I must say, the update of the Regional Transportation Plan is turning into quite the little contretemps. A few weeks back the Federal Highway Administration made it clear they thought Metro was departing planet earth.
Now apparently, it’s ODOT’s turn. As reported in the Tribune (scroll to the lower part of the piece) ODOT distributed a letter (PDF, 87K) at JPACT last week reminding Metro that only ODOT gets to set standards for state highways and that the progression of congestion in the Metro area is a problem:
Businesses outside and inside the Portland-Metro region cannot move their freight through, around or out of the region in an efficient manner with a significant adverse impact on the Oregon economy.
and
Further deterioration of the State System is not acceptable.
Stuart Foster (chair of the Oregon Transportation Commission) seems to be quite excited.
The interesting thing is that I don’t see the RTP as an endorsement of congestion. It is rather a description of a strategy for connectivity that is less focused on freeways, in part because freeways are subject to the ‘triple convergence’ phenomenon of induced demand. Metro is looking for a better way.
Change is hard. But that doesn’t make it wrong.
Interestingly, change may apparently be harder for transportation officials than land use officials. The Metro Policy Advisory Committee (primarily focused on land use) voted to ‘endorse’ the RTP policy chapter, while JPACT (focused exclusively on transportation) used the weaker language of ‘accepting’ it. We’ll have to see which version the Metro Council uses in their resolution…
65 responses to “Much Ado About the RTP”
If there is a “freight crisis,” how come I still see raw logs being hauled thru Portland on I-5 in the middle of the day?
Freights moving great on Swan Island where 20% of commute trips are via transit, rideshare or bike. Sounds like an idea worth trying. Who elected ODOT anyway?
Also, note that the new German outfit moving into Hillsboro will relocate 100 emps from Vancouver and that Phil Knight’s movie outfit will be moving 300 plus jobs out of close in NW (near the vacant CNF land) to beautiful suburban Tualatin right next to I-5. This should help things.
Not another dime for freeways.
Hahaha. that’s classic.
But yeah, the only real bottleneck for freight is the rail issues (the damnable river bridge for instance) and the nasty curves in and out of the city for the rail. Brings everything to a snails pace.
Other than that there is the monstrosity of the I-5 bridge. But seriously, after 50+ years of trucking subsidies split up some of that and give the railroads a hand updating their networks in and out of the city. Either that or quit wasting money on roadway freight throughput… especially if they have to share with local passenger traffic.
…blagh. The solutions….
…are….
…right…
…smack dab in our faces!
“Induced demand”
Like building more prisons increases the crime rate.
Like building more maternity wards increases the birth rate.
Building freeways makes magic cars appear out of thin air to fill it up to capacity.
Where do you come up with this stuff?
Both the Federal Highway Administration and ODOT are correct. Metro’s RTP is an experiment in social engineering, not realistic transportation plan. The fact the
Metro Policy Advisory Committee voted to endorse the RTP is a joke. Membership in this exclusive club is strictly controlled by Metro so Metro policies can be rubber stamped. Citizens with differing points views don’t pass Metro’s muster check and therefore are not invited to be a participating member at the advisory committee table.
Metro should be using the Cost of Congestion Study as a guide for future transportation policy. Just because myopic dead end enclaves such as Swan Island don’t appear to have transportation problems does not mean the rest of the system is not broken. Most gated communities don’t have transportation problems either. The I-5 corridor, however, through Portland, is broken. Fixing it and other broken roadway systems can NOT be done by dumping hundreds of millions of dollars light rail, streetcars and bike lanes. Metro must recognize there is a demand and need for expanded roadway capacity; and not just on arterials that are currently being gummed up more and more by busses and streetcars stopping in travel lanes instead of pulling out of traffic and over to the curb to load and unload passengers. The citizenry of the region votes everyday by driving their cars. If Metro is going to have some sort of an arterial policy that takes the place of highways, then the movement of motor vehicles must be the priority on these streets with all other uses and modes of transport taking a back seat. Furthermore, if Metro is going to promote and recommend funding for more transit and bicycle infrastructure, then the users of these modes of transport must be the ones that pay for them, NOT the taxpayers in general or motorists. A bicycle tax and transit fares that better reflect the costs of providing the service should be embodied in the RTP.
Swan Island? Dead end? Its a busy, busy place with 10,000 people making family wage jobs, repairing ships, designing & building trucks, making yogurt, moving parcels (UPS & Fed Ex), not to mention two North American corporate HQs full of engineers, designers, marketers…many of whom bike or ride transit to work. Check it out.
To think that more freeway capacity solves anything simply ignores economics, history and the realities of 21st century living…climate change, water & air pollution, and increasing cost of energy.
Remember Intel did not lose market share to ADM due to the cost of getting product to PDX; likewise the “projection cluster” woes recently documented in the press have nothing to do with transportation. Its all about product quality, innovation, and added value.
We have plenty of resources on the transportation side if we quit wasting them moving congestion around with big mega-projects. It is our dis-investment in education that really puts us at risk in global market. To even mention more $ for transportation when higher education in this state is looking a more cuts is nuts.
Anthony –
“Where do you come up with this stuff?”
From the obvious. Roads create opportunity and people take those opportunities. Just ask any developer.
How “far” people will drive is largely determined by how long it takes to get there, not the distance. If you speed up traffic, people will drive longer distances for the same results. Longer distances and/or faster speeds use more roadspace than shorter distances and/or slower speeds.
Thus adding capacity induces traffic by both spurring development and by increasing how much people drive.
And that doesn’t deal with the “shifting” of trips from one location and time to another.
Also, note that the new German outfit moving into Hillsboro will relocate 100 emps from Vancouver and that Phil Knight’s movie outfit will be moving 300 plus jobs out of close in NW (near the vacant CNF land) to beautiful suburban Tualatin right next to I-5. This should help things.
Not another dime for freeways.
Maybe it’s because that Tualatin is located away from the congestion hub, and has many more transportation opportunties than inner-NW (two ways out – downtown, or north (west) on US 30); or that being in Vancouver makes the business heavily reliant on only two bridges to/from Portland?
As long as Metro has this mentality that I-5 cannot be expanded and that the current configuration of I-5 from MP 299 to MP 308 should remain “as is”, there is no choice but for businesses whose access to the national highway system is in those nine miles to move out of that zone – and Tualatin is at MP 289 – ten miles south of there.
Freightliner is cutting jobs and moving production out of Oregon. The Swan Island ship repair business is a fraction of what it was years and decades ago. I’m sure UPS would be glad to get off of Swan Island – after all it built a new hub in Tualatin about 20 years ago, and is building one in Vancouver. FedEx has facilities in Tualatin (does anyone see a pattern here?) and at PDX as well. The Port of Portland had no container traffic for several months last year. I wonder when Gunderson will pull up stakes and move to Mexico/Canada (they already have plants in both countries). Oregon Steel Mills was just purchased by a Russian company. And of all of the distribution warehouses all throughout N/NW Portland, just how many of them are served by railroad? Not many…
Surely, the high cost of living in Portland (due in part to higher housing costs), plus the “cost” of congestion (due to an over-reliance on “alternative” transportation modes such as light rail – which ironically serve none of the three above-mentioned employment/industry centers), has something to do with businesses choosing other locales than Portland.
