advocates of using people’s behavior as an indicator of what their actual choice would be, given a viable set of options.

    I have yet to see any convincing research that supports the common assumption that people “love” their cars. Trends indicate that more and more people see driving as a chore. Give them viable, attractive, time-competitive alternatives to driving and they will use them.

41. To: Bob R. and others,

    I am not trying to lump you into any group and I am sorry if that is the way it appeared.

    I liked what you said and showed on the degree of difficulty in trying to do anything with the central Portland I-5 corridor.

    You left off the fact that the Marquam I-5 Bridge also needs to be torn down and replaced. The Marquam maybe structurely and safety wise much worse the the Interstate Bridges.

    The current process in place to replace the Interstate Bridges (CRC Project) will direct more traffic into this I-5 corridor that may be just unreasonable in cost to do anything with. What a lot of people do not know about this CRC Project is that it is projected that it may obligate the next 20-years of federal funding for our region to this one project leaving nothing left over for virtually any other road and highway project.

    Federal Transit dollars are generally separate from highway dollars but generally are considered in all regional allocations. The clout of our Senators and Representatives in the past has helped us and the fact that our two Senators work together now also helps us.

    I must relate to you what I heard in a meeting in Sam Adams office when a highly knowledgable political person was asked if the CRC Task Force is successful and the replacing of the Interstate Bridges happens would there be any federal money left over for other regional transportation project after the CRC project earmarks and he said NO!

    If the I-5 corridor is un-fixable why do we continue to pour money into this hole and that includes replacing the Interstate Bridges?

    To me there are just three reasonable solutions to solve the I-5 corridor problem and they all result in getting as many cars and trucks out of and off of I-5 as possible.

    First; is improving and expanding all transit options for the stakeholders of the I-5 corridor. Good market driven, service oriented transit options will have a positive affect.

    Second; is widen I-205 out to 4-lanes for its full circumference making it the primary north/south through truck route in Portland/Vancouver. It is relatively flat and safe and most all of the needed ROW is already owned by ODOT and WSDOT. Most all of the bridges and overpasses from Oregon City to across the Glenn Jackson Bridge in Washington will need little or NO modifications to make this happen. The new Clackamas Center MAX line does not even impact making this happen.

    Third, is building a new transportation corridor along side the Burlington Northern RR tracks/Portland Street. Many of us envision this new corridor as an alternative to pouring money into the un-fixable I-5 corridor. It has the possibility of reducing and/or eliminating a significant amount of trucks and cars out of and off of I-5

    It has been estimated by knowledgable transportation engineers that it could take maybe $8 to $10 Billion Dollars to fix the I-5 corridor in central Portland. Everyone know that money is not going to be available.

42. Ross,

    I called Metro last Monday because I could find a breakdown of percentages of trips by mode on either Metro’s website or TriMet’s website. Metro directed me to http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=65158 Portland Region Transportation Facts – Transportation Options, what appears to be a PDOT site.

    I agree that the numbers are not the most current, but then where are the current numbers? Does an updated breakdown of percentages of total trips by mode even exist?
    With the New Look, the people should be given all the facts in a big picture window rather than selected facts through a peephole so the agenda of a few can be advanced. As an example, Commissioner Sam’s office produced a cost and benefit report on bicycling. When asked for a similar report related to motor vehicles, there was no response. Releasing information to the public on the positive impacts of motor vehicles would weaken the bicycle agenda, so it is not done.

    When I saw the numbers that Chris posted showing about 50% of the funds spent for auto related uses, and knowing that about 80% of Metro area trips are by motor vehicle, I immediately realized that for every percentage point of trips by motor vehicle, there was a less than one percentage point of funds spent to accommodate those trips. I also realized that for transit, the percentage of trips came at very much a high monetary cost. Although my numbers and calculations may not be exact, the concept of comparing the funds spent for each percentage point of trips by mode is comparing the cost of apples with the cost of apples.

    Nathan,

    “Terry, I’m sorry, are you serious?” Absolutely!

    “Most Portlanders I know would choose to walk, bike or take convenient transit over driving.”

    Most people I know prefer to drive over biking or using transit. Obviously we are from different generations and backgrounds. I had to work for what I received and did not have life handed to me on a silver tax subsidized platter. I don’t expect the government to subsidize everything from bicycle infrastructure to transit to high density housing on my tax paid dollars. Using the tax codes for subsidies to dictate lifestyles is socialism, not democracy.

    nuovorecord,

    “Terry makes the common mistake of most automobile advocates of using people’s behavior as an indicator of what their actual choice would be, given a viable set of options.”

    The usage numbers do not lie. Quality of life for a good many people is not being stacked in high density people warehouses and crammed in transit vehicles like sardines. People live in the suburbs because they want to live with open space. They drive cars because they want the independence and freedoms that come with driving.

    “I have yet to see any convincing research that supports the common assumption that people “love” their cars.”

