Defining the Walk for Walking Your Talk


Following up on our earlier discussion on whether Al Gore is walking is talk, Portland Transport contributor Rick Browning recently sent this letter to the editor of the NY Times questioning whether it’s about how you get there or how far there is…

To the Editor,

Environmental activist Bill McKibben’s custom home in rural Ripton, VT is no doubt a lovely place to live (“Renewing a Call to Act Against Climate Change” National Report, March 14). But location [preceding word in italics] of energy efficient houses like Mr. McKibben’s does matter. I have taken his hybrid Honda Civic into account, yet still – assuming a 45 week a year job and a 20 mile roundtrip, at least 1,350 pounds of carbon goes into the atmosphere every year that Mr. McKibben drives to his job at Middlebury college.

As Mr. McKibben is quoted as saying, if mainstream scientific predictions about global warming are accurate, time is indeed short and “Changing lightbulbs isn’t enough”. Note to environmentalists – neither is getting a hybrid. Perpetuating lifestyles that require us to drive for everything guarantees we will fail in our quest to halt global warming.

Richard D. Browning, AIA

,

19 responses to “Defining the Walk for Walking Your Talk”

  1. Wow, I couldn’t have said it better.

    Can I get personal for a second? I currently own two cars. The second runs on biodiesel; the first is for sale, but I haven’t yet found a buyer for it.

    Neither one gets driven for my daily commute, and beyond that, I drive maybe an average of seven or eight times a month.

    Mainly, I ride my bicycle, or walk, or take transit to get around.

    I bought a biodiesel vehicle because, for those trips, I wanted to feel like I wasn’t supporting the Bush/Cheney re-election campaign every time I filled up at the pump. This may or may not be correct, but at least I feel better. (it also happens to be a mercedes, so, well, when I do drive, I’m riding in style, even if it is 20 years old)

    As somebody who currently lives in a rental dwelling, however, I’m limited in my ability to do things like insulate the walls and install double-paned glass in my 100-year-old dwelling. I do install the compact flourescent bulbs when the other bulbs burn out, but not always — sometimes, incandescent is the only bulb that will work for a particular light. Do I sweat it? No.

    If I was living in a house I owned, I’d probably look into installing solar panels on the roof, along with a compact vertical wind turbine.

    But overall, I feel like my main contribution is to be living in an area where I can ride my bike, walk or take transit for most of my trips. I realize that not everybody lives in such an area. My advice? Move. Find a nicer place to live where this *is* a possibility. Or, if that doesn’t work out, find a way to make your existing community more bicycle & pedestrian friendly so that you can reduce the number of trips that you need to take by car.

    Then, who cares if the remaining trips are in a prius or a porsche?

  2. A few years ago the Willamette Week did an article on SUV’s and I made the same point in it. What you drive is a lot less important than how much and how far. An SUV in the garage burns the same amount of gas as a hybrid in a garage, and less than the hybrid burns when it is used.If you want an SUV so that you can take the family camping in the back country, fine. Just don’t use it to drive 5 miles to work every day.

    Not everyone can always choose a job and home that are close together. But we it should be clear that is a choice we ought to try to make. And choosing a job where using transit is an option even a couple times a week is better than a job that forces you to drive every day.

  3. I think these are fair criticisms. The hybrid/alternative fuel movement is still a supply side fix, demand is the real issue.

  4. On the contrary, the hybrid is a demand side solution and much, much more. When a Prius-type hybrid adds a larger battery pack, the many miles and higher speeds one can be driven electrically creates an economic incentive to drive less.

    I say “Pruis-type” hybrid because even an SUV can incorporate the technology. The Ford Escape SUV is applicable, the Saturn VUE SUV is not. The Plug-in Hybrid (PHEV) battery pack is a perfect technological match with rooftop solar photovoltiac panels. This portable power supply is invaluable in an emergency, an education in household electricity conservation, a small step from public power, a vehicle stabilization device that improves handling and safety, an industry that is not practical to ‘outsource’, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

    Since the miles driven electrically on the larger battery pack is still limited to 10-30 miles, here is the economic incentive to drive less, patronize local economies, and build them to where more destinations become accessible without having to drive. Walking and bicyling become viable travel means, and mass transit more practical to arrange.