FHA, ODOT, and individuals who resolutely cling to the grandest social engineering experiment of the 20th century, a transportation system based solely on the automobile, remind me of something I read in a science book I found at my grandpa’s house. In the text, it stated in an authoritive voice: “Space travel will NEVER be possible, because space is a vacuum, and humans CANNOT EXIST in a vacuum.” Obviously the writers of this book were wrong, and I think that the individuals and groups like the FHA and ODOT who cling to the idea that the efficient movement of goods and people can only be done via an automobile or truck are wrong.
Why should we cling to the economic engine drivers of a century ago like the automobile and oil?!? Look around at the rest of the world. Read Discovery & Popular Science. The rest of the world is beginning to leave us behind due to governments that encourage innovations in transportation, technology, energy sources, and the sciences. Meanwhile, the United States appears to be resistant to change and innovation as evidenced by continual subsidization of old industries, a decreased focus on science in education, cutting federal funds for research and development, and a continued reliance on a social engineering transportation experiment that isn’t and hasn’t been working all that well.
The reality is that resolutely clinging to the economic engine drivers and industries of a century ago will only hasten the economic downfall a country that once prided itself on innovation and creativity. Just like the iron age and bronze age has passed, the industrial age too will pass. It is inevitible. If the United States is to remain competetive in the 21st century, it will require 21st century thinking.
Remember what my grandpa’s science book said: Space travel is not, and NEVER will be possible. It’s easy to laugh at that statement now, since you have historical context. But if you ask me which country I would bet on to be an economic leader in the future? It’s going to be the country that focuses on innovation, not one that relies on past successes.
Transportation drove none of the changes mentioned above on Swan Island. The biggeset transportation problem here is rail not road. Indeed, UPS is expanding their hub on Swan Island because they can bring Triples in…they cannot in Tualatin.
Western Star Trucks…value added…will continue to be built in Portland; the Freightliner brand…the cheaper line…will move to Mexico and N. Carolina. The jobs we had better keep our eye on are the design, engineer, R&D, marketing ones at Freightliner. Remember adidas, Nike, Columbia Sportsware, none of these produce product here.
Not sure why a movie outfit needs to move that much cargo; it will be interesting to see the impact being in the burbs has on their workforce, the key to hitting the jackpot in that business for sure.
adidas moved their NA HQ to N. Portland to help attract and keep their creative workforce, without which they would wither.
Swan Island is a dead end because there is one roadway on and off the island – thus no through traffic. Now if there was a road bridge or a tunnel connecting the North end of the island so all the traffic was not simply going to the island, but also over it, things would be different. Thus comparing the traffic patterns on Swan Island to the rest of Portland is like comparing apples and oranges.
“Like building more prisons increases the crime rate.”
In fact, there have been studies suggesting that the availablity of prison space is a serious check on the police power of the government. You can’t put people in jails that dont exist.
“Building freeways makes magic cars appear out of thin air to fill it up to capacity.”
There is considerable research on both sides of the “induced traffic” debate. But the cars dont magically appear from thin air. .One idea is that as freeway congestion increases, some people become frustrated and switch to off-peak travel, transit, carpooling, or surface streets. But they would really prefer to be on the freeway, so if it suddenly becomes free-flowing again, they will get back in their cars and drive.
Exactly..
People “really prefer” to be on the freeway.
Why exactly is the government trying to change that preference instead of accommodating it?
Its not about changing the preference, its about an unwillingness to sacrifice more space for automobile infrastructure. Its a moral issue. Do Vancouver commuters deserve more Auto space in North Portland? Neighborhoods are unwilling to sacrifice the neighborhood to save 5 minutes for someone elses commute. As for Freight, one can argue that it has priority over other commuters before it does a neighborhood. If Freight is the issue then dedicate an existing lane to it and let the commuters make a choice on how and where they want to live.
“People “really prefer” to be on the freeway.”
I disagree. People actually prefer to not have to drive at all, the real solution is personal chartered helicopters. They are fast, (100 mph,) point to point, (no having to worry about the river,) and the accidents are self clearing, (when the engine dies, you do too. No worrying about getting an ambulance to the crash site, just clean them up after rush hour.)
“Why exactly is the government trying to change that preference instead of accommodating it?
Why indeed.
Why exactly is the government trying to change that preference instead of accommodating it?
Because we can’t accommodate everyone perfectly so we elect people to decide on the trade-offs. I suspect if any of us could dictate what happened the world would be a better place, for us.
“I disagree. People actually prefer to not have to drive at all, the real solution is personal chartered helicopters. They are fast, (100 mph,) point to point, (no having to worry about the river,) and the accidents are self clearing, (when the engine dies, you do too. No worrying about getting an ambulance to the crash site, just clean them up after rush hour.)”
That is also untrue. We don’t want helicoptors we want V-22 VTOL Ospreys. High speeds (Well over 200mph) and can take off and land vertically!
… and that Phil Knight’s movie outfit will be moving 300 plus jobs out of close in NW (near the vacant CNF land) to beautiful suburban Tualatin right next to I-5. This should help things.
Not hardly. Most of those 300 employees live in Portland, and quite a few walk to work. They now will be required to endure I-5 rush-hour traffic. Or move to Tualatin.
There is talk of a Laika shuttle, however, to reduce the cost of commuting. We’ll see what happens.
I’m pretty sure that Laika’s move to Tualatin was driven both by the high cost of industrial/commercial real estate in Portland and by Phil Knight’s fondness for unincorporated suburban areas, where he can be a bigger fish in a smaller pond.
Yeah, I think Metro’s transportation plan is quite the joke. They want us to all ride around in the mass transient system, bicycles or skateboards. It doesn’t do much good for any travel outside the Metro area and Amtrak is a complete joke too, another government disaster. Maybe it’s time to start talking about eliminating Metro and the UGB.
“That is also untrue. We don’t want helicoptors we want V-22 VTOL Ospreys. High speeds (Well over 200mph) and can take off and land vertically!”
We can’t afford them, (they are $1.1B each.) They need 2 pilots (who would each have their own V-22s, complete with pilots to drive them around.) They are extremely noisy, (forget about sound walls, we’d all need to live/work in underground bunkers.) They isn’t any place to park that many, (they are bigger than my house.) And they use a ton of fuel (literally.) (Not that you didn’t know all that already. :-)
The reason I bring this up, is that obviously we aren’t going to all get exactly what we want, we just can’t do it. I don’t think that Metro is trying to change people’s preferences, in fact far from it, they are trying to accommodate drivers within the constraints of costs, (no new gas taxes, they’ve heard that loud and clear,) labor, (we do actually need to move freight, not just hire more truck drivers to sit in traffic,) noise, (nobody actually wants to live near a freeway anyways,) parking/land use, (not to mention, paving the entire city would be ugly,) and fuel costs/peak oil (regardless of what you think about peak oil, the price is going to go up in the long term,) and sometimes that means you can’t use a freeway, (or V-22,) for your trip even if you’d rather do so… In other words, they are trying to be realistic.