    Obviously you have not been to any kind of car show. Have you seen the article in today’s Oregonian about 122nd and the Ron Tonkin dealerships. Not only do they employ 500 people, but their slogan is “For the Love of Cars’. The research is not being done because those who would do the research have a different agenda.

43. So Terry, if Portlanders are as fond of their cars as you believe (but cannot prove), please explain the estimated 18,000 people on their bikes last Sunday for Bridge Pedal?

    I’ve been to plenty of car shows in my day, rebuilt my share of engines and transmissions, logged hundreds of thousands of miles behind the wheel of a car, truck or bus. I’ve driven and appreciated some of the finest cars in the world, including a Porsche GT3. This isn’t about people “hating” or “loving” cars. They have few viable alternatives.

44. they all result in getting as many cars and trucks out of and off of I-5 as possible.

    You left out the most obvious, toll the current I5 bridge at the times it is currently congested and set the toll at a price that is just high enough to reduce traffic to the desired level.

    Use the money from tolls to pay for alternatives. The more attractive the alternatives, the lower the toll will have to be.

    As for I-205, despite the complaints about I5 most through trucks use I5 because it is shorter. I don’t think adding capacity to I-205 is going to change that.

    The problem of congestion is not a few corridors. Even once people are off the freeways, the local street connections to the freeways are also congested. You don’t reduce congestion by adding capacity to the freeway, you just disburse it further and exacerbate congestion elsewhere.

    One argument against adding another “expressway” bridge across the Columbia is just that. The streets on the Vancouver side would clog. You would have to add a freeway through the middle of downtown Vancouver to “relieve” that congestion. And then Highway 30, on the other end, is also congested.

    A far better alternative is putting a local arterial bridge connecting Vancouver to Denver Boulevard, including light rail. That would allow people to make trips between Vancouver, Jantzen Beach and the Columbia Corridor without getting on the freeway. And that accounts for a lot of the trips on the current bridge.

45. The usage numbers do not lie.

    No, they don’t. If motor vhicles have an 80-90% share of the trips that that would seem to show that the road network is more than adequate. This reminds me of the Yogi Berra claim about a popular local restaurant in New York, “No one goes there anymore, its too crowded.”

46. quote Terry Parker :

    “I had to work for what I received and did not have life handed to me on a silver tax subsidized platter. I don’t expect the government to subsidize everything from bicycle infrastructure to transit to high density housing on my tax paid dollars. Using the tax codes for subsidies to dictate lifestyles is socialism, not democracy.”

    Interesting Terry, so how did personally pay your share of nearly a century of centralized government planning, social engineering and economic mobilization (taxation and directed spending) to rebuild the US around the automobile?

    You see the government planners envisioned a decentralized society based around suburban subdivisions of low-density detached homes built close to connections to limited-access highways, and improved country roads. They connected every major metropolitan region in the lower 48, surrounding the central area by a 60 mile wide diameter loop when possible in order to keep highways running in the event of a nuclear attack on the center. They enforced their master plan primarily through massive spending of the public coffers building huge amounts of new infrastructure, but the process was also engineered by social programs including discriminatory loan garuntees (redlining), public housing projects in older urban areas, and even busing to integrate schools, both of which, in lowering urban property values, tied in nicely with redlining in driving the middle class out to the suburbs where there new subsidized mortgage was often cheaper than their rent. Yes, don’t forget the mortgage interest subsidies, our societal pattern would not exist without them. Then there’s the below market rate oil patents, the tilted property tax structure, and so on. Once the initial pattern had set in the planners used restrictive zoning ordinances, building codes, and parking quotas to make sure no other pattern could emerge. The plan was so effective that by the 1970’s you couldn’t find a old center city that hadn’t lost a huge percentage of its population.

    Like you said, using the tax codes for subsidies to dictate lifestyles is socialism. Socialism was good when it worked for you, but it’s bad when it doesn’t.

47. Paul –

    Re: Your most recent comment, I am glad to see there is potential for common ground.

    – Bob R.

48. Peter,

    “Interesting Terry, so how did personally pay your share of nearly a century of centralized government planning, social engineering and economic mobilization (taxation and directed spending) to rebuild the US around the automobile?”

    I paid fuel and other motor vehicle taxes that pay my share of roads and highways, unlike bicyclists of today who poach the funds off motorist paid taxes to pay for bicycle infrastructure. If you knew your history, suburbia really came into being after WWII when there was a great demand for it from returning soldiers who put their lives on the line for those kinds of freedoms. It was demand that created suburbia, not social engineering. It is the socialists of today that are performing social engineering and who want to take control and force their idea of life style and livability on everybody else. The automobile and multi-car families became more important when women became a major factor in the work force. Both parents working in two parent families has now become the norm for the middle class, in part because of the increasing tax burden being placed on the middle class and all the subsidies handed out for high density developments, transit alternatives and for downtown Portland. 19 cents of every tax dollar paid in Portland goes to PDC. This increasing tax burden that is based on social engineering is only increasing VMTs.