    Bio-fuels and any fuel combustion is perfected in the hybrid drivetrain, producing the highest fuel economy and best emission reduction. Simply burning bio-diesel is not nearly enough. The technology with the most potential and promise to actually reduce overall driving and goods transport is the Plug-in Hybrid.

    Whatta-ya talkin about? Whatta-ya Talkin about?

  5. On the contrary, the hybrid is a demand side solution and much, much more. When a Prius-type hybrid adds a larger battery pack, the many miles and higher speeds one can be driven electrically creates an economic incentive to drive less.

    I say “Pruis-type” hybrid because even an SUV can incorporate the technology. The Ford Escape SUV is applicable, the Saturn VUE SUV is not. The Plug-in Hybrid (PHEV) battery pack is a perfect technological match with rooftop solar photovoltiac panels. This portable power supply is invaluable in an emergency, an education in household electricity conservation (a demand-side solution there), a small step from public power, a vehicle stabilization device that improves handling and “safety”, builds a recycling industry that is not practical to ‘outsource’, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

    Since the miles driven electrically on the larger battery pack is still limited to 10-30 miles, here is the economic incentive to drive less, patronize local economies, and build them to where more destinations become accessible without having to drive. Walking and bicyling become viable travel means, and mass transit more practical to arrange.

    Bio-fuels and any fuel combustion is perfected in the hybrid drivetrain, producing the highest fuel economy and best emission reduction. Simply burning bio-diesel is not nearly enough. The technology with the most potential and promise to actually reduce overall driving and goods transport is the Plug-in Hybrid.

  6. All:

    Yup, distance is the real problem. The car allows us to sprawl and that decreases community involvement, isolation, and other such things America had before it sprawled endlessly into the wildlands around cities.

    But as stated, the key isn’t to clean up cars, burn less fuel or more, or burn it clean. It doesn’t matter, none of it is a good fix for the problem.

    The problem is fixed by ONE solution. People actually living, working, and playing in less distances. If one has to drive more than 5-10 miles a day they’re putting forth too much effort, straining sustainable resources, and generally wasting things they really shouldn’t even need to use.

    One should ideally be able to live somewhere and walk to work, or maybe drive 1-2 miles (walk if need be), get groceries, and entertain themselves without getting in a car. A car should be a convenience that is rarely used, and only when an emergency arises or for a ride here or there for entertainment or business purpose.

    Now that I live just like that, and split my actual commute (when I do have to) with 200+ other people on a train, I’m barely traveling more than 2-3 miles a day to do everything I do. The awesome thing is I have a VERY active life. Anyone that says, “Well, to be productive one needs a car”…

    is stating a simple myth. One just needs to orient their life, their play, and their work accordingly. I know “GAS STATION ATTENDANTS” who live well, play and work all within walking distance without a car. If a low income earner like that can do such, than anyone should be able to. To not is a display of incompetence.

  7. Adron writes: “Yup, distance is the real problem. The car allows us to sprawl and that decreases community involvement, isolation, and other such things America had before it sprawled endlessly into the wildlands around cities.”

    I’d like to add zoning regualtions to the list of things causing sprawl. Under the first ones and what is still a serious part of zoning is to have commercial in one area industrial in another and then residential. It would have been much more beneficial to ask people to work on being good neighbors instead, but that is more difficult.
    Of course a lot of zoning was about racism and the health movement at the beginning of the 20th century.
    MHW

  8. The problem is fixed by ONE solution. People actually living, working, and playing in less distances. If one has to drive more than 5-10 miles a day they’re putting forth too much effort, straining sustainable resources, and generally wasting things they really shouldn’t even need to use.

    Then it should be incumbent upon Metro as the regional planning government to see that it is possible and feasible that ANYONE who wishes to live within walking distance of their work have the ability to do so.