(One of the things that should be pointed out, that even if all of Metro’s “social engineering” happened exactly as they wanted it to, they are still expecting most of the population to drive cars on a regular basis.)
One of the things that should be pointed out, that even if all of Metro’s “social engineering” happened exactly as they wanted it to, they are still expecting most of the population to drive cars on a regular basis.
If anything, Metro is far too committed to the car economy. It is consistently over-promising what it can deliver and then under-delivering. The expectation is that all the new road projects (Highway 26, Kruse Way, Sunnyside Road being the most recent) will reduce congestion and then they don’t. The same frankly can be said of MAX. The fact is that they really have no tools that will eliminate or significantly reduce congestion. And that isn’t a social engineering problem.
What they can do is provide attractive alternatives to people sitting in traffic. That is what they are trying to do with an integrated approach to land use and transportation. But they aren’t really pursuing that very aggressively, largely because of political resistance.
Transportation drove none of the changes mentioned above on Swan Island. The biggeset transportation problem here is rail not road. Indeed, UPS is expanding their hub on Swan Island because they can bring Triples in…they cannot in Tualatin.
UPS is a major shipper by rail (many of their trailers are handled piggyback from terminal to terminal) but UPS doesn’t have any rail facilities of their own; so UPS’s trailers have to be trucked from Lake Yard, Albina Yard, or Brooklyn Yard to one of their terminals.
There is very little rail access to Swan Island – a short industrial spur to the ship yard, but no facilities sufficient to handle TOFC/COFC loads – they must be trucked off Swan Island, and either to Albina Yard (if via UP east), or to Brooklyn Yard (via UP south) or Lake Yard (via BNSF).
BTW, triples CAN go to Tualatin.
I’m pretty sure that Laika’s move to Tualatin was driven both by the high cost of industrial/commercial real estate in Portland and by Phil Knight’s fondness for unincorporated suburban areas
Tualatin is incorporated; there is no “unincorporated” areas nearby that are suitable for development. All of the “unincorporated” area between Tualatin and Sherwood has been annexed into one city or another; same is true for between Tualatin and Wilsonville. But the taxes and real estate prices are much less.
If anything, Metro is far too committed to the car economy. It is consistently over-promising what it can deliver and then under-delivering. The expectation is that all the new road projects (Highway 26, Kruse Way, Sunnyside Road being the most recent) will reduce congestion and then they don’t.
Say WHAT? Let’s see just what Metro IS planning:
http://www.metroregion.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=138
Only ONE of the listed projects is a highway project (I-5 to 99W), and Metro is more-or-less grudgingly “in” partner on that project; the cities of Tualatin, Sherwood and Wilsonville and Washington County are more active players in that project.
None of the named projects (Highway 26, Kruse Way, Sunnyside Road) appear on Metro’s list of transportation projects.
Where Metro has to fund highway projects, it is only because the funding comes from highway sources and legally has to go to highway projects. Frankly, having yet another governmental agency having to step in between the federal government and ODOT and the various local transportation departments/bureaus within the cities and counties seems ridiculous; particularly with an government that is so slanted towards light rail and “alternatives”.
Maybe if Metro is so keen on “telecommuting”, it should forget the idea of the Convention Center Headquarters Hotel, because conventions/conferences could be handled via telephone/Internet – which would improve air quality and congestion in and around the Convention Center/Rose Quarter area. Not to mention disperse with its own office building; why can’t its employees all work from home?
The Federal and State Governments have justifiable concerns with how Metro identifies transportation problems, plans solutions and how effective they have been in truly solving congestion problems and with all of their inter-related problems that come from congestion.
It is apparent, at least to me, that the critical State and Federal Highways in our region are a mess. There are basically NO effective plans or fixes on the table to solve known problems that are killing people and businesses alike.
The only bright spot, to me, is Highway 26 imporvements. Everything else that I see is happening is playing a little catch up.
Greatest failures are with the I-5 and I-205 primary north/south corridors in our region. They are freight corridors that cannot be addressed with all of the current thinking, plans, and priorities.
The Fed and State are just saying get your eyes back on the basic needs.
Why not more and bigger freeways? Because people do not want them, at least through their part of town. Why no 217 extension through Lake Oswego across the Willamette to I-205? Because LO would never agree to it. Likewise Portland and its neighborhoods will never agree to their destruction of the sake of moving folks five minutes faster from one side of the region to another.
Freeways bring noise, pollution, and severe health impacts; who in their right mind would agree to one? The freeways we have were mostly built through poor communities that did not have the political savy to protect themselves. That started to change in the 70’s, not just in Portland but all over. Close-in neighborhoods are now worth much more as communities than as concrete. Thank God there is not enough money around to destroy more neighborhoods in the region. Now we need to find the money to start tearing them down.
laika’s move to the suburbs will save the owners quite a bit of money, but i wonder if the total cost to the company will go up.
if you add all the extra transportation costs incurred by the workforce, i have a feeling that it will cancel out, or be MORE EXPENSIVE to the company. (of course, i am counting employee expenses as part of the “company costs” here)
in a way, you can look at the move as an attempt to shift costs to the employees. it shows that the bargaining position of employees has become incredibly weak.
it would be interesting to try to recoup these costs that employers are expecting the employees to bear. some novel form of taxation/fees?
Note: we need money to start tearing down freeways, not neighborhoods!
re Knight’s new project: adidas moved into Portland in part to attract the young creative Talent they need. I wonder if their HR costs are less as employees can live nearby and walk/bike or use transit with ease and save considerable time and money. adidas’ mode split is 57% drive alone, despite a 800 stall parking garage. Moving away from where the Talent prefers to live, no offense meant to Tualaltin, might be a poor business decision in the film industry where Talent rules.
Moving away from where the Talent prefers to live, no offense meant to Tualaltin, might be a poor business decision in the film industry where Talent rules.
The reality is that Phil Knight likes the creative environment isolated suburban campuses create. That is different, and a lot more sterile, than NW Portland. I suspect that he feels like he has more control over it. Lets assume that he knows what he is doing.
What’s best for Phil Knight’s business, or what he thinks is best, is not necessarily the best for everyone. In fact, he may be counting on others to create environments that attract his employees to the region, but are not the work environments where he thinks he can get the most out of them.
One of Portland’s features is a wide range of experiences within a very short distance. From oceans, to mountain wilderness, to vineyards to urban centers, to rivers all are within a quick trip. That variety within such close proximity is rare. And it is largely a result of Portland’s creative urban planning environment and Oregon’s land use laws that it remains accessible.
Lenny, are you saying that Phil did not attract the right talent to Nike. I kind of think he and he still knows more about putting together an environment that will foster the end result then you do. It is not say that a lot of his people will miss the action of the NW Portland scene.
So now they can drive in to Portland from their new suburbian homes and try to find a parking place, to eat and drink at their favorite spot, just like the rest of us.
Their kids will go to better schools and learn about the environment with gardens and trees and fresh air. The family will not have to face the problems of air full of Benzene and emission particulate and go to their doctor for special med’s to treat the onset of asthma.
i think its fair to assume that phil knight doesn’t know that much about the movie industry.
due to.. uh. lack of experience.
he just likes the suburbs. and understands them better.