    “You see the government planners envisioned a decentralized society based around suburban subdivisions of low-density detached homes built close to connections to limited-access highways, and improved country roads.”

    And new suburbia homes are gobbled up by the buyers of today as fast as they were after WWII.

    “They enforced their master plan primarily through massive spending of the public coffers building huge amounts of new infrastructure”

    There was no master plan other than the interstate system to connect communities and economically move freight. It is the public transit systems of today that takes massive spending to construct, but also they take massive subsidies to operate. Public transit used to be privately operated for a profit. As for the home mortgage interest write offs on income taxes, that is an incentive that benefits everybody wanting to get ahead and obtain equity in a home, Furthermore, the program applies the majority of owner occupied homes, in suburbia, medium density and high density, old or new. Any discounted oil leases affect not only motorists, but all other forms of fossil fuel burning transportation options, the defense of our country because the military needs fuel, and anything made of plastic including food packaging and prices. The fact the computer you are using costs less due to discounted oil leases.

    Ross,

    “If motor vehicles have an 80-90% share of the trips that that would seem to show that the road network is more than adequate.”

    Adequate for today maybe, but not for tomorrow. There is a cost to the economy if increased road capacity is not added and congestion is increased. The influx of people coming to the Metro area will also mean an influx of cars that must be accommodated.

49. Adequate for today maybe, but not for tomorrow.

    I see no reason that there will be trips in the future that can’t be made by motor vehicle if people choose.

50. Ross Williams,

    Your comments about how to reduce traffic and congestion on the I-5 corridor is putting a just a high of enough toll on the Interstate Bridge is not going to do it. The WHOLE I-5 CORRIDOR IS EFFECTIVELY BROKE, not just the Interstate Bridges. If you were to toll the Interstate Bridge you would have to put a toll on the I-205 Glenn Jackson Bridge too.

    That is what Metro wants (toll’s on both bridges) as a way to get additional monies to enable greater redistribution of personal dollars to social engineer their vision.

    There are many that share the view that enlightened government knows best how we should live our lives. However until the time that they come and put me away I am not one of them.

    Now if you want to make I-5 corridor a total toll corridor that would be great. Start at the Multnomah County line north and south. Have toll booths at all on-ramps. Put one on I-84 close to I-5. This would get people and all of those cars off of I-5 and eliminate that congestion and all of that emmission. That would be Travel Demand Management (TDM) working at it best.

    As for I-205 not working as an alternative to I-5 because it is to short that is not what has happened. The I-205 Glenn Jackson Bridge already handles more traffic then the Interstate Bridges everyday. If the 2-lane sections were eliminated right now it would eliminate additional 10% to 15% of the traffic now in the I-5 corridor.

    Building freight oriented alternatives to the I-5 corridor make a lot of sense. This will remove stiffeling freight mobility problems impacting our ability to be competitive with our region in the world marketplace. What I have seen with this proposed alternative corridor to I-5 is the replacement of the current old swing RR bridge with a new double deck heavey rail, commuter rail, and light rail transit on the lower deck and a upper deck for PED, bikes, and with freight specific lanes and lanes for SOV and HOV vehicles. The best part of this proposal is that it was proposed as a public/private partnership. If they decide to use tolls to build it fine. This solves getting access to hayden Island for all modes. This opens Rivergate to greater development where it should be. This eliminate real problems we have with in-adequate heavey rail capacity in our region that hurts us all. This get us a Light Rail loop into Vancouver without taking out so much private property. This new alternative corridor could eliminate 60% of the trucks out of the I-5 corridor. If they do not move to the new corridor you put a TDM toll on them to do so.

    Using tolls for TDM purposes is incedious. Let me pay a gas tax any day over increasing the size of government with a whole bunch of toll collectors.

51. If you were to toll the Interstate Bridge you would have to put a toll on the I-205 Glenn Jackson Bridge too.

    Yes, you would.

    WHOLE I-5 CORRIDOR IS EFFECTIVELY BROKE

    Reducing the amount of traffic across the bridge will help. Traffic congestion at Portland Blvd., Lombard, Going, Rose Quarter, Morrison etc is only going to get worse if you add capacity to the bridge and the rest of the freeway. Proper tolling will reduce congestion.

    As for I-205 not working as an alternative to I-5

    I didn’t say it wasn’t an alternative to I5 for some trips. It is. It is not being used as an alternative for through freight traffic. That is still going up I5.

    Building freight oriented alternatives to the I-5 corridor make a lot of sense.

    I agree in the abstract. But the reality is that, without some form of controls, all new freeway capacity gets used by people making longer commutes. A new freeway bridge across the Columbia is going to fill up with commuters whether it is at the current location or down river or up river. And the rest of the highway and street network on the Portland side of the river can’t absorb that extra traffic from a freeway. Its like drinking from a firehose.

    Moreover the reality is that there is no realistic alternative corridor that will actually serve most freight movement. Certainly something can be done to get freight out of St. Johns and Kenton, but that is a small portion of the trucks moving in Portland every day.

    If they decide to use tolls to build it fine.

    If they do not move to the new corridor you put a TDM toll on them to do so.

    Using tolls for TDM purposes is incedious. Let me pay a gas tax any day over increasing the size of government with a whole bunch of toll collectors.

    Paul – I don’s see any consistency in those three statements unless what you are saying is that tolls are fine as long as they aren’t on roads you want to use.

52. freedoms. It was demand that created suburbia, not social engineering. It is the socialists of today that are performing social engineering and who want to take control and force their idea of life style and livability on erybody else. ”

    Now I see. You don’t even recognize that its the same situation today as it was in the 40s and 50s, only we’re now heading in a different direction as a society!

    ” Both parents working in two parent families has now become the norm for the middle class, in part because of the increasing tax burden being placed on the middle class and all the subsidies handed out for high density developments, transit alternatives and for downtown Portland. 19 cents of every tax dollar paid in Portland goes to PDC…”

    Terry, you’re telling me that suburbanites are overtaxed!?! Suburbanites *do not* pay the real cost associated with their lifestyle! You keep talking about bicyclists “poaching” funds…and yet you don’t acknowledge that motorists and suburbanites are subsidized as well!

    Ok, I finally get your POV!

53. My comments to Ross W and others.

    I am always a little flip in somethings that I say. But replacing the Interstate Bridges with a new wide bridge with double the current capacity and will dramatically increase traffic in the I-5 corridor. If tolls were placed on both Columbia River Crossing bridges the net effect would to only increase traffic and congestion in the I-5 corridor, it would loose its TDM effect.

    The CRC Task Force Staff continues to try to tell people that the majority of the vehicles get out of or off of I-5 in what they refer to as the bridge influence area. Its a lye when you look at the critical AM and PM peak rush hour.

    This is an effort on the part of the CRC Task Force staff confuse the public with inclusions and exclusions to doctor up the facts to present a slanted story/justification. The real story is to track these vehicles in the AM and PM peak rush hours. We can observe these vehicles in the corridor and what we know about their originations and distinations. This is the time frame that is getting pushed out because of the count of vehicles trapped in the I-5 corridor in LOS “F” conditions for greater then 6-hours work day, right now. It is forcasted that by 2020 it could be 10 to 12-hours per work day of vehicles spewing out exhaust traveling under 10-MPH.

    If we build a new replacement Interstate Bridge it well maybe 14 to 16-hour per work day of LOS “F” conditions and you will be paying a toll to do it too. The toll will be money and exhaust.

    We could take the toll money and use it to relocate all of the people and businesses out of the immediate I-5 corridor and move them out to the suburbs. We will have to do something like brown field relocations.

    I still think that making the complete I-5 corridor through Multnomah County a toll road will get all of the un-needed trucks and cars out of Portland and it will totally eliminate the AM and PM peak period rush hours of congestion.

    Some people have even suggested that we eliminate the I-5 corridor through Portland because we will never have enough money to make a dent in fixing this broke corridor. That is not to far fetched of an idea with the climate/attitudes of the citizenry voicing opinions on this WEB site. We just cannot continue with the current broken model now before us.

    More I think of it, to make Portland the show case for transit oriented livability is a good idea. It would be great to locate all people and businesses who want this style of life and share a common bond together and with those from the eastern seaboard.

    But to truly make it work we need to put a toll on all of the I-5 corridor in Multnomah County or just eliminate, lets say, the east bank section of I-5 including the tearing down the Marquam Bridge and make the east bank areas into or a new condo complex or a park.

    Another great idea is that they could extend the tram over to this east bank area. People and businesses can use I-205 or relocate activity to where their incendents of travel are mostly in the suburbs.

54. The Eastbank freeway sits on the most valuable real estate in the region; that land would return more value to the regional economy if it were developed as whole new city as we move into the post peak oil world.
    Let’s just call I-405 I-5 and take the sucker out.

55. The CRC Task Force Staff continues to try to tell people that the majority of the vehicles get out of or off of I-5 in what they refer to as the bridge influence area.

    I think people, including myself, initially misinterpreted this to mean trips are starting or ending locally to the bridge. But it is important to understand that the “bridge influence area” includes traffic getting on and off I5 from SR500 and SR14 in Washington. Both of these are limited access freeways connecting to rural Clark County or soon will be. So anyone traveling from Battleground on SR500 to Downtown Portland, for instance, gets on I5 “within the bridge influence area” and gets off “within the bridge influence area” on their return trip. But neither the trips starting point nor its destination is local to the bridge area.

    vehicles spewing out exhaust traveling under 10-MPH.

    I believe you are misinterpreting LOS F. It does not mean speeds are under 10 mph.

56. It was demand that created suburbia, not social engineering.

    Terry, if you really know your history, you would know that this is not true. It was social engineering on the government’s part that created the masses of suburbs. Were it not for direct government subsidy, the makeup of our cities would be completely different.