    It should not be that anyone who can’t afford more than $200,000 for a home (which is a large percentage of the population) has to live in a poor neighborhood at least five miles from downtown if not further, with substandard transportation access (including both streets and busses/mass transit).

    Simple solution: no more residential tax breaks unless for affordable housing, and anyone who is purchasing property for investment purposes alone is ineligible for any tax credit unless they are willing to rent the property out for an “affordable rent” for a minimum of 10 years or the length of the tax credit/abatement, whichever is longer; affordable rent is tied to the cost per square foot and not the actual purchase price of the property.

    Portland is becoming San Francisco. Who wants to volunteer to be Oakland? Gresham? Do you want to be a gang-infested, high crime stepchild? (You’ve already got a head start with Rockwood.) How about Vancouver? Cornelius?

  9. Michael Wilson. If we’d allow the implementation of M37, then some of your theory might become a reality. We can then have commercial, industrial nearby to our residences if the free market leads us in that direction.

  10. People actually living, working, and playing in less distances. If one has to drive more than 5-10 miles a day they’re putting forth too much effort, straining sustainable resources, and generally wasting things they really shouldn’t even need to use.

    While I obviously agree on one level, the question is whether this economic model works. The reason businesses locate in large cities is that it gives them access to a variety of services and employees with specialized skills.

    The same is true of stores and entertainment. The ability to serve a wide area allows for more specialized operations.

    One of the reasons for expanding transit is to increase the options for people. Before MAX there are people in Portland who never could have considered taking a job in Hillsboro. Now they can and do. And there are people who work at Intel who never would have considered living in Portland. Now they will.

    Lets not put on hair shirts. The point of transportation investments is to make communities better places to live.

    I’d like to add zoning regualtions to the list of things causing sprawl.

    I think that is correct. But try living next to an 24-7 industrial plant sometime. Or try being a good neighbor when your neighbors don’t think you should create all racket with your tractors and other machinery. There are good reasons for planning and zoning that go beyond exclusionary zoning and creating single family enclaves.

    It should not be that anyone who can’t afford more than $200,000 for a home (which is a large percentage of the population) has to live in a poor neighborhood

    What is a “poor neighborhood”, a neighborhood where poor people live? Or are you talking about the quality of the neighborhood? The problem, of course, is that in a free market the better, more desirable, the neighborhood the more the homes cost. If we are going to provide affordable housing in those neighborhoods it is going to require non-marketplace solutions.

    The median home price in the Portland area is aroudn $250,000. Which means half the houses cost less than that. But I doubt you are going to find a family size house near downtown for price. The market has made those locations too desirable.

    As for subsidizing expensive condos, that is something that has happened way too often. The problem is that those subsidies get used to kick-start an area but they don’t get cut off when even once the neighborhood is roaring. The core of the problem is our campaign finance system, but that is a larger issue.

  11. The implementation of Measure 37 will build little more than suburban sprawl housing, far from commercial centers, historic townships and neighborhoods. It’s a recipe for becoming more like the San Francisco Bay Area, not less.

  12. Hey guys, give me a call when Al baby moves to a 500 sq ft condo within walking distance of most his daily activities.

    Also give me a call when the ice uncovers the last medieval Viking farm in Greenland.

    Thanks
    JK

  13. Hey JK –

    Al Gore has never advocated that everyone move into 500 sq ft condos, but you would know that already had you actually read any of the rebuttals, above. Mr. Gore is already practicing what he preaches.

    By the way, JK, you’ve been asked here and on other forums if you receive any support/funding from any organizations, but every time I’ve seen this happen, you’ve dodged the question. (In fact, you often ask this very same question of other people, but don’t answer for yourself.)

    So, who’s backing you?

    (And before you turn the question back on me yet again, I’ll answer it for the nth time: I do not receive funding from or do business with any entity backing transit or development projects, nor do I receive funding or backing from any political organization. My transit-related activities are purely as a citizen activist. As of a month-or-so ago, I began serving on the Portland Streetcar Citizens Advisory Committee.)