From oceans, to mountain wilderness, to vineyards to urban centers, to rivers all are within a quick trip. That variety within such close proximity is rare.
Unfortunately Oregon lacks the will to create a truly regional public transit system; so that these areas are accessible only by way of the private automobile.
Try taking a bus to Lincoln City. Or even McMinnville. Forget it. Anyone up for a 85 mile bike trip from downtown Portland to Lincoln City for a day trip to the beach?
adidas is a big successful company that opted to move to North (not NW) Portland from the suburbs, in part in search of talent.
Granted Nike has done well in its suburban onclave, but its a shame that our one local Fortune 500 leader doesn’t seem to get what makes Oregon, and Portland in particular, special.
Actually, a lot of Nike and Intel employees live in Portland ’cause they like cities, and Portland comes pretty close.
its a shame that our one local Fortune 500 leader doesn’t seem to get what makes Oregon, and Portland in particular, special.
Or perhaps more accurately, takes advantage of the things that make the region special, but doesn’t really want to contribute to maintaining them. I suspect Nike understands the importance of the region’s ambiance to its recruitment of top talent as employees.
Wait a second; why is it bad that Nike chooses to not locate within a city – specifically Beaverton?
Let’s see here:
Nike is located within Washington County, and pays Washington County property tax.
Nike is located within the TriMet transit district.
Nike is located within the Metro regional government district.
Nike is located within the Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue fire protection district.
Nike is located within the Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District.
Nike is located within the Tualatin Valley Water District.
Nike is located within the Washington County Soil & Water Conservation District.
Nike is located within the Port of Portland district.
So, in other words, Nike IS paying taxes for all of those things; so just what does being physically located in the city of Beaverton give it? Being bound to the City’s inconsistent city planning department (it’s NOT okay to build a Wal-Mart, but it IS okay to build a “high end” shopping center with the same amount of traffic; or a housing development with the same amount of traffic as Wal-Mart), and not much else.
Frankly you guys make it sound like Nike wants everything in Oregon, but locates in Clark County to avoid being in Metro, the Port of Portland, and TriMet service boundaries, and then turns around and licenses its vehicles in Oregon and makes many of its purchases in Oregon (to escape Washington sales tax) – all because it disagrees with the City of Beaverton, and has every right to do so.
Further, if businesses SHOULD locate in Portland, why? We bitch and moan about how transportation could be better, and complain when things aren’t done right – business doesn’t have time to sit and wait. We are sitting here trying to be “creative” and to do things “differently”; meanwhile business has a job to do. Being creative means nothing if a truck load of goods worth a couple million dollars is sitting on a freeway in a traffic jam of Priuses and Subarus, of “creative” folk thinking that their choice of car is making the environment better for us all (they might be spewing less carbon monoxide but they contribute equally to congestion and poor land use).
Thanks for the post Chris. Rex and I are in DC right now, so we are a bit late to this discussion. I am very encouraged by the level of interest and the quality of the dialogue about the RTP update, especially here on your blog.
As everyone knows, new realities such as the lack of financial resources for all of the planned transportation projects is forcing us to make some changes to our planning approach. And let’s be honest – change on a scale like this is very, very difficult for everyone involved. Despite the progress, there have been bumps in the road. When updating something on the scale of the RTP, it’s always tricky to make necessary changes while making sure that the plan meets all necessary federal and state guidelines and requirements.
As you’ve noted, we’ve received correspondence indicating that people have leapt to conclusions about what’s taking place in the region and with the RTP without having a full and complete conversation about the policies.
We feel this is probably what’s happened with a couple of communications that have appeared on this blog – first, an e-mail from FHWA staff that was incorrectly referenced as official correspondence from the administrator, David Cox, and a letter from the Oregon Transportation Commission. Without going into the details, basically both communications stated the importance of Metro following proper state and federal compliance procedures.
While we appreciate the corroboration, I want to be on record that Metro always adheres to state and federal guidelines when updating the RTP. Moreover, the outcomes-based approach we are using in this RTP is consistent with the Oregon Transportation Plan in that it seeks to build a plan that maintainsthe existing system and maximizes the value of transportation assets, optimizes system capacity and safety, integrates transportation and land use across jurisdictions, and invests strategically in capacity enhancements. We believe the RTP is in full compliance and we intend to make sure it stays that way.
I also want to be clear to everyone who is involved in this issue that in no part of the Chapter 1 update of the RTP do we state, or even imply, that the regional RTP process that Metro and JPACT are leading is inconsistent with the Oregon Transportation Plan. Nor have we taken any action, or do we plan to take action, that would in any way over-reach the Metro Council’s planning authority with regard to roads that are built and maintained by the state.
Finally, we want to communicate to everyone who is participating in the update or simply monitoring the RTP process through the press or this Blog that we are doing our absolute best to make sure that the region’s transportation system meets many important needs, such as moving freight, providing transit and alternative modes for people to get around safely and efficiently, reducing contributions to air pollution, encouraging vibrant communities, and providing access to all people. Oh, and accomplishing all of this within a budget that is realistic and affordable.
We believe that the residents and businesses of this region deserve nothing less than the best in its aspirations for a cutting edge transportation system. I invite everyone to stay engaged in this debate with a common focus on those outcomes that protect our economy and our quality of life.
Lenny said, “we need money to start tearing down freeways, not neighborhoods!”
Then we can have the triple trailer rigs going to and from Swan Island sharing the bicycle lanes with the bicyclists through those neighborhoods – all accomplished by directly taxing the bicyclists along with tolls on and off Swan Island.
As for Nike moving to Tualatin, it can be viewed as cost effective expansion that will likely be a boost the regional economy. Portland’s high and regressive tax policies, including property taxes, along with high density land use policies undoubtedly do not complement the movie making environment. If people are so concerned about large employers leaving the central city, why then the big push to move the Main Post Office to the airport? It is far more convenient for customers and employees where it currently is located.
To people who cite “induced demand”, things were not constructed for good reasons AND other things were not made obsolete for good reason. In his fantasy world, trolleys were abandoned and freeways were built because of conspiracies by evil forces.
To those people, the 98% of us that use the roads are all misguided. We drive for no utilitarian reasons, just to make his life miserable. They must save us from ourselves by invoking the power of government and presenting “phenomena” which are total misrepresentations of fact based upon lies put forth as studies.
Worse, they must impose the fantasy using money from road users, a form of stealing.
Induced Demand (a/k/a why add roads, they just fill up, magically, unlike any other form of infrastructure which is enlarged as population increases) is based on wishful thinking, not science, not experience. All of the so-called studies on induced demand are fraudulent because they do NOT actually measure the changes on the segment which had added lanes. They use regional increases in VMT’s that occurred after lanes were added without showing any direct relationship to the added capacity. In other words, they conclude that we added a lane and VMT’s in the region went up.
They ignore the fact that VMT’s have gone up in areas where NO capacity was added. They do not show the increases on the highway that added lanes or in the entire corridor in which the lanes were added.
You can get a summary of the Hanson & Huang “study,” often quoted, from Access Magazine (available on line) or the entire report from Hanson or Huang at Univ of Cal. Look at the data they use. It’s all regional, as is the No. Carolina report and all of the others except the Washington PRIG study. The Washington PRIG sets out to measure a specific road but makes up its own data which they attribute to Wash DOT but Wash DOT says didn’t come from them.