    There were many factors that contributed to the rapid growth in the suburbs. The Federal Home Administration and the Veterans Administration, through the GI Bill, made huge amounts of mortgage financing available for purchase of new single-family homes, but it did not support investment in multi-family units or buying or fixing up old homes. Between the end of World War II and 1966, one-fifth of all single-family residences built were financed by the GI Bill for either World War II or Korean War veterans.

    The Federal National Mortgage Association was created to establish a secondary market for home mortgages that enabled a huge expansion of home lending – again, for single-family homes. The U.S. government also created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and enabled the rise of the savings-and-loan industry (which was then tightly regulated), further expanding home-financing opportunities. The banks took a cue from the federal government and began only funding growth in the form of sprawl, and only allowing investment in favored areas (Much of this was race-related).

    The ULI Community Builders Handbook of 1947 became the default rule book for FHA, and its requirements became more and more suburban.

    Zoning is a big one, which of course absolutely prohibits any sort of free market approach to growth.

    Subdivision road designs are usually based on state guidelines, which are in turn based upon guidelines laid down by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in a handbook called the “Green Book.” Unfortunately, the Green Book’s design guidelines have long been derived from highway design, even in the case of urban streets. The Green Book views the function of roads as primarily to ensure the mobility of motor vehicles and are often used to advance road and street designs that discourage pedestrian activities.

    Which leads us to the highways. If as you say, the highways were built with gas taxes paying 90% of the cost, that still leaves the tax payer with 10% of billions of dollars. If the government had chosen to use a different, or balanced system of transportation to subsidize and install, our country would look vastly different. These highways made it easy for developers to build mass expanses of sprawl and clog the very roads that made them possible. When we were busy building highways, Canada was building subways in Toronto (opened in the 50s) and Montreal (completed in 1968), and other European cities were expanding their rail transit.

    There are of course many more factors, social and political, that contributed to suburban sprawl, but it is very clear that the suburbs were not built in the free market, and it was not demand that created suburbia. It was direct government subsidy, which you call social engineering.

57. My comment to Ross W. & others,

    There is a good new book called The Geography of Transportation Systems”, ISBN 0-415-35441-2.

    This came from a project developed by a Hofstra University Professor. It gives us great outlines on how to make most all transporatations oriented decisions. It includes complete definitions to most all transportation terms. Level-of-Service in this college text book is traveling under 30-miles per hour in a congestion level of vehicles on the road (a density number that I cannot remember) that creates a delay over normal rate of speed of travel. Anyone who wants the exact definition can get it. But from what I read the LOS level that we have on I-5 is much worse then just the average LOS “F” conditions. I commuted on I-5 from Vancouver for 12-years in my back ground and I have a very good knowledge about the real facts.

58. I am against tolls all together, including those being talked about for the Columbia River crossings. They disconnect communities and can be poached for purposes other than their intended purposes of paying for the infrastructure being used, similar to the way parking revenues downtown subsidize free rides on the Portland Streetcar. Tolls would probably also be bad for business on Hayden Island with less Washingtonians coming over to shop and add to Oregon’s economy. If however tolls are charged, all modes of transport must pay including pedestrians, bicyclists and freight, not just personal motor vehicles. Transit riders could pay by way of an extra fare Vancouver zone.

    nathan,

    “Terry, you’re telling me that suburbanites are overtaxed!?!”

    In some cases yes, for example, the people in Bethany don’t necessarily receive benefit from Westside Max.

    “Suburbanites *do not* pay the real cost associated with their lifestyle!”

    Suburbanites pay a far closer to the real costs of lifestyle than do people living in downtown Portland, The Pearl or SoWa. Things like Fareless Square and residential tax abatements do not exist in suburbia. Taxes in the burbs help pay for those central city freebees.

    “You keep talking about bicyclists “poaching” funds…and yet you don’t acknowledge that motorists and suburbanites are subsidized as well!”

    This continues to get old; motorists pay a user fees through fuel taxes, registration and license fees, bicyclists do not and pay zero. Generally, the more a person drives, the higher the tax. That is why with more hybrids appearing on the roads, ODOT floated the idea to increase registration fees on them. The problem with that idea is the political socialist forces that want people in hybrids look upon a subsidy as a way to exercise their control agenda. The doubletalk includes it is OK subsidize foreign cars from a global market while at the same time criticizing foreign energy resources in a global market. Furthermore, if you think motor vehicle fuel taxes are not highway user fees, think again. That is why fuel for farm use and home heating is not taxed at the same rate. Bicycles on the other hand are not licensed or registered, and there is no user fee associated with using them even with exclusive bicycle only infrastructure.

    Lenny,

    “The Eastbank freeway sits on the most valuable real estate in the region; that land would return more value to the regional economy if it were developed as whole new city as we move into the post peak oil world. Let’s just call I-405 I-5 and take the sucker out.”

    And lets re-disconnect Swan Island from the mainland and give it back to the birds and other native creatures that once lived there thereby reclaiming the river front for a great nature park. Next we can double deck the transit mall and re-route I-5 overflow traffic on the top level. Then just like transit, all motor vehicles would have to go through downtown to get anywhere. Oh so efficient.

