Framework Part 1: The New Direction for Oregon


Updated 12/7/07

Rob asked me to add the graphic below on Greenhouse Gas emissions for Oregon. Click on the chart for a larger version.

Original Post 12/6/07

Well, I promised a report from the Oregon Business Plan Leadership Conference, but Rob Zako beat me to it, with an excellent summary published on the OTRAN list (you can subscribe here). – Chris

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

THE NEW DIRECTION FOR OREGON: All proposed, laws, rules, plans, policies and other actions must be judged in terms of how effectively they keep Oregon on track reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Proposed efforts taking us in the wrong direction must be rejected. Efforts that don’t go far enough must be strengthened to keep us on track. Every year and at every level, Oregon must assess how well it is doing compared to the House Bill 3543 targets, and make adjustments as necessary.

INTRODUCTION

At the recent Oregon Leadership Summit, it became clear what direction some want to take Oregon’s transportation system:

Keynote Address to the Oregon Leadership Summit, Governor Ted Kulongoski

Policy Playbook and Initiative Guide: Moving Forward, Oregon Business Plan (see especially pp. 45-57)

The Cost of Highway Limitations and Traffic Delay to Oregon’s Economy, Oregon Business Council and Portland Business Alliance

The Keep On Truckin’ direction emphasizes moving freight, expanding the highway system, and raising taxes — albeit with a tip of the hat to climate change, peak oil and other sustainability issues. Despite the label “moving forward,” it is a direction back to the last century. In the 1920s, President Calvin Coolidge often said, “The business of America is business”… just before the Great Depression changed the business of America. We need a New Direction for Oregon, one suited to the 21st Century, not merely a continuation of outdated practices from the 20th Century.

The Keep On Truckin’ direction is the wrong direction for Oregon for many reasons explained below, but it is the wrong direction even for BUSINESS in Oregon. For one thing, the Keep On Truckin’ direction is out of touch with the average Oregonians, who will reject the proposal to raise the gas tax 7 cents by the year 2011 (see Policy Playbook, p. 57). For another, the Keep On Truckin’ direction ignores the twin threats of climate change and peak oil, which will change the nature of the global economy in the coming years and decades.

Nonetheless, it would serve no good purpose to simply argue against the Keep On Truckin’ direction, as doing so would likely result in a stalemate on transportation issues in the 2009 Legislative session. Rather as we move in the right direction, it is critical to understand the concerns of the business community, to build connections with them, and to help them get on board moving in the right direction for Oregon.

Many other organizations and individuals have already contributed great ideas for the New Direction for Oregon. These include:

Blueprint for Oregon’s Future, 1000 Friends of Oregon

2007 Legislative Handbook, OLCV Education Fund (see especially Chap. 12)

Goodbye Gridlock: Improving the Way Oregon Funds Transportation, Oregon Environmental Council

Oregon Strategy for Greenhouse Gas Reductions, Governor’s Advisory Group of Global Warming

Mitigation of Climate Change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

In this and following posts, I hope to build on these and other good ideas by fitting them into a larger framework. George Lakoff in Don’t Think of an Elephant! taught us that progressives too often talk about issues while conservatives talk about values. In order for us to be successful, it won’t be enough to merely say what policies should be adopted. We will need to talk from our hearts and souls as much from our minds, to offer a better world view, and to explain why the ideas we are advocating for respond to concerns held by average citizens.

I hope others will take up these ideas, improve them, and make them OUR ideas. Working separately in different directions, we can do nothing. Working together in the same direction, we can change Oregon and set an example for the world. Let’s get started…

THE NEW DIRECTION FOR OREGON

If a picture is worth a thousand words, the following graph, adapted from the Oregon Strategy for Greenhouse Gas Reductions, tells most the story:

Oregon_GHG_Targets

Total greenhouse gas emissions in Oregon are generally rising year after year. (See the upper Historic and “Business-As-Usual Forecast” lines.) But to avoid catastrophic climate change, the scientific consensus is that Oregon and the rest of the world need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions well below recent levels. Indeed, the Governor and Legislature recently adopted House Bill 3543, making it the policy of the State of Oregon to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 75% below 1990 emissions by the year 2050. (See the lower HB 3543 Targets line.)

In brief, Oregon is heading in the wrong direction towards rising greenhouse gas emissions. Oregon needs to make a sharp turn and head in a new direction towards significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

The targets in HB 3543 aren’t suggestions or aspirational goals. Oregon can’t merely try halfheartedly to achieve the targets and then pat itself on the back if we fall short. These targets reflect the scientific consensus of what we actually need to achieve simply to avoid catastrophic climate change. Oregon — and the rest of the world — must achieve these targets, we must commit NOW to doing so, and we must demand our leaders focus their efforts in this direction.

Bottom line:

THE NEW DIRECTION FOR OREGON: All proposed, laws, rules, plans, policies and other actions must be judged in terms of how effectively they keep Oregon on track reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Proposed efforts taking us in the wrong direction must be rejected. Efforts that don’t go far enough must be strengthened to keep us on track. Every year and at every level, Oregon must assess how well it is doing compared to the House Bill 3543 targets, and make adjustments as necessary.

In particular, insofar as the transportation sector accounts for roughly 38% of all greenhouse gas emissions in Oregon, transportation policies and funding must head in the New Direction for Oregon.

Generally speaking, this is really all we need to do: Assert the New Direction for Oregon over and over again. Demand leadership, commitment and accountability. Expect real, measurable change. If you read no further, keep the graph above in mind whenever you think about transportation issues, or indeed about any issues. Keep in mind that we must stay on track along the New Direction for Oregon.

In more detail, to have a fleshed-out proposal for transportation (and other) reform in Oregon, we need to do more than simply demand measurable outcomes. We need to offer specific proposals for how to get there. But before it even makes sense to talk about specific policies, it is essential to frame the discussion and to make sure others are on board heading in the New Direction for Oregon.

Coming up…

Framework Part 2: Leadership, Commitment and Accountability


90 responses to “Framework Part 1: The New Direction for Oregon”

  1. I think its great to address these issues but are our attempts are going to be futile if China and India continue on their present path of slash and burn destruction of their environments? We even et Mercury fallout due to the Chinese coal factories here in the NW. I read somewhere that the level of mercury here is the highest in the U.S. thanks to China. I think we should boycott the Chinese and ban all of their imports and not send our delegation to the Olympics.

  2. Lenny –

    Click on the link to the Governor’s speech and scroll down to the part about transportation to get a pretty good answer.