NPTS showed us that trips were and are becoming longer and trip times were not, necessarily, increasing. Longer trips mean more VMT’s but those VMT’s do not mean more trips. And they certainly do not mean more trips on the segment that added capacity.
Moreover, they do not indicate when added VMT’s or trips were added.
Congestion occurs at a specific place and specific time. Regional data is irrelevant as the added VMT’s could be on totally different roads, which is often the case when development occurs further from the CBD in new areas where the land cost is less and the land is available.
Another factor that is not considered by the “studies” are the existing parallel routes to new capacity additions. We know that, as freeways get congested, traffic shifts to parallel routes. That’s a bad thing because freeways are safer than the other parallel routes. When capacity is added on the freeway, traffic shifts back to the freeway because it shortens trip times and makes for a more pleasant trip without stopping for lights and cross-traffic.
In the case of transfers back to freeways, we have not added more trips, we have just given existing trips a safer, faster way to travel. One of the great benefits of freeways and limited access roads is that we took the traffic out of neighborhoods, making for more pleasant living. No neighborhood tries to make life more miserable for cars going through their neighborhood than NWDA. Now, these people and the other transportation deficients on Metro want to put more traffic back into neighborhoods or, at least, into neighborhoods other theirs.
The induced demand folks make the assertion that the added road capacity gets people to go back to using their cars in that corridor but cannot show any significant losses on transit in that corridor. Moreover, there is not enough transit in that immediate segment or corridor to fill or com close to filling a new freeway lane.
They cannot show any significant population increases or license issuance increase in that segment to account for New trips. Most metro areas have congestion near the CBD. But the areas near CBD’s are not normally where new population growth occurs.
When Stuart Foster was nominated for a second term on the ODOT commission, I testified against him and Henry Hewitt, Commission Chair at the time also renominated, because they both did not recognize Oregon’s deteriorating transportation mobility and the need for the commission to prevent small jurisdictions from “balkanizing” the overall system. That was in the late 90’s. It’s taken a long time for him to come to grips with reality but “better late than never.”
Mel Zucker
Brian Newman Says: Finally, we want to communicate to everyone who is participating in the update or simply monitoring the RTP process through the press or this Blog that we are doing our absolute best to make sure that the region’s transportation system meets many important needs, such as moving freight,
JK: Then why did Metro do nothing for years and years as our roads became gridlocked?
Brian Newman Says: providing transit
JK: What is the point of pouring money into this loser?
* Light rail costs more than either private cars or buses.
*Even buses cost more than private cars cost
*Buses use more energy than small cars
*Light rail kills people at 2 ½ times the rate of cars.
See DebunkingPortland.com
Why does Metro support dangerous, money losing, energy wasting forms of transportation?
* Even Europeans HAVE abandoned mass transit – over 75% of passenger miles is in passenger cars over there. See DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/EuroTranistShareLoss.htm
Brian Newman Says: and alternative modes for people to get around
JK: Do you know of alternatives to the private car which are faster, more convenient, safer and lower cost? (That is why people choose cars – they are our best mode of transport)
Brian Newman Says: safely and efficiently,
JK: Baloney. Rail kills far more people than cars. Cars are lower cost than any transit and small cars use less energy than bus and around that of rail. You guys should learn how to do simple math.
Brian Newman Says: reducing contributions to air pollution,
JK: Don miss this: ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/big_rig_cleanup/rolling-smokestacks-cleaning-up-americas-trucks-and-buses.html
Brian Newman Says: encouraging vibrant communities,
JK: What the hell is vibrant? Do you mean like downtown with streets full of panhandlers, drug deals and shootings?
Brian Newman Says: Oh, and accomplishing all of this within a budget that is realistic and affordable.
JK: If you are short on money, the first ting to do is to cut out those things that cost too much and do too little. That is light rail: Light rail costs too much and does too little It is truely 19th century technology.
Brian Newman Says: We believe that the residents and businesses of this region deserve nothing less than the best in its aspirations for a cutting edge transportation system.
JK: We had that before Metro decided to replicate Los Angeles. See Metro Measured (page 7?)
Brian Newman Says: I invite everyone to stay engaged in this debate with a common focus on those outcomes that protect our economy
JK: Protect the economy by providing land for jobs. And quit putting housing in Damascus and jobs in Hillsboro. Quit strangling the region with an artificial shortag of land – it only prices people out of being able to afford a house and lowers their standard of living.
Brian Newman Says: and our quality of life.
JK: How does increased congestion, increased density, un affordable housing and increased cost of living improve our quality of life?
Metro is not about quality of life, it as about shoving the smart growth religion down our throats. This is especially outrageous since we voted almost 2:1 against increased density. See DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/MetroDensityVote.htm
Thanks
JK
Lenny why does it seem your entire measurement of our transportation and land use system needs is based upon how Swan Island functions?
I swear you must never venture out and actually drive around the region. If you did you would see it aint no Swan Island out here.
I go to Swan Island occasionally. There is absolutely no correlation between how it functions and every where or anywhere else in the region.
Just because Swan Island works doesn’t mean anything about I-5, the Sellwood Bridge, SoWa,
Tualatin Sherwood Road and the planned I-5/99 connector, the CRC, Sunrise corridor or anything else.
Well today was really the icing on the cake for me. After yet another delay on our wonderful MAX system, I was riding on the 78 bus. It ran a red light and crashed into a car now I have whiplash. To add to that, I dropped my laptop on the floor busting the screen. I am getting a lawyer and suing TriMet for as much as I can possibly get. I hope everyone else on the bus does the same. This system is HORRIBLE!!!!! They really need to get rid of it altogether and subsidize poor people to buy cheap cars.
Hi Brian,
I just want to clarify some things that Jim Karlock wrote to you. It should be important to note that Mr. Karlock (and a few other VERY colorful individuals on this website) is only giving his personal opinion as to what constitutes quality of life. It’s a purely subjective opinion and hence he can only speak for himself.
As for what the majority of Portland citizens look for in quality of life and transportation planning? We only need to reflect on the individuals that are elected into local office as our elected official’s opinions will most closely match what the majority of Portland citizens believe constitutes quality of life and responsible transportation planning. It is obviously clear then, that there is a message from the vast majority of Portland to continue, as we have been, on the path of smart and innovative transit planning. Thus, helping to create a quality of life that, although some people seem to hate, the majority of us desire.
Keep up the good work!
All of the so-called studies on induced demand are fraudulent because they do NOT actually measure the changes on the segment which had added lanes.
That isn’t true. Many of the studies have been on specific roads.
NPTS showed us that trips were and are becoming longer and trip times were not, necessarily, increasing.
If trips are longer and times are the same the conclusion is that people are driving further at higher speeds. How can they not be using more space?
When capacity is added on the freeway, traffic shifts back to the freeway because it shortens trip times and makes for a more pleasant trip without stopping for lights and cross-traffic.
Yes, that is one of the things that happens. And the result is often that the amount of congestion on that freeway remains the same. Which means if you were already using the freeway you got little if any benefit from it being widened. Thus the problem with widening freeways for the freight that is already using the freeway.