    Isaac,

    Not all homes built after WWI and financed under GI programs were built in the burbs. My residence and much of the housing in the blocks around me within City limits were built in the late 40s. I know some were purchased with GI loans. The City boundary at that time was more than 25 farther out. Building new homes was and is part of a healthy economy.

59. Corrections to my last post, last paragraph:
    Not all homes built after WWII and financed under GI programs were built in the burbs.
    The City boundary at that time was more than 25 blocks farther out.

60. Not all homes built after WWI and financed under GI programs were built in the burbs. My residence and much of the housing in the blocks around me within City limits were built in the late 40s. I know some were purchased with GI loans. The City boundary at that time was more than 25 farther out. Building new homes was and is part of a healthy economy.

    Yes, Terry, but you completely ignored the entire point of my argument. I never said we shouldn’t build new houses.

    You keep screaming bloody murder over this so-called “social engineering,” but you refuse to admit that there was some very real and very strong “social engineering” that created the suburbs to begin with. Until you acknowledge that fact, any further arguments of yours on the subject will not have any credibility.

61. Intel tried to make Oregon a major manfacturing site, they could not do it because of our transportation limitations.

    I had a conversation with someone at Intel this weekend who said in response to this claim “That’s B***S***”. They went on to explain that Intel in the last few years had centralized the final step in chip manufacturing at the Aloha plant. Essentially, almost every chip Intel produces anywhere in the world comes through Oregon as part of its manufacturing process.

    I think there are a bunch of people grasping at straws on the business side of the equation. Our transportation system is not a barrier to economic development.

    Congestion does cost money, but that cost is almost entirely paid by the people who create congestion by sitting in traffic at rush hour. Some of those people have no choice and we ought to focus our attention on giving them choices.

62. Comments to Ross W. and others:

    You were not there at Metro when Intel came in and made those statements. Intel was lobbing hard for investments in westside highway 26 and overall investment into transportation infrastructure. They were successful in getting a lot of what they wanted.

    But to make statements like you made telling people that it is not fact when it was, (I was there) hurts your creditability.

    As a computer person, a person who has made his living in the industry for over 40-years, I have a good grasp of most all of the facts. The fact that I spent a significant part of my life in a R&D and product planning background made all of this more interesting to me.

    Where you are correct is that our region is the template R&D factory for most all FAB process and control efforts. Yes, the new processes are most often developed and refined here.

    Just to remind you and others that when local, regional and State of Oregon economic development people have bid on new major Intel production plants they have gone every where else then in our back yard. However we should be happy because we have most of the new young brains in their engineers living here. From what I understand they like it here. We cannot win it all but what we have won with Intel is dam good.

    I would still like to make a recommendation that most all of you commenting on transportation issues make a hot link to “The Geography of Transportation Systems” web site. This is a great text with online support of all sides of most all transportation issues.

    We have to many people making comments with major bias’s, special interests and hidden agenda’s on this web site. To many people voicing opinions as if what they are saying is fact with little to back up what was said. But this is the internet and nothing has to be based on fact.

    The Cost of Congestion is not born by just the people caught in an environment that is not of their choosing.

    Anyone in transportation planning that is worth his or hers salt knows when they perpetuate a congested environment when other possibly more favorable solutions are available that could eliminate the problem they become the problem.

63. Here is the claim that you initially made:

    When Intel tried to make Oregon a major manfacturing site, they could not do it because of our transportation limitations

    That is obviously not true. Now you say:

    You were not there at Metro when Intel came in and made those statements.

    Which statements? You are telling us the conclusions you drew from what was stated by someone from Intel. And then you say:

    Intel was lobbing hard for investments in westside highway 26 and overall investment into transportation infrastructure.

    I have no doubt that Intel supports increased investment in Highway 26 or other investments on their end of town. They strongly supported extension of Max to the west side as well.

64. ust to remind you and others that when local, regional and State of Oregon economic development people have bid on new major Intel production plants they have gone every where else then in our back yard.

    That simply isn’t true and the implication that they have made decisions to locate in other parts of the world based on the Portland region’s transportation problems isn’t true either.

    Yes, the new processes are most often developed and refined here.

    They don’t only do R&D, Hillsboro is a major production center. And virtually every chip manufactured elsewhere in the world is finished in Portland area plants. You are just trying to invent reasons the region needs to make your preferred transportation investments a higher priority. Just like the Intel lobbyists you cited for support.

    The Cost of Congestion is not born by just the people caught in an environment that is not of their choosing.

    The financial costs are. The “cost of congestion” study’s cost claims can be almost entirely attributed to people and businesses helping to create the very congestion they were caught in. If you don’t travel at rush hour you don’t help create congestion and you don’t suffer from it either.