    At one point, the Governor notes:

    “Here are a few more numbers to consider. Over the next quarter of a century, the population of Oregon is expected to grow by 40-percent, and freight traffic is expected to increase by 80-percent.

    “If the system in place now doesn’t change, by 2025 the number of vehicle hours trucks spend on the road is projected to increase 54-percent.”

    The Governor also articulated five principles:

    “As for core principles – these are the five that I believe must guide our drafting and implementation of a transportation package in the 09-11 session.

    “First = Transportation is indispensable to – and not severable from – economic development. This goes back to what I said earlier about Oregon being a traded sector economy that needs quick, low cost, access to markets across the state and nation, and around the world. Today, businesses are coming to Oregon because of our quality of life, high tech industries, educated workforce, and gateway ports.

    “But there’s no law of nature or economics that says this favorable pattern will continue. And it won’t unless we reverse the current trend toward more congestion, more broken roads and bridges, and more productivity lost to an aging transportation system.

    “Second – Local governments and advocacy groups for businesses – and the environment – must be at the table, and they must be part of any solution to our transportation problem. To make sure this happens, ODOT and the Oregon Transportation Commission will work with local governing bodies and stakeholders to identify where transportation investments should be made.

    “Third – Sustainability. When it comes to talking about sustainability from this podium, I know I’m preaching to the choir. We must develop an investment strategy that not only preserves the current system, but invests in sustainable transportation that achieves my goals for reducing greenhouse gases.

    “Fourth – Transparency and Oversight. If we are going to invest billions of public dollars in public infrastructure – then the public must have a voice. That means open discussions – and openly arrived at decisions – about cost, location and modes of transportation.

    “Fifth – Statewide Distribution. When we talk about jammed roadways and cracked bridges, we think of the I-5 corridor. But every part of Oregon’s transportation network is linked to every other part.

    “And fixing PART of the system is NO fix at all. From maintenance to preservation to expansion – our transportation blueprint must cover the needs of every region, and benefit every Oregonian.”

    So the Governor sees truck freight increasing 80 percent and is in favor of investing “in sustainable transportation that achieves my goals for reducing greenhouse gases.” Do the math and draw your own conclusions.

    More to the point, that the Governor is talking about meeting the HB 3543 greenhouse gas emissions is a good step forward. Now we all need to do the math and figure out what exactly that means for the future of Oregon. In a future posting, titled, “Reengineering Oregon’s Future,” I intend to do exactly this math.

    – Rob

  3. Electric trucks, of course. So does this mean we’ll see a 12-lane I-5 sooner than later? But I’d hate to go through another CRC to expand the yet-to-be-expanded bridge already.

  4. From The Governor’s Address:

    “This region’s economy has not recovered. People are hurting. Businesses are struggling every day to remain profitable.”

    Governor Kulongoski is correct about the economy. Additional socialistic taxes and fees on the assessed on motor vehicles to subsidize other modes of transport, including gas tax increases, will only increase the pain to families and businesses even more

    “I don’t, for example, believe that a gas tax is the only way to go. There are other choices. But I do believe that everything – including a gas tax – must be on the table.”

    Unless taxes on bicycling and transit fares better reflect the costs of providing the service are on the table, the Governor is just blowing smoke and being less than honest. . .

    “Sustainability. When it comes to talking about sustainability from this podium, I know I’m preaching to the choir.”

    Sustainability also means financial self-sustainability whereby alternative modes of transport are assessed to pay for the infrastructure they use. The Governor is only hearing the parts of the choir he wants to hear and not effectively listening to all the voices.

    “Transparency and Oversight. If we are going to invest billions of public dollars in public infrastructure – then the public must have a voice. That means open discussions – and openly arrived at decisions – about cost, location and modes of transportation.”

    True transparency must mean providing the true financial costs of bicycle and transit infrastructure to the public – not hiding and/or bundling the costs within larger and/or roadway projects, Open discussions must require listening to the voices calling for alternative forms of transport paying their own way.

    Referring to the Columbia Crossing “We only have two choices. Do nothing and watch our economy sink. Or take steps to invest in a multi-modal solution, which strengthens our nation’s economy and enhances Oregon’s quality of life.

    Quality of life is an indefinable term. It means different things to different people – including being able to get in a car and go where you want when you want and when not having motor vehicles and driving subsidizing other modes of transport.

    “Both Oregon and Washington must provide funding for this critical project.”

    If part of that funding includes tolling, then all of the multi-modes including bicycles and transit users must be tolled to help pay for the crossing.

    The bottom line question is: Was the Governor just supplying more fluff funding rhetoric to embrace those attending the summit, or is he going to stand behind his actual words that would require the users of alternative modes to be taxed and pay a much greater share of the costs for the infrastructure they use.

  5. Terry,

    You write as if your opinion is a proven fact or popular mandate. Did we miss an election?

    “Additional socialistic taxes and fees…”

    You might have missed a political science class. Or are you talking about Venezuela? Or do you, indeed, think that all taxes are socialistic?

    “taxes on bicycling and transit fares better reflect the costs…”

    Wait, you do believe in taxes…but let me get this straight only if taxes are direct user taxes? Let me ask you this. Is your personal current lifestyle supported by any taxes that you do not directly pay? Discuss.

    “not effectively listening to all the voices”

    What, exactly does effectively listening to all the voices look like? After reading your posts it seems like effective listening means agreeing with your point of view.

    “True transparency must mean providing the true financial costs of bicycle and transit infrastructure to the public.”

    And as you know full well these are open to the public- they are open to you and you have been provided with the facts and figures.

    “Open discussions must require listening to the voices calling for alternative forms of transport paying their own way.”

    And how many voices might those be? Really, you’ve been challenged to start your own movement. You’ve run for office. And the amount of support? It is sounding like a voice- a loud, repetitive one, but still just (for the most part) one.

    “The bottom line question is:”

    No, the bottom line question is how many times are you going to keep posting the same reconstituted post on this and other forums?

    Fluffy rhetoric, indeed.

  6. Terry has a right to say what’s on his mind.

    P-E-R-I-O-D !!

    If you don’t like what he has to say don’t read it!

  7. To meet HB3543, we need to reduce our CO2 emissions by ~32% from today by 2020…

    The average fuel efficiency of cars produced today is 29.8 mpg, (and it was 29.0 in 2002, so it is pretty steady,) and the House of Representatives is having trouble raising it to 35 by 2020… However, assuming they are successful, if everyone continued to drive the same mileage, and no new people moved to the region, and everyone drove new cars, then we’d get a 15% reduction in [passenger car-vehicle related] emissions, which wouldn’t be enough, we’d also need to reduce passenger car-vehicle miles traveled by 20%. But looking back at the initial assumptions: Since the average age of cars on the road is ~7 years, it would be more like a 30% reduction in total vehicle miles. (And since more people will move to the state/be born here, that is more like a 40-50% reduction per person.)