Several of the studies, however, make a distinction between this displaced traffic and new induced traffic that highways create in the form of more and/or longer trips. There is a third element that is also considered, people who shift their trips to times when the road is less crowed.
One of the great benefits of freeways and limited access roads is that we took the traffic out of neighborhoods
Actually that is largely not true. Because the freeways break up the street grid, they force many local out of direction trips and create congestion on the roads that provide access or cross over the highway. Anyone trying to get across Highway 217 in Washington County is familiar with this phenomena. Its even more obvious in places like Portland where the street grid is otherwise complete.
People will only create as much congestion as they are willing to tolerate given the alternatives. By providing better, more attractive alternatives, we can reduce the level of congestion people will tolerate. And that is really the only way to get at congestion.
As for what the majority of Portland citizens look for in quality of life and transportation planning? We only need to reflect on the individuals that are elected into local office
I think we need to keep reminding people of this reality. Brian and others were elected to Metro, at least in part, because of their their strong support for a balanced transportation system and the Region 2040 growth concept.
There are some very loud and powerful voices, that do not represent the majority in the region, and are pressing their own views very aggressively on the RTP. They are not above exaggerating or misrepresenting the direction Metro is taking as extreme in their efforts to win broader support.
The reality is that, if anything, Metro is far too accommodating of those minority views and the plan reflects that. But as Brian makes clear, they are starting to ask the right questions and that is a tremendously important change. It was bound to create an uproar.
“As for what the majority of Portland citizens look for in quality of life and transportation planning?”
That’s great. So now is the time to split Metro off from the rest of the State and the citizens of this area can manage their own affairs themselves. I am so tired of the view that Portland can dictate policy on the rest of Oregon in such a totalitarian fashion.
We only need to reflect on the individuals that are elected into local office as our elected official’s opinions will most closely match what the majority of Portland citizens believe constitutes quality of life and responsible transportation planning. It is obviously clear then, that there is a message from the vast majority of Portland to continue, as we have been, on the path of smart and innovative transit planning. Thus, helping to create a quality of life that, although some people seem to hate, the majority of us desire.
In the November 7 election for Metro Councilor District 4, the “winner” of the ballot (Kathryn Harrington) received 55.65% of votes that were cast for the office.
HOWEVER – she only received 38.77% of total votes – because 24,506 ballots didn’t include a vote for this office. (210 were write-in votes, and 15 were “overvotes”, meaning more than one vote was made.)
In 2004 (Metro Councilor District 6), Robert Liberty received 52.71% of votes for the office; but only 36.69% of all votes for the overall election.
So yes, these two councilors did receive the majority of votes for that particular office, but that so many people did not bother to vote for these offices is certainly worth mentioning, and it does dilute the “majority” that voted for these individuals.
I will state this – the “quality of life” in Portland is not well unless you love San Francisco. I doubt my two-year-old son will ever have a backyard to run around and play in unlike I did (outside of Metro’s reach). I’m not sure I’ll be able to own a home. I know I cannot afford a home within five miles of my workplace; yet I still need a car. Transportation is bad and it isn’t getting better, even though we have spent billions of mass transit projects. The Portland area is becoming less of a family-friendly city, less of an affordable city, and unless you have a college degree, are “creative”, are without kids, and don’t mind living in essentially an oversized apartment that is valued at several times more than it is truly worth, Portland isn’t the right town for you.
I do not like Wal-Mart, but I don’t like the “snob” factor that is growing in this town. I’m sorry if I’m not good enough for you all, that I actually ride the bus instead of MAX (gulp!), that I don’t own a Toyota Prius (nor do I own a SUV), and yes – I do rent an apartment.
But in this area, if you’re not “rich” you are given the middle finger by the “well-to-do”; if you’re not “poor” you don’t get any benefit – on my Oregon income tax for this year, I get a measly $120 credit towards child care expenses, and I don’t qualify for WFC. But I am given the pleasure of sitting in traffic, waiting for busses that run 15-20 minutes late (my evening line 12 bus was passed by the following bus), all because those who “do as I say not as I do” with their anti-bus attitudes have no problems driving their cars to a MAX station while I walk to my bus stop.
While I sit on my 45-60 minute bus ride to and from work (that’s time that I’m not earning income, and time that I’m away from my family) – I want someone to truly tell me how my “quality of life” is great, because I’m doing more than most people on this forum to contribute to a better transportation environment – by owning only one automobile, and using mass transit near exclusively five days a week.
The Portland area is becoming less of a family-friendly city, less of an affordable city, and unless you have a college degree, are “creative”, are without kids, and don’t mind living in essentially an oversized apartment that is valued at several times more than it is truly worth, Portland isn’t the right town for you.
There is some truth in this for most of Oregon. The schools are horrendous – ranking near the bottom of the barrel nationally in technology, which is supposed to be the region’s future. Unfortunately that future will likely belong to people who migrate into the state from elsewhere, not the kids born and educated in the Oregon’s schools.
This blog focuses on transportation. But I think it is a huge mistake to think that is the central issue facing the region. That is one of the problems with the “cost of congestion” study, it fails to appreciate the other “costs” of unmet public needs.
Those include investments in early childhood education – which studies show has a huge impact on the economic prosperity of the children and the communities they live in. Much larger than transportation investments.
It also includes investments to create affordable housing that remains affordable for people who work at Starbucks, not just those that buy coffee there every day. The increasing isolation of low income communities on the outskirts of the region is going to have to be addressed. We have most of our services for the poor in the central cities, while the people themselves are being forced out by high housing costs. And the opportunities for employment are extremely limited when the only bus takes you downtown.
There are other issues around regional livability that don’t get discussed much here in addition to education and affordable housing, maintaining urban green spaces, parks and wildlife habitat, food policy, libraries, the arts and a host of others. In some, like libraries, Portland is doing very well. In others, not so well.
But this is a transportation forum that focuses on how the transportation system contributes to a livable region. Those other issues are always only going to get tangential treatment here an then only when they touch on transportation issues.
Dan Says: I just want to clarify some things that Jim Karlock wrote to you. It should be important to note that Mr. Karlock (and a few other VERY colorful individuals on this website) is only giving his personal opinion as to what constitutes quality of life. It’s a purely subjective opinion and hence he can only speak for himself.
JK: Dan, how quickly you forget measure that Metro placed on the ballot to limit density increases in our neighborhoods to draw votes from one placed by citizens. One got a 65% (2:1) majority. Probably 75% (3:1) voted to limit density total ( some only voted for the citizen’s measure.)
Dan Says: As for what the majority of Portland citizens look for in quality of life and transportation planning?
JK: Just look at the above vote, not some planner’s wet dream of a new high density, grid locked utopia. Also look at the results of the recent Columbia Crossing Survey – Portland regional residents now rate traffic congestion a higher priority than education. See debunkingportland.com/Polls/CongestionPolls.htm
JK: It is time that Metro quit experimenting on Portlander’s and start planning for what people want instead of what planners want. Failure to do this eventually will result in the current Metro council becoming un-employed.