65. Ross W.

    Again Ross, I was at a meeting of the Citizen Advisory Committee, at Metro in the late 1990’s at which time we were in the process of developing what was called the 2020 plan. At this meeting an Intel representitive said that Intel could not reasonably ship product through PDX in a just-in-time world. As a result as a result at that time they considered our region not a good location for manufacturing. I think I am close to what they said but a lot of time has gone by 8 or 9-years. All I can say we all heard what they were telling us.

    Your bias in most all of your facts and characterization skew most any message.

    The exact role the Oregon Intel facilities play in developing the processes taken to all of the other factories world wide to me is less important then the fact; that the Total Cost of Doing Business effects where Intel invests in the future.

    We more often compete with the California HQ location. Many of the people now located in our region support the R&D/Product Planning/Manufacturing. It to some of us is the implimentation/proof of concept into manufacturing. We are lucky that the people of Intel like it here but chips manufactured here cost more then exact like type chips coming from Texas or Arizona. So why keep the Oregon Intel facilities open in this very competitive world? It is in developing these manfacturing processes for the rest of world.

    Thank god that it would have cost Intel a hell of a lot more to do the same thing in California. They (California) has priced themselves right out of the market.

    Oregon on the other hand is a lot better place to live and they can attract the young engineers here with our lower cost of living and housing.

    Costs plays a very big role in everything and congestion is one piece of the picture not to be not forgotten.

66. a lot of time has gone by 8 or 9-years. All I can say we all heard what they were telling us.

    During that 8 or 9 years, Intel has expanded its manufacturing capacity in Oregon. And they changed their manufacturing processes so that every chip they manufacture has to come through Oregon. It seems that proves the point that, no matter what the lobbyists for Intel said when advocating expansion of Highway 26, the transportation system did not critical to Intel’s expansion.

    Your bias in most all of your facts and characterization skew most any message.

    Its time for you to stop with the ad hominens and start addressing what people say. The only one showing their bias here is you. I clearly believe that we need to have a balanced system and that right now the problem is creating alternatives to the auto for more trips so that people have a choice. If that is bias, so be it. But I don’t keep inventing reasons to support one particular mode over another.

    Oregon on the other hand is a lot better place to live and they can attract the young engineers here with our lower cost of living and housing.

    And, if those at Intel who have worked in both places are to be believed, Portland’s lack of traffic congestion and vibrant central city.

    congestion is one piece of the picture not to be not forgotten.

    One, very small piece which is best addressed by providing alternatives for those who choose to use them.

67. When many of my predecessor relatives returned to Portland after military service during WWII, available housing was almost non-existent. Multi-unit housing had been constructed during the war, but for the workers brought in to build ships at the Kaiser Shipyards in Portland and Vancouver. After the war, these people stayed and did not return to where they came from. The only place to live for many returning soldiers was to move in back home with their parents or other relatives. Some vets married while still living at home. There were long waiting lists for apartments. Most couples who managed to find an available apartment found it because they knew someone who knew someone. Often times these apartments were small one bedroom units off a common hallway, yet still commanded high rental rates due to the overall shortage of housing. Single family homes were at a premium because these vets who married after the war wanted to start families in homes with white picket fences, grass yards and driveways with garages to park the new car they had ordered, not in tiny apartments with no outdoor spaces for kids to play. The flooding of Vanport only added to the housing shortage because a whole City was now homeless. Suburbia was created and flourished because of this demand. The building of suburbia was not a government social engineering policy. This country owed our vets a great deal of debt for fighting for the rest of us to protect our liberties. The GI bill was created as a partial reimbursement for their service and sacrifices in addition to giving them what the type housing they wanted. Suburbia today is also being created by demand. The only master plan is the one created by Metro that sets a growth boundary thereby increasing the costs of land and placing limits on suburbia.

    So if you want to talk about credibility, do not suggest suburbia was some sort of government scheme, and do not falsely suggest the Sunset, or the Banfield, or the Baldock, or the Minnesota Freeways are or ever were subsidies to suburbia. Unlike like Homer and company that receive direct generous socially engineered taxpayer paid public subsides and property tax abatements from the City of Portland for their participation in the government controlled construction of upscale high density condos and TOD projects, the freeway system you suggest is a subsidy to the burbs is actually paid for by a highway user fees charged motorists who use roads, mostly through fuel taxes. In other words comparing the road systems that connect suburbia with high density tax abatements and taxpayer subsidized TOD development is like comparing grapes with sardines. The smart growth advocates continue to call the grapes sour because their view is that too many of them are on the vine, and they want everything canned in only in their own way and packaged with tight controls on everybody else.

68. OK, Terry I’ll bite.

    I accept your general outline of the source of housing demand following WWII. But wouldn’t most of those GI’s have been raised either on farms or in relatively dense city neighborhoods? How could they crave suburbs if none of them had ever lived in one?

    Certainly the government had a strong motivation to create housing, and I understand how the ideal of your own lot with a white picket fence could be readily marketed. But surely federal subsidy for highways and sewer systems was a crucial piece of making it happen. That still sounds like social engineering to me.

69. “The only master plan is the one created by Metro that sets a growth boundary thereby increasing the costs of land and placing limits on suburbia.”

    That is simply not true. In fact there was a master plan that included freeways every few blocks in Portland. It required tearing down large tracks of housing to build. It was resistance to that “social engineering” that stopped that plan before the Mount Hood freeway was built. It was resistance to that “social engineering” that resulted in the first light rail line.

    What exactly is the difference between “social engineering” and building public infrastructure? Is there something about driving 70 mph on smooth asphalt or concrete that is a natural right? Is there a reason someone in a four wheel drive SUV needs a paved road at all?

    My take is “social engineering” is something the government does that the person using the term doesn’t approve of. Public education is “social engineering”. Laws against spitting on the sidewalk are “social engineering”. And building highways so that people can build and sell houses a long way from economic and employment centers was and is social engineering.

70. Terry, again you haven’t addressed the real issue. I’m not talking about Metro or Homer Williams. The whole discussion began when you brought up “social engineering,” which you claim our government is doing. I was merely stating that government meddling in our private lives is nothing new. The same thing was happening 60 years ago.

    I am not denying or debating the magnitude of the housing shortage after the war. I am saying that if it weren’t for direct government interference, our country/state/region/city would look vastly different. That pent up housing energy would have built real urban neighborhoods, small walkable towns, streetcar suburbs, and yes some sprawl (the suburbs we know today).

    these vets who married after the war wanted to start families in homes with white picket fences, grass yards and driveways with garages to park the new car they had ordered, not in tiny apartments with no outdoor spaces for kids to play

    I cannot pretend to know what kind of life every returning vet wanted to make for themselves, and I don’t think you should either. I’m sure this is true for some, but I’m also sure that it’s not true for some. But the fact is that the government DID NOT allow them to choose for themselves. I’m not going to restate all the facts. You can reread my previous post.

    do not suggest suburbia was some sort of government scheme

    Early FHA loans required restrictive agreements on mortgages that excluded Blacks (and often other minorities) from living in new suburbs. Into the 1960s, the FHA drew lines around African American neighborhoods, deeming them bad places for investment and refusing to make loans in those areas. How’s that for social engineering?

    The only master plan is the one created by Metro that sets a growth boundary thereby increasing the costs of land and placing limits on suburbia.

    Not true. Zoning laws for half a century have forced people to build sprawl whether they wanted to or not.

    do not falsely suggest the Sunset, or the Banfield, or the Baldock, or the Minnesota Freeways are or ever were subsidies to suburbia

    Shall I quote myself? “If as you say, the highways were built with gas taxes paying 90% of the cost, that still leaves the tax payer with 10%” How is that not a subsidy?

    So far you have brought opinions and personal observations to this discussion. If you would like to continue please do so in quantifiable terms, otherwise I am going to end this conversation, as it’s going in circles.

71. [Personally directed comments removed]

    We have spent approximately $1.65 Billion on our LRT System in Portland Region in the last 20-years. That number is not the fully encumber cost involved in making all of that LRT infrastructure come together. ODOT, Tri-Met, Metro, City of Portland, other regional cities, Washington, Clackamas, and Multhnomah Counties have invested in meetings and staff time possibly another $100+ million. It just all adds up.

    Quality of living equation in Oregon mandates investments in infrastructure for bikes and PED’s. Again I see nothing wrong with that.

    The problem is with a lack of balanced vision of what it takes to adequately address the needs of our roads and highways system with the same level of passion and dollars as other transportaion modes. That to me has not been happening in the last 25-years of the Neil Goldsmith and clones era of transportation planning and prioritization in Oregon.

72. If the I-5 corridor really is the third worst in the nation, and that this problem is primarily due to cars, doesn’t it follow that we should severely reduce the number of cars in the area? Adding more would seem to defeat the purpose, would it not?

73. Gee Paul…lighten up. All Ross wants is a balanced transportation system, where people of options to drive on a local street, ride transit, bike or whatever.
    We do not have those options across the Columbia River. Creating them will relieve congestion on the freeway; I shouldn’t have to get on the Interstate that runs from Canada to Mexico to get a drink at Shenanigan’s.
    The roadway network…except for my favorite dream freeway through Lake Oswego…is virtually complete. The bikeway, sidewalk and hight capacity transit networks are clearly not. So what do you do to get balance? complete all theose other networks.
    Swan Island has no congestion, 20% of its employees ride transit, bike or rideshare. Why don’t we do that on I-5 as well…its simple, its cheap and it works.

74. Sam, I agree with you we should take responsible steps to reduce all vehicle traffic on I-5. But in saying this it is just not that simple.

    We all know that the CRC Task Force is proposing building a new wide bridge replacement Interstate bridge that will increase traffice in the already congested I-5 corridor.

    It will in-effect obligate through earmarks the next 20-years of our regions Federal transportation dollars for this one project.

    Is that smart, I do not think so!

    We know that we will never have enough money to fix the I-5 corridor, so what are our options?