    The CRC is based upon an assumption that traffic is going to go up by 2020, not down by 30%. But in order to meet the HB 3542 targets, (and therefore, not have the CRC bridge be underwater,) traffic has to go down, or Detroit has to figure out how to raise fuel economy faster than they’ve claimed that they know how. And if traffic goes down, then the CRC (as we know it now: A light rail bridge would still be a good idea,) is a giant waste of money, regardless of how much the federal government kicks in…

    This assumes that all the other big emitters of greenhouse gases also reduce their emissions by 32%:

    1) I serious doubt that the trucking industry can triple their fuel economy to both reduce emissions by 32%, and increase truck traffic by 80%, but even if they do, there will be plenty of capacity on the roads for them, because there will be 30% less cars. (The only way I could see them doing that is by driving slower for less wind resistance, using metal wheels on metal roads for less rolling resistance, and limiting the grades they climb: In other words, they use trains instead of trucks. And there are capacity problems there, and those will need to be fixed.)

    2) And then we have the utilities: The House of Representatives is trying to get 15% of the electrical energy from renewables by then, (and having even less luck on that then the CAFE standards,) and even assuming that all 15% is used to displace power currently generated by coal, the electrical industry isn’t going to make their 32% share, even assuming that we use the same amount of power as we do today, (it has typically gone up by ~2% per capita/yr…)

    3) Concrete?
    4) Farming?

  8. If you assume that eventually the world really will address greenhouse gases, then any mode of transportation or other economic activity that emits those gases is going to become much more expensive. If Oregon is a “traded sector economy”, then its economic security depends on investment in transportation infrastructure and economic development patterns that reward industries that do not depend on greenhouse gas emissions. Or at least provide less reliance on them. Greenhouse gases will become a constraint driving change rather than the objective of that change.

    And that distinction has ramifications for investments. The existing transportation infrastructure is not merely “aging”, it is actually becoming outmoded. Competition with the rest of the world will require the development of new infrastructure that does not result in huge greenhouse emissions.

    I think, however, that the critical question is not transportation infrastructure, which focuses on mobility. Instead it is community development that maintains the same access to services, and choices of services, without requiring the same mobility. And I think it is a mistake to see that as an environmental issue. Relying on fewer and shorter trips will result in reduced greenhouse gases in the short run. But, in the long run, the actual transformation of communities to support that will require much broader involvement than just the environmental community. And the benefits will have to be more than just a reduction in auto trips.

  9. Terry has a right to say what’s on his mind. P-E-R-I-O-D !! If you don’t like what he has to say don’t read it!

    Hawthorne has just as much of a right, therefore, to comment on Terry’s remarks. (And as you know this blog tries to be open to a variety of viewpoints, but it is still a private forum, so this “rights” business is limited to a degree by the rules of this blog.)

    Conversely, if you don’t like Hawthorne’s comments, don’t read them.

    Sauce. Goose. Gander. And all that. :-)

    – Bob R.

  10. Today’s Oregonian reports that a poll of Oregonians shows that they don’t buy the “transportation crisis” line. Education, rightfully in my view, is at the top of their agenda for 2008-9 with health care a close second.
    ODOT needs to do a better job of managing the resources they have to maintain existing roads and bridges, re-assign the staff that now works on planning, design, etc. of new projects.
    Meanwhile up in Washington, maybe the $ wasted by WSDOT on trying to get another 40K vehicles onto Portland’s streets (CRC) would have been better spent on building a new stretch of I-5 near Chehalis that will not close every 10 years due to flooding.

  11. I think everyone should buy 4×4 vehicles so when there’s congestion they can just tear out through the grassy knolls in-between freeways along the shoulders etc. If they aren’t going to fix this humongous problem that will soon doom the Oregon economy then people will have to make their own alternatives to the traffic morass.

  12. Rob Zako Indeed, the Governor and Legislature recently adopted House Bill 3543, making it the policy of the State of Oregon to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 75% below 1990 emissions by the year 2050. (See the lower HB 3543 Targets line.)
    JK: Lets be clear what 75% below means – it is a nice way of saying cut to only 25% of the current level. It means getting rid of 75% of our industries (jobs!), 75% of our driving, 75% of our buses, 75% of our home heating and 75% of our electricity use. In other words going back to the middle ages (almost).

    People will not have money for both heat and food. There will be no tax money to help them as our economy collapses and tax revenue dramatically shrinks.

    The good news for some people here: Poverty is the only proven way to achieve your goals of getting people out of cars and onto bikes, out of houses and into tenements and to reduce their consumerism. You should be very happy at putting people into poverty. Unfortunately people will literally die as a result, especially the low income, but that never seems to bother progressives.

    I will have to compliment you for achieving what Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Castro never were able to do: destroy the USA.

    Of course the really sad part is that, as Oregon is bordering in insanity, the case for global warming has already fallen apart:
    1. Warming’s #1 headline poster, the “hockey stick” has been proven wrong and probably fraudlent.
    2. Warming’s #2 headline poster, “1998 was the warmest year….” has been shown wrong be correcting data errors at NASA. 1998 is now considered tied with 1934.
    3. Warming’s #3 headline poster, 1990s had xx of the warmest years. No – same revisions put warmest years spread throughout the century.
    4. There has been no warming trend since 1998. Based on solar cycles we may be entering a cooling phase.
    5. In terms of actual effect, CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas, H2O is.
    6. Man emits only a tiny fraction of the total CO2.

    Al Gore has made millions off of his global warming tours and his mutual fund that sells shares in “green” companies.

    Only the un-informed still believe the doomsville religion that Al Gore is peddling. (Shame on him for scaring little children in school)

    Thanks
    JK
    Light rail costs too much does too little

  13. I especially love how, even when (frequently) comparing his blog opponents to Hitler, Stalin, et. al., and accusing them directly of “Destroying the USA”, he always remembers to sign his posts with “Thanks.”, as though that somehow makes things OK.

    Thanks,
    Bob R.

  14. It means getting rid of 75% of our industries (jobs!), 75% of our driving, 75% of our buses, 75% of our home heating and 75% of our electricity use.

    I’m sorry Jim, but it doesn’t mean any of those things. It means reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There are a lot of ways to do that by increasing efficiency, reducing waste and shifting to alternatives.

  15. Mr Karlock;

    I of all people appreciate your tenancity, its quite commendable, however you dont really expect anybody to buy what your selling do you?

    And can we leave Hitler out of this please.

  16. Mr Karlock;

    I of all people appreciate your tenancity, its quite commendable, however you dont really expect anybody to buy what your selling do you?

    And can we leave Hitler out of this please.

  17. Mr Karlock;

    I of all people appreciate your tenancity, its quite commendable, however you dont really expect anybody to buy what your selling do you?

    And can we leave Hitler out of this please.

  18. Mr Karlock;

    I of all people appreciate your tenancity, its quite commendable, however you dont really expect anybody to buy what your selling do you?

    And can we leave Hitler out of this please.

  19. Mr Karlock;

    I of all people appreciate your tenancity, its quite commendable, however you dont really expect anybody to buy what your selling do you?

    And can we leave Hitler out of this please.

  20. Lenny said: “Meanwhile, WSDOT might be smart to shift their attention from the I-5 bridges across the Columbia…which have done quite well, thank you, in several 100 year floods…to I-5 in Chehalis which is flooded for 20 miles and still closed.”

    That money was appropriated years ago and , like all the road money, was diverted by the anti-road gang.

    Lenny said: ” Curiously the energy sector has made this transition from a capacity focus to conservation focus over the last 30 years.”

    And the result has been a steady increase in congestion. Interestingly, the modal split between cars and transit has shown the transit share steadily decreasing and the auto share increasing.

    Mel

  21. Raising CAFE standards is a phony way to address the issues of greenhouse gas, oil consumption, and transportation issues generally. The end result will be more people keeping their older cars on the road, combined with the auto companies doing all kinds of crazy work arounds to figure out ways to hawk a few more SUVs.

    The real solution is the solution that no politician will dare touch – a systematic, gradual increase of the federal gas tax (say, 5-10% increase annually). Ratcheting it up gradually over a decade or so offers the following benefits:

    1. Depreciation of current vehicles happens gradually, giving people time to anticipate and adjust accordingly (drive less, buy a more fuel efficient auto, etc.);
    2. Levels the playing field for alternative energy sources to gain a foothold (notice how oil always stays below the price point of the next more feasible alternative? Not a coincidence); and
    3. Funding source to help pay for any of the following: national debt, Iraq War, the tax credits that are currently going to oil companies. Or heck, reduce income or capital gains taxes at the same time and make it revenue neutral (notice how I didn’t mention alternative transit funding – no need to turn this into another stupid “bikes pay their own way” debate which is irrelevant to my point).

    Ratcheting up the gas tax gradually over the next decade is the best way to deal with our addiction to foreign oil and encourage solutions to our transportation and environmental issues, and this is true whether you believe in alternative transportation or not. Unfortunately it won’t happen and we’ll have stupid (but less politically risky) solutions like CAFE instead.

  22. Mel said: Interestingly, the modal split between cars and transit has shown the transit share steadily decreasing and the auto share increasing.

    Interestingly, for the Portland area that is untrue.

    The US Census American Community Survey puts Portland’s transit commute share at 13.3%, among the top-10 of US cities of any size.

    – Bob R.

  23. Greg Says: Raising CAFE standards is a phony way to address the issues of greenhouse gas, oil consumption, and transportation issues generally. … The real solution is … a systematic, gradual increase of the federal gas tax (say, 5-10% increase annually). Ratcheting it up gradually over a decade or so offers the following benefits:
    JK How will this affect low income people who already are having a tough time paying for food, housing and transportation?

    Thanks
    JK

  24. Bob R. Says: Mel said: Interestingly, the modal split between cars and transit has shown the transit share steadily decreasing and the auto share increasing.

    Interestingly, for the Portland area that is untrue.

    The US Census American Community Survey puts Portland’s transit commute share at 13.3%, among the top-10 of US cities of any size. (bold added by JK)
    JK: Oh, Bob, there you go agin.
    Mixing incompatible data sources. Mel made the statement “the modal split between cars and transit has shown the transit share steadily decreasing…” , a statement about ALL transport and you replied with a survey of just commuters. (Note the title on the table: Top 10 commuter cities)

    Come on Bob, that is worse than the false accusations you keep making against my web site, DebunkingPortland.com)

    You also seem to have missed the context of Mel’s comment: the whole region, not just Portland. You can tell this by the fact that he is talking about the I5 bridge, which, as you may know, is not all in Portland.

    Although I have not tracked down the source of the CNN story that you linked to, their Portland hot link lists the population at 545,336, clearly Portland only.

    (BTW, expect a much better response from Mel, who keeps up, more than me, on statistics. )

    BTW#2, why is it desirable that more people go on welfare for their transportation? Especially when mass transit costs around three times that of driving, much of it taxpayer money and used by millionaires as well as the needy. Wouldn’t it make more sense to give vouchers to the needy and make the millionaires pay their own way?

    As to your probable babbling about energy savings, wouldn’t it make more sense to subsidize hybrid cars, instead of transit? Especially plug in hybrids with nuclear power? Probably less energy than rail and cheaper too??

    Thanks
    JK

  25. Thanks, JK, for leaping in and accusing me of making “false accusations” while still remembering to say “thanks” as you always do.

    Interestingly, Mel cited no data whatsoever, so finding just exactly which survey and which table to post in response to him was a shot in the dark. I’m so very sorry that you didn’t approve of my selection.

    As to your probable babbling

    Glad to see you’re dismissive in advance of anything I might have to say.

    Getting back to Mel’s comments, he was responding directly to a quote from Lenny. Lenny was referring specifically to the energy sector, not commuters or automobile users, so if my response (in your judgement) was off-the-mark, Mel’s was completely missing Lenny’s point.

    Best wishes and salutations, and don’t forget thanks,
    Bob R.

  26. How will this affect low income people who already are having a tough time paying for food, housing and transportation?

    That depends. For people who use transit, walk or bike the relative cost of transportation will decline. For those who reduce their use of motor vehicles their relative cost will decline. For those who drive fuel efficient vehicles, the relative cost will decline. For the few low income people who can now afford to drive a large gas hog for long distances, the relative cost will go up. People have a measure of control over how much gas they use.

    Nonetheless, Jim is right. Depending on how the money from raising the gas tax is “spent”, it may or may not be regressive. An increase in the gas tax that was used to reduce capital gains or the upper brackets of the income tax would likely be regressive. If it was spent to increase the personal deduction it would likely bring a net benefit to most low income people.

    Likewise using the gas tax to fund a tax deduction for solar panels would not benefit most low income people. But providing tax credits for home energy conservation would.

    That money was appropriated years ago and , like all the road money, was diverted by the anti-road gang.

    This is obviously not true. Money that is “appropriated” can’t diverted by anyone. And, despite the “anti-road gang”, WashDOT has been expanding freeway capacity all over the state, incuding major expansions in the Vancouver. The reality is that, when it comes to road investments, new capacity seems to always trump repairs and maintenance. The result is that almost all new road capacity is being funded by deferred maintenance on existing facilities.

  27. Boy Jim;

    You sure come up with some interesting stuff.

    I still aint buying any of it though.

    You remind me of a telemarketer who never EVER gives up in their attempt to make the sale.

    Alas most folks just don’t answer the phone any longer.

    Al

  28. Boy Jim;

    You sure come up with some interesting stuff.

    I still aint buying any of it though.

    You remind me of a telemarketer who never EVER gives up in their attempt to make the sale.

    Alas most folks just don’t answer the phone any longer.

    Al

  29. Boy Jim;

    You sure come up with some interesting stuff.

    I still aint buying any of it though.

    You remind me of a telemarketer who never EVER gives up in their attempt to make the sale.

    Alas most folks just don’t answer the phone any longer.

    Al

  30. Boy Jim;

    You sure come up with some interesting stuff.

    I still aint buying any of it though.

    You remind me of a telemarketer who never EVER gives up in their attempt to make the sale.

    Alas most folks just don’t answer the phone any longer.

    Al

  31. Boy Jim;

    You sure come up with some interesting stuff.

    I still aint buying any of it though.

    You remind me of a telemarketer who never EVER gives up in their attempt to make the sale.

    Alas most folks just don’t answer the phone any longer.

    Al

  32. The US Census American Community Survey puts Portland’s transit commute share at 13.3%, among the top-10 of US cities of any size.

    I note that Seattle, with its predominately bus transit system (and one that is properly invested upon) has a higher commute-hour transit ridership percentage than Portland does.

    The “new direction” for TriMet should be, clearly, to stop the policy of disinvestment in the bus system, stop MAX expansions until bus service can be caught up, immediately order new, energy efficient and high capacity busses, demand 95%+ reliability on all bus routes, and have a leadership team that actually spends time managing the system rather than acts like a politician.

    Doing so will encourage more transit usage, and decrease the need for expensive development projects and subsidies, as well as decrease region-wide greenhouse gas emissions. There’s no point in insisting on developmental subsidies in SoWa/Pearl, when developers want to develop elsewhere and people want to live elsewhere. TriMet and Metro need to step up to the place and provide transit to all, not transit to a few and bitch about everyone else.

  33. I note that Seattle, with its predominately bus transit system

    As is Portland isn’t it?

    But Seattle has commuter trains and a very extensive ferry network. Not to mention the monorail. I don’t know how the census bureau counts people who drive their auto’s onto a ferry. Are they transit users?

    stop the policy of disinvestment in the bus system

    Good we agree. Now if we can just find that policy somewhere. Or any real evidence for it. I don’t consider the use of older buses during rush hour to be an indication of “disinvestment”.

    Moreover, won’t “high capacity buses” actually result in poorer service by reducing frequency? I would much rather have bus scheduled every 10 minutes than a larger bus every 15 minutes.

    Doing so will encourage more transit usage

    My understanding that frequent service had a major impact on transit use. I don’t see how proposals to reduce service make any sense.

    immediately order new … buses

    Don’t they have new buses on order or at least part of their investment plans? 2008 TIP (PDF)

    Of course old buses are still in use during peak hours. But if the choice is between using old buses and less frequent service it makes sense to use the old ones. And regardless of what new buses they buy, the oldest buses will still be in service during peak hours.

    The notion that Trimet is “disinvesting” in bus service is mostly mythology. There have been cutbacks in service, but those are because of increased operating expenses not a lack of investment in buses.

    So what Erik seems to be proposing is that Trimet invest in higher-capacity articulated buses to be used for less frequent service on heavily traveled lines that currently have frequent service. I suppose they can then use the presumed operating savings to improve service elsewhere. Most importantly, I suppose, the #12 line. It seems that Erik is an advocate for the Tualatin Bus Riders Union.

  34. I happen to agree with Erik on this topic.

    We have enough max, increase bus service/reliability.

    The green line is highly questionable.

  35. I happen to agree with Erik on this topic.

    We have enough max, increase bus service/reliability.

    The green line is highly questionable.

  36. I happen to agree with Erik on this topic.

    We have enough max, increase bus service/reliability.

    The green line is highly questionable.

  37. I happen to agree with Erik on this topic.

    We have enough max, increase bus service/reliability.

    The green line is highly questionable.

  38. I happen to agree with Erik on this topic.

    We have enough max, increase bus service/reliability.

    The green line is highly questionable.

  39. Seattle vs. Portland at commute time: As a Seattleite who’s spent some time in Portland, I read Erik’s constant love for Seattle’s bus system with skepticism. The buses here are also overcrowded and unreliable (I couldn’t get on the last commuter bus to my job last week because it was too full to take on more passengers), and I believe our costs per passenger-mile are higher than Portland’s.

    The higher percentage of commuters is not about mode, it’s about density. Seattle has a much denser downtown than Portland does, many denser neighborhoods than Portland has, and (I believe) less parking downtown. Seattle would probably have an even higher percentage of transit commuters if we also had a light-rail.

    For Portland expansion, the trick is to determine when Portland’s savings from expanding MAX would cover the operating costs of running more buses.

  40. Recently, Metro and Portland hosted Michael Replogle from Environmental Defense. He spoke about the link between climate change and transportation. Interestingly, his talk was titled, “Improving Mobility while reducing Environmental Footprint.” The main gist was the success of congestion pricing as a means to achieve both goals, which are too often seen as antithetical.

    http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=6241

    I am intrigued by the potential of a “win-win” solution to our transportation problems. The Oregon Transportation Plan (Strategy 6.4.1) calls for consideration of congestion pricing both for managing traffic flows as well as a funding source for transportation investments.

    The experience elsewhere overwhelmingly shows that pricing roads can guarantee reliability, relieve congestion, raise funds for alternative modes, reduce emissions of all kinds and reduce some of the other negative impacts of too many cars on the road.

    The question remains whether we have the political will to embrace a strategy that works or just keep wishing that a few more pennies of gas tax will solve our problems.

  41. But Seattle has commuter trains and a very extensive ferry network. Not to mention the monorail.
    The hands-down majority of transit though is bus. If the Coast Range was a separate island and the Willamette was a huge body of water between the island and the mainland, we’d probably have ferries, too.
    It should also be mentioned that the monorail expansion was stopped and torn out when the taxpayers said ‘too much’ – sounds like a ‘disinvestment in transit’ if I’ve ever heard of one. It would be like stopping the streetcar in Portland before it ever had the chance to start.

    It should also be mentioned that Seattle proper also has two transit systems – King Co. Metro, and regional Sound Transit. Outside King Co., just about every different county has their own system, with different fares, policies, hours of service, etc. The City of Everett also has its own system.

    Of course old buses are still in use during peak hours.
    They’re actually in use all hours, which I think is part of Erik’s point. Especially in Washington County, where I’ve seen the low-floor buses (and usually a 20xx-series or 22xx series, which are the oldest of the low-floor buses) on usually 57-TV Hwy. and 54-Beaverton/Hillsdale Hwy. Most of the time, the other routes seem to be serviced only by the the Flixibles. I’ve also seen plenty on such other high-ridership routes that go nowhere near Washington County, including 14-Hawthorne and 9-Powell.

    So what Erik seems to be proposing is that Trimet invest in higher-capacity articulated buses to be used for less frequent service on heavily traveled lines that currently have frequent service.
    Actually, I think the idea is buying/using articulated buses to add seating capacity to the current schedules.

    It seems that Erik is an advocate for the Tualatin Bus Riders Union.
    His webpage does say “Portland Metropolitan Area,” and his last several posts have had nothing to do with Tualatin specifically.

  42. Rex, will you be proposing congestion pricing as an alternative to the CRC (or some portion of the additional SOV capacity the current CRC alternatives will add to the system)?

    Any number of us would love to support such an altenrative!

  43. It should also be mentioned that the monorail expansion was stopped and torn out when the taxpayers said ‘too much’

    Stopped, yes, torn out, no. Construction had never started, although a lot of real estate had already been purchased (both on the open market and through eminent domain), some buildings demolished, etc. But the main go-ahead for the project never happened.

  44. Bob R. Says: Getting back to Mel’s comments, he was responding directly to a quote from Lenny. Lenny was referring specifically to the energy sector, not commuters or automobile users, so if my response (in your judgement) was off-the-mark, Mel’s was completely missing Lenny’s point.
    JK: Again you miss the point, lets take a closer look:
    That money was appropriated years ago and , like all the road money, was diverted by the anti-road gang.
    Lenny said: ” Curiously the energy sector has made this transition from a capacity focus to conservation focus over the last 30 years.”

    [Mel:]And the result has been a steady increase in congestion. Interestingly, the modal split between cars and transit has shown the transit share steadily decreasing and the auto share increasing.

    Sure looks like Lenny argued for road conservation instead of capacity, using the energy sector as an analogy.

    Bob R. Says: As to your probable babbling
    Glad to see you’re dismissive in advance of anything I might have to say.
    JK Sorry, that was a bit impolite.

    Thanks
    JK

  45. The hands-down majority of transit though is bus.
    As I said, that is also true of Portland where two thirds of the trips are on buses. And there were almost 9 million passengers on the Bremerton and Brainbridge to Seattle Ferries. That is not an insignificant number – over 25% of the entire ridership on MAX.

    They’re actually in use all hours

    I don’t think that is true of the oldest buses.

    Actually, I think the idea is buying/using articulated buses to add seating capacity to the current schedules.

    Where the ridership justifies it, the alternative is increasing frequency of service. Which is why the actual outcome of higher capacity buses is less frequent service by fewer vehicles. That might not be the immediate impact, but as decisions on service are made it is difficult to justify increasing service frequency if the current service is handling all the passengers.

    The other problem is that larger buses are inevitably slower since they have to pick up more passengers. So purchasing articulated buses is going to result in slower, less frequent service. How does that benefit bus riders?


  46. Sure looks like Lenny argued for road conservation instead of capacity, using the energy sector as an analogy.

    Actually, I think he was arguing for traffic conservation. The analogy is to conserving energy which reduced the demand for expensive new capacity.

  47. Greg Says: Raising CAFE standards is a phony way to address the issues of greenhouse gas, oil consumption, and transportation issues generally. … The real solution is … a systematic, gradual increase of the federal gas tax (say, 5-10% increase annually). Ratcheting it up gradually over a decade or so offers the following benefits:

    JK How will this affect low income people who already are having a tough time paying for food, housing and transportation?

    Thanks
    JK

    Jim,

    The direct answer to your question is, it depends on how those revenues are spent (and I was suggesting to make it revenue neutral, FWIW), and it depends on the choices that those low income people make.

    You’re welcome
    Greg

  48. Speaking of articulated buses, muni is testing out double decker buses!

    Hmmm… that may be worth a separate topic thread altogether … I believe Las Vegas has a special double-decker route running along the strip.

    – Bob R.

  49. They should do something innovative here like double decker MAX and trolleys in Portland. Sometimes these things are so crowded you have to be right up against the next person and often times these people smell of bad odors. But then again, most of the time they are nearly empty but running anyways.

  50. “They should do something innovative here like double decker MAX and trolleys in Portland. Sometimes these things are so crowded you have to be right up against the next person and often times these people smell of bad odors. But then again, most of the time they are nearly empty but running anyways.”

    LOL!!LOL!!!

    hahah……..

    ahhhhhhhh……

  51. If we’re going to compare Seattle to Portland, let’s not leave out the State of Washington’s Commute Trip Reduction law. This essentially mandates that large employers take steps to get their employees to use alternative modes. As a result, per capita, there are many more people with a business-subsidized transit fare, which has a lot to do with Seattle’s transit ridership.

    Portland’s Employee Commute Options rule, in contrast, doesn’t have nearly the teeth that the Washington law does. It’s likely that a noticeable increase in ridership here would occur if we had a more stringent law.

  52. Hmmm… that may be worth a separate topic thread altogether
    Sounds like a good idea to me – maybe we can extend the proposed topic to include 40 vs. 60 footers, or even get nit-picky and have a New Flyer vs. Gillig vs. Orion discussion… (maybe not, probably wouldn’t appeal to anyone but the most die-hard bus geeks)

    I believe Las Vegas has a special double-decker route running along the strip.
    Yes, they do:
    http://www.rtcsouthernnevada.com/deuce/

  53. “Lets be clear what 75% below means – it is a nice way of saying cut to only 25% of the current level. It means getting rid of 75% of our industries (jobs!), 75% of our driving, 75% of our buses, 75% of our home heating and 75% of our electricity use. In other words going back to the middle ages (almost).”

    Well, no. First of all, we could have (very close to) zero carbon emmisions power system if we simply went to 50% of our current usage, and we could get there simply by doing things like switching to CFLs, and insulating our houses better…

    But even the houses of the nobility in the middle ages didn’t have a grid connection at all, they certainly didn’t average 1kw per house like we do for the middle class. On a per capita basis, they smelted about 10 lbs of iron a year for things like plows and swords, now days people buy 2 ton cars every few years, made out of high quality steel, with enough metal left over to package AOL CDs in the mail. And I don’t think you could go much faster than a horse gallop no matter how much money you had, nobody ever had done 70 mph, (with the exception of falling,) until the steam engine was invented…

  54. URBAN AREAS OVER 1,000,000 POPULATION IN 2000

    Portland, OR-WA
    Transport Market Share

    1983 2.45%

    2003 2.29%

    Change -6.7%

    Bob R. Says:
    “Mel said: Interestingly, the modal split between cars and transit has shown the transit share steadily decreasing and the auto share increasing.Interestingly, for the Portland area that is untrue.The US Census American Community Survey puts Portland’s transit commute share at 13.3%, among the top-10 of US cities of any size.
    – Bob R.”

    Bob R. isn’t 1) looking at what I said and 2) is looking at irrelevant data. Commute to work data is only 32% of the trips during the peak hours and much less during 24 hours. Further, Portland trips constitute 30% of the trips in the urbanized area. This comes from the 2001 NHTS (latest survey). You must use urbanized area data because most of the trips in Portland are not City of Portland trips. The 2005 ACS urbanized area shows, for commute trips comparing public transport and autos, 679,360 auto trips ( 91.6%) and 62,380 public transport trips (8.4%) . When you adjust for the fact that these trips are only 30% of the trips, you get the 2005 public transport share for this area.

    For example, if you look at traffic volumes on the freeways and major arterials which constitute most of the trips, they are not all Portland trips. In fact, as I stated above, they are only 30%.

    Most transit trips are Portland trips but, in order to make a comparison between autos and public transport, you cannot use just City of Portland data because that is inapplicable to what is on transit and auto at any given time.

    Mel

  55. Portland, OR-WA

    It should hardly surprise to anyone that the percentage of overall transit usage declines when you include Washington. Transit isn’t really an option in the auto-dependent developments in rural Clark County. Even the more urban areas of the county are mostly poorly served by CTRAN.

  56. Ross –

    Thanks for making that point. I love it when transit opponents include large areas which have very little transit service to try and prove some kind of point about transit mode share.

    – Bob R.

  57. Al, that’s a great photo you linked to (a panorama of Portland taken from the upper tram landing) … is there some commentary you wish to provide?

  58. Either the data shows that transit ridership is up…in which case Portland’s transportation strategy is working, and we keep moving forward.
    Or the data shows that transit ridership is down…in which case we had better spend a lot more money on building a high capacity transit system with a downtown subway and three or four new lines, not just one or two.

  59. Portland’s share of transit commute has not been steadily decreasing, but it hasn’t steadily increased either. The number cited by Bob R. is for the city of Portland, which is less relevant than the number for the urban area as a whole. Since Portland is a smaller fraction of its urban area than many other cities, and since most transit usage is in the inner cities, you would expect Portland’s number to be high.

    For the Portland urbanized area, transit carried 7.0 percent of commuters in 1970, 9.8 percent in 1980, 6.7 percent in 1990, 7.7 percent in 2000, and 7.6 percent in 2005. All numbers from the census bureau.

    So TriMet bus improvements greatly boosted transit in the 1970s. Light rail greatly cost transit in the 1980s. Rail and bus improvements restored transit in the 1990s, but even by 2005 it hasn’t returned to 1980 levels.

    Best,

    Randal O’Toole

  60. Lenny,
    That’s amazing and funny.
    Either the data shows that transit ridership is up… and we keep moving forward?
    Or the data shows that transit ridership is down…in which case we had better move forward faster?
    No consideration that we may be going in the wrong direction?
    That’s like attempting to drive to Seattle and pass through Salem, Eugene and Roseberg. During lunch in Roseburg someone points out that you are headed away from Seattle and you decide to drive faster in the same direction.

  61. Light rail greatly cost transit in the 1980s.

    That’s a difficult claim to make — MAX didn’t open until FY1987.

    – Bob R.

  62. Steve –

    An alternative analogy for Lenny’s comments might be: A business owner asks “Is our advertising program bringing customers into the store? Perhaps we need to advertise in more areas and increase the capacity of the store to encourage growth.” Indeed, the answer to that might be “our market won’t support more customers than this, don’t scale up”, but it is not a fallacy to think that increasing capacity will increase patronage beyond a 1:1 ratio.

    – Bob R.

  63. How’s that?
    Obviously if it opened in FY 1987 the re-prioritizing and re-directing of revenue from buses to light rail started years earlier.
    You’re grasping at straws instead responding to the substance.

  64. You’re grasping at straws instead responding to the substance.

    Where’s the “substance” in proclaiming “Light rail greatly cost transit in the 1980s.” without offering any data, other than two measures of mode share a decade a part, to explain what may have happened during the entire decade of the ’80s? Get real.

    – Bob R.

  65. Good grief,
    If the 25 year track record of the store shows advertizing and increasing capacity hasn’t kept pace with growth the answer is pretty clear that doing more of the same is a fallacy.
    The store might want to look at the demand for their products and at least consider the possibility that their products aren’t that great.

    They may have been beleiving too much of their own advertizing, which the public wasn’t buying.

  66. Steve –

    That’s fine. At least we’re working within an appropriate analogy, and Lenny’s comments fit that analogy just as well as yours.

    – Bob R.

  67. The “substance” is whether not not mode share has increased after decades of light rail investment.
    The substance is the better measurement of the region as a whole. Because clearly better bus service could have been accomplished throughout the region had we not embarked upon lighht rail instead. So it’s on the mark that the 80s, when it started, were not kind to transit mode share.

    But now you are diverting into disecting a comment about the 80s.

  68. Steve –

    The mode share statistics posted thus far in this thread, including the ones Randal just posted this morning, suffer from the problem that Ross already pointed out. Your 7.5% share for the Portland urbanized area includes Vancouver and parts of unincorporated Clark County, which hasn’t made the same kinds of investments in transit service as have been made south of the Columbia.

    For anyone trying to follow along, here’s a link to the US Census American Community Survey results for the Portland Urban Area, 2005.

    – Bob R.

  69. But now you are diverting into disecting a comment about the 80s.

    Someone else brought up the comment about the ’80s, so you can’t pin all the blame for “diverting” onto me.

    – Bob R.

  70. So if Portland is going to hell in a hand basket, let’s get to work on building a wider SR 43 thru Dunthorpe to Lake Oswego…6 lanes at least; also that needed expressway and bridge between Oak Grove and Kruse Woods thru Lake Oswego.
    I think we will find that the fine folks of D. and LO don’t want these roads, no matter how essential they may be. Same goes for widening 39th on Portland’s eastside, and on and on.
    You just can’t get “there” on a road anymore…and if you put your trust in scientists from 160 nations, you don’t want to.

  71. One thing that’s particularly interesting about the American Community Survey commute share data is the huge number of “Work at Home”, “Walked” and “Other Means” (which can include bicycles.) Putting that all together with transit, the percentage of people in our urbanized region (including Vancouver) who are NOT commuting to work by car (but who _DO_ work!) is 18.5%.

    – Bob R.

  72. “Lenny’s comments fit that analogy just as well as yours.”

    How’s that? Lenny doesn’t address the lack of growth from the decades of advertising nd capacity increases.
    He might as well suggest dancing in circles would help and then you claim that fits too.

    Lenny has been an equal echo chamber for OHSU’s venture into expanding their Biotech research capacity without any consideration for the improbabilities and nearly non existent potential for success.
    Seemingly he suggests they “go for it”? anyway with our full support simply because they are the city’s largest employer.
    Never mind such reckless misadventures have brought OHSU to fiscal crisis they are now facing.
    His faith in their management is stunning.
    But not unlike the faith here in TriMet, light rail the PDC and Metro.
    I don’t see any interests or read anyone hear questioning the Convention Center Hotel or any of the unfolding severe budget fiascos in SoWa.
    All championed by the same system.

  73. I don’t see any interests or read anyone hear questioning the Convention Center Hotel …

    That could be due to two factors:

    • This is a transportation-related web site, not necessarily a convention-center-hotel-related web site.
    • This thread is called “Framework Part 1: The New Direction for Oregon”, not “Framework Part 1: The New Convention Center Hotel for Portland”

    But, I wouldn’t be surprised if somebody mentions it sooner or later. After all, this discussion has gone way off topic already.

    … or any of the unfolding severe budget fiascos in SoWa.

    That may be because some people see the cost overruns and, although cost overruns are regrettable and should serve as a cautionary tale for future projects, are not really “severe budget fiascos” in the grand scheme of things.

    – Bob R.

  74. Lenny,

    Quite a swerve there.
    Your reason for supporting more of the same is???
    Our only other choice is some straw man carving up of Dunthorpe and LO?
    You sure pick the most unlikely scenarios.
    Why is that?
    “widening 39th on Portland’s eastside”?
    That is so far fetched and worthless it’s laughable.

    What does 39th have to do with not getting “there” on a road anymore”?

    Your trust in our transportation planners leaves me wondering where it comes from.
    Forget about Dunthorpe, LO and SE 39th, our planners made no consideration for any traffic when crafting the SoWa plan to add 1000s of jobs and housing units there.

    If you have any interest in the new and current intelligence you’ll discover those scientists from 160 nations have themselves stuck in worsening situation.

  75. Pardon me for interrupting a lively discussion about transit use in the Portland metropolitan area. Bob R. must know some variation of Godwin’s law about the focus of a discussion changing as the thread grows longer!

    Note that House Bill 3543 states:

    The Legislative Assembly declares that it is the policy of this state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Oregon pursuant to the following greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals…

    Thus the question is no longer whether to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 75% below 1990 levels by the year 2050, but how to best go about making such a change over the course of the next two generations.

    And this issue really must be viewed in generational terms, as we do not need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so much for ourselves, who will all pass away sooner or later, but for our children and grandchildren. Conversely, we must look to our children and grandchildren, some of whom have yet to be born, as our hope, for they have not yet embraced our expectations and habits, and are young enough to imagine changing the world.

    Those of us here today should think about the legacy we will leave to our children and grandchildren, and whether they will look back to us as having been wise or foolish. I will have more thoughts along these lines in Transportation Framework Part 2: Leadership, Commitment and Accountability.

    Of course, transit use in the Portland can be part of the solution. But one must really see the forest for the trees, and do the math to determine what fraction of the roughly 60 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2E) emitted in Oregon annually could be reduced by transit use. I don’t have at my fingertips figures about total transit ridership in the Portland area and the difference between greenhouse gas emissions for, say, single-occupant vehicles and transit riders. If others have easy access to such figures, please share. Alternatively, one could look at changes in Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) as a result of different policies, as this figure is related directly to the greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle travel. Such considerations highlight the need for the Metro Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and similar plans to begin at least tracking the greenhouse gas emissions projected in the plan.

  76. They need to widen I-5 all the way south into Salem or beyond and then toll the Washingtonians a luxury tax for using our freeway. Ditch the bloated new freeway proposal. It sounds like a megascam! This would discourage Vancouver sprawl and development and bring it back into Oregon where it belongs!

  77. My point was that oppostion to more roads is almost universal…except for a few posters on this blog…; its a poor use of limited funds, compromises neighborhoods and contributes to more traffic, pollution, greenhouse gases, etc. You guys are just on the wrong side of history.
    The Tram, my favorite transportation project after Streetcar, is a perfect example of how to spend limited public dollars to insure economic growth and build new neighborhoods, an easy non-polluting ride from work. What’s not to like?
    Let’s see how many Streetcars and trams could we built with the CRC’s several billion?

  78. I always seem to come late to these threads… Godwin’s Law has already been invoked twice, so it’s already over.

    Still, I’d like to point out that, as much as I love biodiesel, I think we need to move away from diesel power to meet our transportation needs, and towards electric. Specifically, I think we need to re-electrify the rail system (remember that it was mostly electric by the 1920s), so that a large movement from trucks to rail doesn’t just shift the geography of the emissions.

    This also has to do with the ongoing bus vs. streetcar/light rail debate: Streetcars & light rail don’t emit anything, whereas even hybrid buses belch diesel fumes, even when they run on biodiesel. To the extent that we can solve our capacity problems by switching to streetcars, we can also reduce our emissions.

    Finally, it is agreed that urban transit, and even freight transportation, cannot solve all of Oregon’s emission reduction target-achieving problems. However, since this site is Portland Transport, those would seem to be the logical components of the strategy to discuss here. :-)

Leave a Reply

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