Dan Says: We only need to reflect on the individuals that are elected into local office as our elected official’s opinions will most closely match what the majority of Portland citizens believe constitutes quality of life and responsible transportation planning.
JK: You are forgetting that 75% of the people voted against density increases. see debunkingportland.com/Smart/MetroDensityVote.htm
Dan Says: It is obviously clear then, that there is a message from the vast majority of Portland to continue, as we have been, on the path of smart and innovative transit planning. Thus, helping to create a quality of life that, although some people seem to hate, the majority of us desire.
JK: Pure BS as shown above by both the survey and vote.
Dan Says: Keep up the good work!
JK: Keep it up and find a new job after an upcoming election.
Thanks
JK
Dan,
I would argue that quality of life in general is totally subjective, whether it is an individual’s opinion or the opinion Metro and/or PDOT are trying to project. Some people may like living in canned sardine like density but many other people prefer to live in single family homes with yards and the open space that can be found in the suburbs. People in the Portland area vote for their choice of quality of life by driving their cars everyday. Over 80% of the week day regional commutes are made in personal motor vehicles. To suggest that just because some elected officials, a few boisterous bicycle activists or any anybody else views quality of life differently does not make defining quality of life any less subjective. Furthermore, it should also be noted that that Metro is a regional government and must both represent and respect not only the different views and values of Portlanders, but also the suburbanites. Therefore, to suggest that you are speaking for or representing what the majority of Portland (area) citizens believe constitutes quality of life is anything but a factual assertion.
Failure to do this eventually will result in the current Metro council becoming un-employed.
Jim, I look forward to your candidacy. Let’s see how many votes you get, LOL. I think Steve Schopp tried it and how’d that go?
Morgan Says: I think Steve Schopp tried it and how’d that go?
JK: Outspent badly, almost won.
Thanks
JK
[personally directed comment removed]
[Personally directed comment removed]
The entire tenor of the conversation on this thread has degenerated.
We’re hear to talk about policy, not people. Get back to policy please, or I will close comments on this thread.
“I want someone to truly tell me how my “quality of life” is great, because I’m doing more than most people on this forum to contribute to a better transportation environment – by owning only one automobile, and using mass transit near exclusively five days a week.”
Yeah they are robbing us blind. I moved here last April and foolishly only signed up for a 6 month lease. My rent was $775 a month. Then 6 months later it was raised to $840. In January to add insult to injury the CITY (not my landlord) took away the residential streetside parking program for this area even though there are under 500 actual residents in this district and there are always plenty of empty streetside parking spaces. Yesterday I spoke with my landlord and she said when my rent comes up for renewal they are going to be at $1150! I asked her why the outrageous increase and she said that they have raised her property taxes through the roof because they want to build a stupid streetcar on 7th avenue and build a bridge across I-84. The idiots who are advocating for this asinine form of transportation should all be held to account. They are causing this city to become unaffordable and although I can afford this increase I don’t want to pay for such an outrageous rent just so I can be “livable” and “sustainable”. I chose to move close to where I work (right across the street, in fact) and they have done nothing but abosolutely screw me over! I am moving out of this overpriced ghetto prison at my first available opportunity. You all can ride around on your stupid trains and bussses. I prefer the automobile life. I don’t like to smell other people, be crammed in close quarters or be exposed to their airborne illness and panhandling.
People in the Portland area vote for their choice of quality of life by driving their cars everyday.
I guess, by that logic, those that create congestion everyday are voting for congestion as well. Why should government interfere with their choice?
The reality is that many people drive because they have no attractive alternatives, which is the same reason people sit in congestion.
The reality is you can’t, in an urban center, create an attractive alternative to congestion by adding road capacity. It gets filled up again and/or the congestion reappears somewhere else.
Can you imagine what downtown Portland would be like if you had a “take your car to work” day and everyone participated? Those who argue capacity is the answer are ignoring the physical laws of the universe that only one thing can occupy a given space at a given time.
“JK: Dan, how quickly you forget measure that Metro placed on the ballot to limit density increases in our neighborhoods to draw votes from one placed by citizens. One got a 65% (2:1) majority. Probably 75% (3:1) voted to limit density total ( some only voted for the citizen’s measure.)”
How quickly I forget? No, no my friend. I took a look at your link and determined that your claim was pure baloney and based entirely on speculation. Let’s take a quick look shall we?
You present data on two ballot measures. One measure was paid for and proposed by a group of “citizens,” and by “citizens” I mean special interests. The other measure was proposed by Metro as a countering offer. The “citizen” measure would prohibit density and repeal all density related requirements. On the other hand, the Metro measure would prohibit increased density only in designated single family neighorhoods. The Metro measure then also stated “Measure becomes effective instead of Ballot Measure 26-11 if it obtains more affirmative votes.” That’s the key phrase here Jim. Many people, not wanting the more extreme measure to pass, voted in favor of the Metro measure SPECIFICALLY so it would have more affirmative votes than the Measure 26-11. That’s certainly how I interpreted it, and that is why I voted “yes” on the Metro measure.
Of course I’m speculating on the motivation of other voters here Jim, and so were you. You’re not using facts. You’re merely theorizing on the motivation of voters. Sorry friend, that’s not data and those are not facts. I do give you credit for stating that the exact number of voters in favor of limiting density increases is unknown, but you certainly didn’t mention that on this blog.
If you want to present a position, I suggest you use a little more discretion in what you present as a “fact,” because as far as I can tell here you’re just throwing numbers around, speculating on motivations, coming to a conclusion that supports your ideology, and then presenting it as fact.
The entire central City of Portland is congested, be it with cars, trucks, transit vehicles, people and density. Yes, density can be described as housing congestion – too many people in too small an area, People living outside the central city vote by driving their cars because they value a more tranquil home environment with amenities like yards and privacy in neighborhoods that are not dense or congested. I also believe Oregonians value their freedom of mobility to move about just as much as they do their property rights.
The methodology of highly vocal alternative transport activists that have infiltrated the political forces is to force their choice of a condensed life style onto the rest of the public while penalizing drivers by not keeping up with the demand for additional motor vehicle capacity. Transportation resources are drained because these greedy activists refuse accept any reality they should be paying their own way for the forms of alternative modes of transport they choose to use instead of siphoning off motorist paid taxes to subsidize themselves. This methodology has created today’s congestion.
“The methodology of highly vocal alternative transport activists that have infiltrated the political forces is to force their choice of a condensed life style onto the rest of the public while penalizing drivers by not keeping up with the demand for additional motor vehicle capacity.”
Just as other highly vocal activists wish to force their choice of sprawl and an auto-dominated transportation system on those of us who choose not to live that way. Who ultimately decides? We, the people do. Seems the alternative transportation/land use ideas are winning the battle at the ballot boxes.
Dan Says: JK: Dan, how quickly you forget measure that Metro placed on the ballot to limit density increases in our neighborhoods to draw votes from one placed by citizens. One got a 65% (2:1) majority. Probably 75% (3:1) voted to limit density total ( some only voted for the citizen’s measure.)”
How quickly I forget? No, no my friend. I took a look at your link and determined that your claim was pure baloney and based entirely on speculation.
JK: Wrong dan, the operative quote is One got a 65% (2:1) majority That is correct ins spite of your calling it baloney. The remainder of the claim starts with the word Probably – are you having trouble understanding that that is clearly labeled opinion?
Dan Says: On the other hand, the Metro measure would prohibit increased density only in designated single family neighorhoods.
JK: This is a Metro LIE. Lets look at the whole LIE:
1.According to Metro’s world, a neighborhood DOES NOT include the busy streets that go through it. So Metro’s measure continues to shove density down our throats, it just puts it on streets like Belmont, Fremont, Sandy etc.
2. Metro’s measure expires in a few years.
3. Cities have already had been rezoned to meet Metro’s current mandate and have YET TO REACH THOSE DENSITIES.
4. My guess is that Metro’s measure will expire BEFORE cities reach the previously mandated density.
The citizen’s measure would have rolled back the mandates and prevented future ones. In other words it was a genuine solution to Metro’s forced density, while Metro’s did nothing. Did you happen to notice that our neighborhoods are still getting more density?
Bottom line: Metro’s measure does nothing and is just another in the long string of lies from the planning class.
It was Rex Burkholder’s little gem.
Dan Says: If you want to present a position, I suggest you use a little more discretion in what you present as a “fact,”
JK: Repeating, the FACT is that 65% voted for a density limit. The 75% was clearly labeled as opinion by starting with the word probably.
What is your problem?
Thanks
JK
Come on guys, Portland is not congested or dense. Its easy to drive everywhere. Exciting cities…not everyone’s cup of tea…have lots of people coming and going with lots of things to see and do. Parts of Portland have a hint of this kind of buzz, but barely. Maybe in another 20 years we will get there. For those who do not care for this kind of intensity, there is always Gresham or Wilsonville or a thousand other charming suburbs. Let Portland become a real city.
JK: What is your problem?
My problem is that your methodology does not use any statistically relevant data to support your statements. My problem is that you speculate on the motivation on voters and then twist it to support your ideology. My problem is that ignore comments that contradict your opinion as you have conveniently ignored the fact that I voted IN FAVOR of the Metro measure, yet generally speaking, I am fan of density. I know I am not the only indivual who voted yes on the Metro measure specifically so the “citizen’s” measure would not go into effect.
An analogy would be the Nader/Bush/Gore race in 2000. Most people realized that Nader would never win the race, and realized that a vote for Nader would essentially be a vote for Bush. Nader supporters probably didn’t like Gore either, however they disliked Bush more. So, to ensure that Bush would not win, these people voted for Gore, even though in reality they supported Nader. In thise case a vote for Gore was not neccessarily a statement of support for Gore himself.
It’s the exact same way with the ballot measures you’re using as examples of anti-density support.
Yes, it’s a fact that 65% voted in favor of Metro’s measure, but you are simply ASSUMING that that’s an anti-density vote. As evidenced by my and many of my friends votes at least, the reality is quite the contrary.
What’s your problem that you won’t admit your statements are mere speculations on the motivation of voters?
“Can you imagine what downtown Portland would be like if you had a “take your car to work” day and everyone participated? Those who argue capacity is the answer are ignoring the physical laws of the universe that only one thing can occupy a given space at a given time. ”
Well the solution to this is simple… Build more parking structures underneath the buildings. They have done this in many cities throughout Europe but the greedy density activists want to punish everyone and force them to ride on their 1920’s Disneyland transit systems. The real problem is the # of buses and streetcars/MAX going through busy areas which carry very few passengers most of the time and are completely crammed during busy times. Pretty soon Portland will just be a giant train switchyard and the trains will slow down even more than they are now! Most of the time you can outwalk a Streetcar…. So then they say “why don’t you move out of the Metro area?” Well they make it impossible to do that, too, due to their draconian and ridiculous land use laws. So then the citizens of Oregon pass a land use reform law and the greedy activists try to overturn it and work everyone in the Portland area up in a frenzy “sky is falling” way and convince everyone that everything is going to beome urban sprawl. Well that is B.S. because most of the land in this state is already owned by the government yet they are so greedy they want to take everything away and at the same time cram everyone into the urban ghetto prison so they can extory even more money and make the bloated government even bigger. The largest single employer of Multnomah County is government. They can’t even manage the land in a most efficient way inside the city yet they have the audacity to tell everyone in the rural areas what they CAN and CANNOT do with their own property. Most people are blind to the injustice which is unfolding due to this tyrrany. The liberals tend to be more political and get their people to rally behind their radical causes. I am really tired of it!
I guess, by that logic, those that create congestion everyday are voting for congestion as well. Why should government interfere with their choice?
You’re right, why should government interfere with the choice of congestion?
People DO “vote” for congestion, but they also expect government, as an entity established of, by and for the people, to provide for the greater good upon the consent of those same people.
Look at Washington – the state overturned the “car tab” tax because so much of the money raised was going to public transit purposes and not highways. WSDOT only got their funding back by a nickel-a-gallon gas tax increase, with the stipulation that it all goes to highways.
Oregon has constitutionally prohibited its gas tax from being used on public transit purposes. But that doesn’t stop certain local governments from using property taxes (which have already been restricted twice by the voters) to fund pork barrel transit projects.
Metro likes to say that we can’t build out way out of congestion; then why are we building LRT projects? If we can’t build, we can’t build.
Dan Says: My problem is that your methodology does not use any statistically relevant data to support your statements. My problem is that you speculate on the motivation on voters and then twist it to support your ideology.
JK: As you said, those are your problems.
Dan Says: My problem is that ignore comments that contradict your opinion as you have conveniently ignored the fact that I voted IN FAVOR of the Metro measure, yet generally speaking, I am fan of density. I know I am not the only indivual who voted yes on the Metro measure specifically so the “citizen’s” measure would not go into effect.
…
Yes, it’s a fact that 65% voted in favor of Metro’s measure, but you are simply ASSUMING that that’s an anti-density vote. As evidenced by my and many of my friends votes at least, the reality is quite the contrary.
JK:
Here is Metro’s ballot title:
QUESTION: Shall Metro Charter: Prohibit increased density in existing neighborhoods; require report to residents on proposed Urban Growth Boundary changes?
Here is the citizen’s ballot title:
Question: Shall Metro Charter: prohibit Metro housing density increases; repeal existing density requirements; require notice of local government proposed density increases?
Are you really saying that the average voter realized that Metro’s measure was a phoney?
Dan Says: What’s your problem that you won’t admit your statements are mere speculations on the motivation of voters?
JK: Mere speculation? Please try again AFTER reading the two ballot titles.
However, I do realize that Portland’s planners need to keep the illusion of popular support.
Thanks
Jk
Why can’t a bill that eliminates the UGB get out of the legislature then? Or, barring that, why can’t a ballot measure that eliminates the UGB get passed?
Morgan —
The UGB has artificially inflated property values & propped them up for the last 20 years. Repealing the UGB would give a good majority of property/home owners instant negative equity. Any person with an adjustable rate mortgage would be screwed. The over saturated condo market would collapse. And some poor yuppie in the Pearl district might lose his [free] view while driving his flex car out in the country.
Right – but surely, you’d think anti-metro activists would at least try to get the UGB removed, if they believe it to be so horrible. Why won’t they try?