    Best wishes,
    Bob Richardson

  14. Also, JK:

    Please give me a call (you already have my contact info) when you have found a new car people can buy which will achieve a life-cycle cost-per-passenger-mile of your oft-repeated 18.5 cent figure.

    And please also answer the still-unanswered question: What’s your cost-per-passenger-mile? (I already posted the figures for mine months ago.)

    – Bob R.

  15. Not that I’m JK, nor do I fund him or receive funds for him… but since I know my info I figured i’d post it.

    My cost-per-passenger-mile of my car is about, or after about an expected lifespan of my car of about 120k miles before complete rebuild, and gas stays relatively the same (inflation adjusted), I’ll get right at about $9.00 per mile.

    Yup, that’s right. I’ve included EVERYTHING, parking, house costs, clean up, maintenance, AND the actual cost of the car ($29,900). Keep in mind it is a 12 MPG 350Z that pushes in excess of 320hp, will soon push over 420hp, and is generally only driven at the track. None the less, it has a cost per passenger mile.

    I also have my transit costs figured out per mile, including taxes. So far Amtrak kicks everything else’s butt… at about $2.15 per mile.

    Transit scream in at about $2.85-3.00 per mile.

    But I digress… and no I don’t know where I have the figures on all this, it’s been a long time since I figured it out. I just recall what the totals where because I was horrified to realize how much I pay for myself to get around.

    Especially when I figure that every $9.00 dollar mile I get hit with about $2.20 per mile for other drivers (based on my taxes and the yearly expenditure for roadways), for every 2.15 per mile on Amtrak I’m averaging about 1.20 for other riders, and for every 2.85-3.00 a mile on transit I’m coughing up about 2.00 a mile for other riders.

    So one can see why I’d be kind of pissed that I cough up that much just because I’m “well to do”. I’ve seriously thought about getting out of my industry because it seems sick that I get punished for being good what what I do.

  16. My cost-per-passenger-mile of my car is about, or after about an expected lifespan of my car of about 120k miles before complete rebuild, and gas stays relatively the same (inflation adjusted), I’ll get right at about $9.00 per mile.
    Are you sure? That $9.00 seems more like light rail – perhaps the proposed line to Vancouver?

    The actual (not guessed, calculated or theroetical), overall (everything – taxes, fees, gas, repairs, insurance and tolls), USA average cost is:
    $0.294 per vehicle-mile
    $0.227 per pasenger-mile at Portland’s average of 1.3 passengers
    $0.185 per pasenger-mile at USA average of 1.59 passengers

    Sources listed at:
    DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit-Details.htm

  17. Thats great, so while JK can’t actually name a single car that actually gets anywhere near 18.5 cents/mile, he is saying that there are a bunch of people doing it for far less, (since it is an average, and there are a bunch of cars that don’t cost anything at all to operate to balance out for Adron’s $9/mile)

    Also, the 1.57 people/car number clearly doesn’t apply to Portland. I cross over I-5 in North Portland on my bicycle during commute hours, and there are very few vehicles in the carpool lane, sometimes I don’t see any cars at all in it… If you don’t count the buses, (which Jim shouldn’t if he believes that buses are a waste of money,) I’d have trouble believing the 1.2 number too. I could believe that the cars involved in collisions have 1.2 people on average, but most collisions tend to involve less experienced drivers, (teenagers hauling around their friends,) and/or people that have been drinking, (again, often with their friends,) and those aren’t the same cars that are driving home from work at 5pm…

  18. Also, the 1.57 people/car number clearly doesn’t apply to Portland.

    I don’t know about that and I would be suspicious of intuitive judgments. The problem with all these numbers is they compare auto trips to transit trips. But people don’t use transit, in many cases can’t use transit, for many kinds of trips. You aren’t talking about the typical suburban soccer mom with a van full of kids using transit to get them to their soccer practice.

    What’s interesting is that folks insist that everyone adopt their preferred mode of transportation, the automobile, in the name of “freedom”. And are threatened by the idea people would ever have any other viable choices.

Leave a Reply to Michael Wilson Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *