Kulongoski Calls for Congestion Pricing as Advocacy Group Launches CRC Alternatives Web Site


Speaking to the Oregon Environmental Council, Governor Kulongoski spoke strongly in support of congestion pricing (in the form of variable tolling at bottleneck points in the system). See Oregonian coverage and commentary by Jeff Mapes.

Interestingly he has slightly altered his rhetoric about the Columbia River Crossing. He spoke of “offsetting” the greenhouse gas emissions of the new bridge.

At the same time, a new web site has appeared: SmarterBridge.org, offering a phased approach of alternatives to the $4.2B proposal.

The organizers of this site are not explicity listed:

As individuals, we have all put our names on letters to the editor, opinion articles, and public testimony, but as a group we have chosen to emphasize not who we are, but what we have to say. We have chosen to let the facts speak for themselves on this site. We hope to see you at the hearings, where we can introduce ourselves in person!

(Yes, I have a pretty good idea who they are – and you’ve read some of their comments here.) One clue is that they have posted local economist Joe Cortright’s testimony to the Portland Planning Commission (PDF, 327K) regarding the bridge.

Joe’s presentation is the best, most concise, argument I’ve seen for the need for a different approach (and includes a preview of the web site).

,

141 responses to “Kulongoski Calls for Congestion Pricing as Advocacy Group Launches CRC Alternatives Web Site”

  1. Congestion Pricing is just another way to screw the low income.

    (A quick scan of Joe’s PDF shows him as out of touch with rality as most planners)

    Thanks
    JK

  2. Wow Ron, you must think Kulongoski is very convincing and enlightening?

    Congestion pricing would be just adding more misery to the deliberate congesting of our roads and freeways. Kulongoski’s rhetoric about the need to deal with congestion is as phony as TriMet’s or Metro’s. Isn’t it time for the establishment to admit they, you, have no intention of addressing comgestion?
    I mean, why is it that this pretense of concern about traffic congestion be included in the advocacy for more rail trasnit and TOD development? Especailly since the status quo beleives that reducing congestion causes more of it. Kulongoski and the rest of you should come clean with your agenda of increasing congestion as a way to address it.

    As far as “offsetting” the greenhouse gas emissions of the new bridge goes? That can’t happen at the same time the bottleneck, and region wide congestion is knowingly worsened.

    Of course once the light rail is extended to Vancouver officials just just claim to have offset emissions.

  3. http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=398
    April 14 2008

    Rail Transit Contributes to Global Warming

    Most light-rail lines use as much or more energy per passenger mile as an average SUV, and many emit more pounds of CO2 per passenger mile than the average automobile. Moreover, the energy efficiency and CO2 emissions of automobiles are steadily improving, while the energy efficiency of both bus and rail transit are declining. Thus, cities that want to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions would do better to encourage auto drivers to buy more fuel-efficient cars than to build rail transit lines.

  4. So, John, what’s your silver bullet for eliminating – or even reducing – congestion? Bulldoze some houses and businesses and build more highway lanes? Who’s going to pay for it? The home- and business-owners whose properties you condemn to `cheaply` build more lanes? The thousands upon thousands of residents/commuters who choose to use alternatives to a SOV to get to work and run errands? Or maybe – just maybe – we should have the people who choose to use the roads pay for them… Wow! Just like the governor is suggesting! What nerve!

    It’s always okay to demand the government to come in and then drop billions of dollars of public money on new roads – even take away people’s property when they happen to be in the way – something that won’t even fix the problem you’re complaining about, but when it comes to funding something that you choose not to use (but that others want instead of new roads that they won’t use) you insist that we’re ignoring the problem. This problem isn’t going away, no matter what course of action we take. Why should we force the issue? What we really need are alternatives to the expensive (both to build and to maintain) roadways that we’ve spent the last 60 years building up – and yet still find ourselves complaining about congestion. Given that the problem hasn’t been fixed after 60 years of continued investment, maybe we should take another course of action.

    The real “problem” is that you and many others seem to in denial about the fact that we live in a city. For the last sixty years we’ve been forcing people to use transportation options better suited for rural areas and small towns to get around. Newsflash! Portland can’t roll back the clock and magically be a small town again. It’s time to re-design and re-implement a truly urban transportation network – because we live in an urban area. For over 40 years Oregon voters have supported keeping urban areas urban and rural areas rural. Just because you want rural charm in an urban area doesn’t mean we subsequently undo the will of generations of voters who have made themselves heard on multiple occasions.

  5. BTW-In Calgary Canada they use:

    The program, in partnership with Enmax and Vision Quest Windelectric
    Inc., uses wind-generated electricity to power the city’s light-rail
    transit system.

    Calgary is #1 in the world, (voted by a panel from around the world), ecologically friendly transit system

  6. The bridges crossing the Willamette River in downtown Portland would be congested, too, if there were only two of them.

    Build a third Columbia Crossing in the BNSF corridor, let the rail company improve their track and defray some of the bridge cost, put Interstate light rail on it that connects to the Vancouver AMTRAK and to a cheap Vancouver streetcar (not this $MultiMillion$ aberration that Hales got paid 40,000 to propose). Connect to Hwy 30. DONE!

    Table this other nonsense. We will be enslaved to higher taxes and and seeing ranks of illegal alien construction workers for the rest of our lives with all the loony liberal plans afoot, otherwise.

  7. In this case, congestion pricing is the only permanent cure for congestion. So, we have a choice – the continuation and expansion of congestion on our regional chokepoints like the CRC, or charging for the privilege of using constrained space during peak periods. Congestion pricing would clear the bottleneck tomorrow if we wanted, easing freight movement and saving us billions on a white elephant project. It also provides a much-needed funding source for repairing the roads we already have – seismic retrofits of our bridges, for example.

    Of course, $4.2B will ultimately increase congestion, as 6 directional lanes now merge into 3. The subsequent story is quite predictable: N Portland will be the next target for freeway widening. The engineers will trot out safety, the economy, freight, and a bunch of other red herring arguments to make their case (these issues are of course real, but the project rarely benefits any of them). They will claim that there are still only 3 through lanes, the rest are simply unusually long auxiliary lanes, and other similar BS. They will cite the substandard shoulders, outdated ramp designs, and deteriorating pavement, implying that widening somehow solves these problems. And the neighborhoods will fight.

    Hard to say how the CRC will end up, but I doubt JK, John E, Anthony, and others will be happy with the ending. Which is to say, of course, that a more rational project will emerge. As the project now stands, we’d be better off dumping the $4.2B cash directly into the river.

  8. If the goal is to reduce pollution/carbon emissions, then we must look at ALL forms of such, and take steps to remove ALL forms, not just those that are politically advantageous.

    For example, I don’t see anyone calling for reducing or even eliminating one of the worst offenders in the transportation sector – air travel.

    I don’t see Kulongowski or any other leaders calling for a halt on new airline flights, or even calling for a halt on the regional flights that are flown by Horizon Airlines and SkyWest (although many/most of these flights are with more fuel-efficient turboprop planes, rather than jets).

    I don’t see anyone standing up to Alaska Airlines and their “flights to 14 California Airports” – why aren’t those same people demanding a return to frequent and reliable rail service? With the reduction in air travel, we’ll also be able to reclaim much of that wasted land tied up in airports and use it as green space, or re-use it for eco-friendly development. (Imagine PDX becoming a protected wetland again, like it used to be?)

    With freight – there should be penalties for any company that ships by truck as a choice, but doesn’t ship by rail when it’s available. When trucking is necessary, as much freight should be hauled on double/triple-trailer trucks which use the same powerplant as a single-trailer truck, but haul more freight. It’s sad that Metro, the agency that wants me to “drive less, save more” has no problem putting 60 trucks a day in the Colubmia Gorge, and has no problem with our bus fleet not being a hybrid fleet – but wants EVERY OTHER TRUCK (specifically garbage trucks and construction equipment) to be a hybrid. (If TriMet claims that hybrids aren’t as good as they say, then why demand that our garbage haulers do something that isn’t good????)

    Carpooling should be mandatory, not optional. It sickens me to see all of these “greenies” in their Toyota Prius, ALONE, while I’m standing on the side of the road waiting for a bus.

    And Oregon needs to do something about energy production. Since solar is not going to be very viable in Oregon, and wind power has limited application – that means more hydro and more nuclear. Where is Oregon – when we had Trojan, we were a power exporter. Now we are a power importer – and that means Oregon dollars flowing out of state to Washington, Idaho, Utah, Nevada and California.

    It seems as though the politicians are simply bandstanding on their politically convenient ways (i.e. light rail is sexy, who cares about busses; we “can’t build out way out of congestion”; congestion pricing because it’s “European”) – instead of focusing on holistic solutions that require themselves to personally make changes as well as driving changes down to the bottom of the totem pole.

  9. FYI, I do volunteer web work for the SmarterBridge Columbia River Crossing group — I set up the initial site engine and template, and the group provides the content directly. The site is still in its early stages and needs some fine-tuning — expect more content and improved organization in the coming weeks.

  10. My argument against congestion pricing is that it could kill local businesses and just keep people out of Portland altogether.

    Yes, it would create an economic incentive to ditch your car, but the fact remains that cars are convenient and people are willing to pay for convenience. Additionally, our part of the world is not set up for MOST people not to use cars. Bus/MAX/Bike works for me because most other people are not using these modes. I read a Freakonomics blog post about a gentleman who regularly had to wait for three or four buses of his route to pass because they were at capacity. It’d be like trying to take the MAX after a Blazers game – ALL THE TIME.

    Also, I think that for the most part, placing tolls at “choke points” would simply shift alot of traffic to surface streets to bypass the chokepoints, which would probably have a net effect of creating MORE congestion rather than reducing it.

    I think the real answer is, we’ve got to place important services [schools and grocery stores] at the same place as people live (or vice versa). Make walking to these places just as convenient as driving is now.

  11. CRC project is only a portion of a bigger picture;

    I-5 has been neglected for 20-40 years. It includes the same design features meant for traffic in the 1960’s. Although the city has grown, our freeways have not. We have not built one new facility since I-205 was completed in the early 80’s. only a few miles of freeway have been widened in the last 20 years. We have yet to build a modern HOV/HOT lane system and many urban freeway miles are built to rural standards (4 lanes, narrow shoulders).

    What we are now facing is the NEED for several multi-billion dollar mega-projects just to meet the NEEDs of today.

    I think a better solution to a mega-I-5 would have been several smaller scale freeways (think 3 lanes in each direction max) spread out; though that is impossible now, we are going to NEED a much larger (minimum 5 lanes in each direction from Vancouver to Willsonville) I-5 to keep up with demand for the next 20+ years.

  12. For a governor who travels the state in a huge full sized sedan often escorted by full sized SUV, he is obviously a dictatorial socialist hypocrite who discriminately safeguards wealthy lifestyle interests while shafting the working class by proposing to implement rush hour economic terrorism through tax exploitation. With working class taxes spiraling out of control and wages loosing ground to inflation, over zealous eco-socialists like Kulongoski are directly responsible for recession. Any highway or bridge tolls in Oregon should only apply between the governor’s mansion and the State Capitol with elected officials charged triple from their own pockets. Better yet, the sitting governor ought to be mandated to live in a studio apartment next to the capitol building and be required to travel in nothing bigger than an itsy-bitsy teeny-weenie American made puddle jumper, use mass transit at his own expense personally paying the full non-subsidized cost for a ride, or pedal a bicycle that is taxed, registered and licensed. If nothing else, this would be a lesson in sacrifice, leading by example and in humility. .

    Mass transit for the most part between Clark County and Portland does not take people where they want to go, or even provide them an efficient timely manner given the true financial capital and operational costs of providing the service. It would be cost prohibitive to construct and operate such an all encompassing system. Max from Vancouver is aligned to take people to downtown Portland. The majority of the people driving across the I-5 bridge are going elsewhere and not to downtown Portland. Furthermore, much of the work force that commutes across the bridge does not have the discretion to set their own hours of employment. You don’t see the government or elected officials offering flex time either where employees could come in several hours early or leave several hours later to even out the peak hours and lessen the crush of congestion and commuter travel. .

    Congestion pricing is in plain and simple terms tax discrimination targeted at the majority of the working class. If tolls are to be charged to motorists, they must only be charged to help pay for the motor vehicle portions of the new Columbia Crossing. In addition, the users of all vehicle modes of transport MUST also pay a feel. Transit passengers need to pay a farebox surcharge in place of a toll that would be used to pay for any local match dollars spent on transit and transit’s proportionate share of bridge superstructure costs; while the freeloading pedal pushing bicyclists need to directly pay a toll, possibly through the use of turnstiles, to pay the costs of any bicycle infrastructure which would also include a proportionate share of bridge superstructure. Egotistical socialistic tolls with congestion pricing on motorists only as the governor is proposing have no place in a diverse democratic society.

  13. I’ll leave most of Terry’s copy-and-paste rant alone, as it’s all been said before, but here’s a response to the one potentially factually-leaning issue raised in the comment:

    Max from Vancouver is aligned to take people to downtown Portland.

    MAX from Vancouver is aligned to take people into North Portland, including heavily used transfer points such as Lombard and Killingsworth, for frequent and well-utilized transit connections east and west.

    It is true that the Yellow Line currently terminates in downtown Portland, but one can’t look at just the endpoints of a transit line when attempting to discern possible ridership and origin/destination pairs. (Otherwise, one would be pretending that North Portland doesn’t exist or is undesirable as a destination, which seems pretty elitist, if not willfully ignorant.)

  14. I had a “cross cultural” experience on Friday, driving my sister…with a bum leg… from Lewis & Clark College to Vancouver. We left the college a bit after 5pm, heading north at a peaceful 25 mph pace on I-5. Lots of time to visit and sightsee at that speed. Luckily we hit the HOV lanes just before 6pm and cruised along at 40 mph to the Interstate Bridge and were soon across and out SR 14. Not too bad.
    Now only a fool would do that every day; indeed commute distances have shrunk over the years in Portland as people have sought to solve the “congestion problem” by their own initiative…living closer to there they work. Don’t forget…we choose to congest.
    Most logistics folks can count, so while you see plenty of trucks in the peak hours the vast majority are making their way thru Portland at mid-day or evening hours. It even appears that I-5 is preferred to I-205 despite some peak hour congestion as it is a more direct route.
    14 lanes across the Columbia, if managed at all, should be sufficient. Tolls are a way to do just that and pay for what we all know we need… good transit, safe bike/ped and proven HOV facilities. Why not give people of choice? Not everyone will take you up on one, but many will…enough to keep essential trips, like mine on Friday, within reason.
    As we used to see in the Soviet Union, free bread gets you long lines. Put a price on a product or service and quality goes up and lines go away.
    And once we get the “Rs” out of Washington there will be plenty of opportunity to redistribute wealth to take care of those in the middle and bottom.
    btw, the MAX Yellow Line links to many of the destinations of Clark county commuters…Interstate Corridor, Lower Albina, Lloyd via Red & Blue lines, Rivergate via 16 bus and Swan Island via 72 and 85 buses. Just need to get the thing over the river!

  15. Joseph,
    My “silver bullet for eliminating – or even reducing – congestion” would be to get rid of lying public agencies and officials and get back to honest policy making.

    Light rail and Metro’s development patterning doesn’t reduce CO2 or congestion. It’s all more fraud.

    They’re trying to turn the Portland region into LA without any increase in road and freeway capacity.

    It’s melodramatic to yammer about Bulldozing houses and businesses and paying to build more highway lanes. And you ask “who’s going to pay for it.?”

    You ever wonder who’s paying for the rail transit subsidized high density policies now?

    The anti-car agenda around here is promoting Land use and transportation policies that have no regard for the costs in dollars or impacts.
    No matter how they run out either.

    Every home and business owner is paying for policies that don’t work.

    Every one who uses the roads pays more depending on their level of use. More driving, more gas used, more gas taxes paid. Just maybe you can grasp this?

    Residents/commuters who choose to not drive don’t pay the gas tax when not driving and using gas. But even so there’s no way the alternative modes sector will ever amount to any legitmate substitute for needed road capacity increases.
    The problem is with policiy making that relies upon phony science and notions like global warming and induced demand.

    The Governor is foolish beyond measure.
    He is suggesting policies based upon the GW fraud, policies which will hurt the poor the most and policies that will do nothing for congestion.

    Our planners are demanding taxpayers continue dropping billions of dollars of public money on new rail transit and high density development- even take away people’s property when they happen to be in the way – for the relatively few that choose not to drive and ignore congestion of the vehicle dominant region.
    You are ignoring the problem. The vast majority 95% of cmmerce and commutters depend on our road system. The region is growing and the road system is not. This problem isn’t going away, no matter how many rail tranit expansions are built. They aren’t are NOT alternatives.
    They are fantasies.
    And they are making congestion worse.
    We halted new road construction, with little exception, 25 years ago, and here you are claiming we’ve been spending on new roads all this time.
    The real “problem” is that you wander all over about many others in denial about the fact that we live in a city. Who is that?

    There’s been no forcing forcing of people to use transportation options better suited for rural areas and small towns to get around.

    What are you talking about?

    Newsflash! Portland is trying roll back the clock and magically be a trolly city of the 1920s. That’s Sam Adams stated objective.

    But that doesn’t address our reality that most transportation is and will be vehicular.
    Talk about denial.

    There’s nothing wrong with our urban transportation network except during rush hour.
    We’ve crammed too many into the same capacity with chokepoints, wrecks and breakdowns causing horrrific congestion more and more frequently.
    Boogieman sprawl and global warming are the excuses.

    The will of voters said No to light rail.
    Poll after poll across the region show traffic the number one beef.
    People don’t want more light rail and streetcars and worse traffic.

  16. My “silver bullet for eliminating – or even reducing – congestion” would be to get rid of lying public agencies and officials and get back to honest policy making.

    Which agencies would you get rid of, and which of the many candidates running for local and regional office do you endorse? If you endorse none, why is it that no one is running whom you feel you can endorse?

    Doesn’t sound like much of a simple “silver bullet” solution to me — sounds more like radical and draconian change. (Nothing particularly wrong with change per se — but if you’re advocating for radical change, then you’d better be prepared to articulate a vision.)

  17. The above statements can only come from someone who has not watched Portland become a pretty fine little city over the last 30 plus years or has never been to any number of great cities that combine rail transit with roads as a matter of course. What failure in policy and/or planning are we talking about? I’ve never seen Portland in better shape.
    I’m not too concerned about those who think GW is a hoax, they are too few and too shrill. I am concerned about electeds who make a lot of speeches about GW and then support massive roadway projects that encourage more vehicle trips. Walk the Talk or shut up.
    Nice to see the Gov talking about tolling, as that will get you a fix this afternoon on I-5…and keep freight moving. Got to get those empty containers back to T-6 and on to China.

  18. “massive roadway projects that encourage more vehicle trips.”

    There’s Lenny with his induced demand theory that is as real as Global Warming.

    It’s pure fantasy for you to think the Governor or your theories will “keep freight moving”.

    What failure in policy and/or planning are we talking about?

    Lane use, transportation, funding for basic services, affordable housing etc.
    I suspect you are not too concerned about GW being a hoax, period.

    I would get rid of the PDC, Metro, the Portland Office of Sustainable Development, half of the Port of Portland agency and a few others.

    I would use the savings to bolster basic services and make the region a model of real livability with streets, sidewalks and parks the bets in the country.

  19. “They’re trying to turn the Portland region into LA without any increase in road and freeway capacity.”

    Funny you would say that, since LA is consistently held up as precisely the development type we are trying to avoid. Who, specifically, is saying we should develop like LA? (other than you, Terry, and Jim, that is)

    “there’s no way the alternative modes sector will ever amount to any legitmate substitute…”

    With such visionary, outside-the-box thinking, I can only ask why aren’t you running for office?

  20. “With such visionary, outside-the-box thinking, I can only ask why aren’t you running for office?”

    Terry Parker did run for Metro council against Rex B. four years ago…with less-than-stellar results. While I commend him for throwing his hat in the ring, it seems his “vision” wasn’t the same as his would-be constituents’.

    http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dbcs/elections/2004-05/results.shtml

    In 2006, Tom Cox, whose platform for Metro Council included a “Bring Back the Westside Bypass” plank, also had his hat returned to him by Katherine Harrington.

    http://www.co.washington.or.us/deptmts/at/election/results/nov06.htm

    It seems to me that if voters were looking for candidates that held a “road expansion” view of transportation, they’ve had the chance(s) to elect them. The people have spoken.

  21. Are you new here?

    “Who, specifically, is saying we should develop like LA?” Metro does. Where do you think we got that from? We just made it up like our local agencies make up stuff?
    Metro has specifically stated that LA density is the desired density.
    That’s how our transit system and UGB is supposed to work. Ha ha ha.
    Centers and corridors, mixed use and smart. All the way to utopia.

    What you think is visionary is really delusion.

    There’s no way the alternative modes sector will ever amount to any legitmate substitute for the road capacity increases needed for growth in population and traffic.

    I don’t know why so many of you think the excessive emphasis on the relative small fraction in alternative mode use accomodates rising traffic.

    I get how you don’t like that most people and businesses depend on vehicular use but how is ignoring it a type of “outside the box visionary thinking”?

    Pick anywhere in the region and explain to me how streetcars, bikes, light rail and a Tram alters or meets the demands of rising traffic?

    It sure hasn’t in Gresham, or Beaverton or Airport Way of North interstate. There’s a new chokepoint nightmare emarging in SoWa equal to Haden Island/I-5. And it seems there’s no price too high for that experiment.
    Around 300 million EXTRA dollars will be needed to finish out the public improvements in SoWa with the result being exactly what ODOT is warning. System failure.

    So it doesn’t matter what it cost or that the plan fails.

    We went through all of the enormous cost and planning only to be no better than Clark County.

    But if you only consider a little potion of Central Portland and Rose color the whole region
    you aint out of the box. You’re out of your mind.

  22. John E. writes (vents?):

    “Pick anywhere in the region and explain to me how streetcars, bikes, light rail and a Tram alters or meets the demands of rising traffic?”

    Try this: if I take an option other than a car that is one less car on the road.

    “I get how you don’t like that most people and businesses depend on vehicular use…”

    Suggest that you look up the meaning of the word “vehicle.” Why you think it should only refer to trucks and autos is the bigger question.

    “We went through all of the enormous cost and planning only to be no better than Clark County.”

    Wait, I thought that Clark County was your model. They are not any better off after spending all of that money on roads?

    “You’re out of your mind.”

    Indeed, someone is.

    Maybe you should run for office and test your theories and beliefs in the free market known as democracy?

  23. “Terry Parker did run for Metro council against Rex B. four years ago…”

    Just for the record, as an unknown in the political arena, I threw my hat in the ring at the very last minute spending a little more than $1000. of my own money on the campaign, including the filing fees. Not doing any intense fund raising, I received less than $100. in contributions. With that small amount of money to get my message out, I received approximately 16 percent of the vote in the district. As the incumbent, Rex sent out household mailers with approximately $31,000.00 to spend on his campaign. It should be a matter of public record how much he actually spent.

    Also for the record, I have never suggested Portland should pattern itself after Los Angeles, New York or any place else. What I have said is that existing motor vehicle infrastructure should not be displaced by other travel options, road capacity needs to be increased in some areas, bicyclists need to be directly taxed to pay for bicycle infrastructure, and transit riders need to pay significantly more of the costs of providing transit service. Additionally I believe people have the right to choose their own lifestyles, housing and transport choices without government intervention. The civil servants should be accommodating those choices and not be using taxpayer subsidies, taxes, fees and/or tolls to influence one choice over another.

    I was born and raised in Portland, lived here all my life, and at no point in that time has there been the socialistic political agenda of today that attempts to control how and where people live, how people move about, and the desire to instantaneously reconstruct and replace existing present day infrastructure that has taken many decades to build. Furthermore, there seems to be no concept in the over zealous eco-political arena of the public dept that keeps piling up for these projects and must be paid off over time for generations to come. Because of that impatient agenda, the quality of life in Portland is getting continually worse and unaffordable, not better – and that is why I continue to speak out including being in favor of financial self-sustainability when it comes to constructing something new.

  24. Hawthorne said: “if I take an option other than a car that is one less car on the road’

    And what Hawthorne did not say is that by choosing another option he would be one less taxpayer contributing to financial sustainability (thereby demonstrating the need to directly tax other vehicular modes of travel).

  25. Try this: if I take an option other than a car that is one less car on the road.

    So induced demand only applies to cars? Hmmm, seems biased.

    As a driver, I’m supposed to feel guilty that I drive seems to be the message, and I should pay a fee regardless of what I drive. Buying a fuel efficient, light weight, low emission vehicle five years ago shouldn’t benefit me?

    I agree with what some of this group says. Maybe the Interstate Bridge can be a 2025 or 2030 project, if we rebuild the BNSF corridor in the meantime to be a multi modal bridge.

    By the time 20 years has passed, maybe getting LRT straight into Vancouver and adding capacity or throughput (depending on point of view) will be more palatable due to newer technologies to reduce emissions, build cheaper bridges (carbon nanotubes anyone?) or tunnel more efficiently.

    Some of the points made on Cortright’s presentation are just absurd though. Why is the net weight of electronics the only relevant category? I work for a tech company, and we ship large amounts (in volume, not necessarily weight) of products that are not listed, but have to be able to get from Point A to Point B on time.

    As an example, extra congestion on the Interstate Bridge directly leads to more UPS trucks over the bridge. Because the travel time delays them, more trucks are dispatched to meet the earlier delivery times. (Say, 10:30 AM.)

    The weight becomes unimportant in this scenario. You have to send out more vehicles to reach the same number of places by the time required. It’s not just door-to-door freight companies that have to deal with this, but scaling up also the companies that deliver groceries to the store, paper to the office, cheese to the restaurant, and ice cream to the trucks.

    I do agree though, that the current railroad bridge as a road, train, and LRT bridge is a better short-term approach. This better connects the Port of Vancouver with North Portland, which makes sense for relieving truck and commercial traffic from I-5. With Jantzen Beach access removed from I-5 due to the “new bridge” access to it (via Marine Dr/Mill Plain) it could make the current Interstate Bridge much more efficient.

    Seems like a real win-win for everyone. Vancouver gets more lanes, LRT gets to the Couv, and they can extend it as they wish. Oh, and we can table this pesky CRC crap for a decade or two.

  26. Hawthorne,

    You answered not my questions but those you found in your own mind.

    I vented:

    “Pick anywhere in the region and explain to me how streetcars, bikes, light rail and a Tram alters or meets the demands of rising traffic?”

    You must have thought I asked what happens if you one doesn’t drive? I didn’t. I asked how these other modes alter or meet the demands of rising traffic?
    Specifically, and clearly I want some idea how providing more alternative choices for the relatively few who use them can possibly keep up with the growth in traffic and those who don’t?

    Because the region is not getting people out of their cars at a level of any significance or value towards growth. We’re falling futher behind the congestion curb without any official observations of failure.

    There seems to be a running presumption that just calling it a balanced approach is good enough. What gives?

    So Ok you take an option other than a car that is one less car on the road? Is there supposed to be some deep meaning there that I missed?

    When I said “I get how you don’t like that most people and businesses depend on vehicular use…”
    I obvioulsy meant motor vehicles.

    I’ll restate it.
    I get how you don’t like that most people and businesses depend on motor vehicles but how is ignoring it “visionary thinking”?

    I think it’s negligent and irresponsible for our public officials to be doing so.

    “We went through all of the enormous cost and planning only to be no better than Clark County.”

    Is Washingotn County with MAX, Orenco Station and Beaverton Round better than Clark County without them?
    Maybe you should take a drive in a motor vehicle and check them both out. Be sure and look at housing prices and livability while you’re at it.
    I never said Clark County was a “model”. I am simply making a point that we got little to nothing for all our planning and spending.

    I’m all for elections.

    Maybe we should allow public votes on MAX, streetcars and density schemes and test the planner’s theroies in the free market known as democracy?

  27. The above statements can only come from someone who has not watched Portland become a pretty fine little city over the last 30 plus years or has never been to any number of great cities that combine rail transit with roads as a matter of course. What failure in policy and/or planning are we talking about? I’ve never seen Portland in better shape.

    I have no idea what Portland that Lenny lives in. (Portland, Maine?!!)

    Seeing 18 year old busses dead on the side of the road with a mechanical breakdown is not “Portland in better shape.”

    Dozens of miles of ungraded, dirt roads in one of the nation’s largest cities is not “Portland in better shape.”

    Hundreds of miles of non-existant sidewalks is not “Portland in better shape”.

    Bus stops that are nothing more than a bus stop sign, next to a ditch, is not “Portland in better shape.” Yesterday I had the pleasure of driving up into North Portland, to find a bus stop located on one side of a fence, with the street on the other side of the fence. Oh, and there was no sidewalk, shelter, or anything else, one who wanted to wait for the bus had to literally stand ON THE CURB – alongside Columbia Boulevard. This, by the way, is not “Portland in better shape”.

    A freeway system that has a “level of service” of below average is not “Portland in better shape”.

    The over-investment upon a single mode of transportation that has seen two major failures in three days is not “Portland in better shape”.

    If Portland was in “better shape”, our Transportation Commissioner wouldn’t be begging for a tax increase to improve the city – he’d be bragging about how great our transportation system ALREADY IS. Even Sam Adams (reluctantly) admits Portland has a long, long ways to go.

  28. Based on what you’ve read here, who would you rather have a beer with – “glass is half-full and life is great” Lenny or “glass is completely and totally empty, leaking, and the crack in it just cut a gash in my hand and I’m bleeding everywhere” Erik?

  29. Unit, I’d prefer to have a beer with Sleeve Nohooke:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e673XZEqOn8
    But that may just be me.

    Erik’s point seems to be that Tri-Met has gone and ripped the sidewalks out along Columbia Blvd because they hate bus riders so much or something, I’m not exactly sure…

    I will say that the statements “I’ve never seen Portland in better shape.” (Lenny) and “Portland has a long, long ways to go.” (Sam Adams) are not in disagreement. I wasn’t alive 30 years ago, but I’ve seen pictures of Portland from that era, and it looked pretty bad…

  30. “I wasn’t alive 30 years ago, but I’ve seen pictures of Portland from that era, and it looked pretty bad…”

    Now that is funny. Ridiculous, but funny. What a convenient impression of the past. I was in Portland then and it was a very fine place. The region too.
    And it was far less of a congested rat race from Hillsboro to Gresham. The many Billions spent by Metro, TriMet and other agencies have been a net detriment.
    Of course 30 years ago the city and region was not funding private development schemes under the ruse of transit orientation and preferable infill. Now we have public offcials using tax dollars to dabble in real estate and development as if they know what they are doing.
    And every stunt they pull is covered up with tax funded public relations to cast it as vital and successful.

  31. “Where do you think we got that from? We just made it up…”

    Yes, I do think you just made it up. Population density and development patterns are 2 very different things. Concentrating development in centers and corridors is the exact opposite of the LA model (or Phoenix, or Houston, or Atlanta, or…) If you fail to see that, it is willful ignorance.

  32. Grant,
    What mental gymnastics you play. If you think our “density” is the good density and is moving towards some orderly patterning in centers and coridoors you are sadly mistaken. That’s just planner speak. The haphazard infill and chaos spreading is duplicating LA density period. And Metro has indeed said LA densities are disireable.

    Your ignorance is that of the duped.
    From Forest Grove to Gresham we are heading towards a deliberately overcrowded mess without any advantages over LA, Phoenix, Houston, or Atlanta.

    If you fail to see that, it’s because you don’t get around much. Perhpas you spend too much time
    with smart growth fantasies.

  33. The comments in this thread, coming from people on all sides, are getting increasingly personal. Please try to back off and make the discussion primarily about ideas.

  34. make the discussion primarily about ideas.

    The idea that Portland is developing like LA is a ridiculous one. LA’s legendary problems with congestion, pollution, and diminished quality-of-life come from its sprawled metro area, not its dense, urban core. LA’s legendary problems with crime and racial segregation and discontent come from the historic flight of money, whites, and investment from the city center, a dynamic that Portland has managed to minimize, thanks to its comprehensive planning and urban re-investment.

    In fact, I challenge anyone (John E, where are you on this one???) to name another large city in the US that has managed to retain such economic prosperity throughout its core. This was not by accident.

    The vision of a endlessly-sprawling suburban landscape criss-crossed by 10 to 16-lane gridlocked freeways, a rotting and crime-ridden center, and hazy brown skies are not shared by many here. Anyone who thinks Portland looks like LA should probably get to the optometrist as quickly as possible.

  35. “The idea that Portland is developing like LA is a ridiculous one.”

    I agree. What I objetced to was John’s original assertion that

    “They’re trying to turn the Portland region into LA without any increase in road and freeway capacity”

    This statement contains a fundamental contradiction. It’s like saying “we’re just like New York, without all those pesky subways and tall buildings.” It is simply not possible to develop like LA without massive freeways all over the place.

  36. Actually planners only get part of the blame/credit for what Portland has become over the last three decades. If you liked old Portland….dying core, dis-investment, and not much buzz… then of course you won’t like what it has become. Not much we can do about that.
    Geography…the west hills and some eastside premium neighborhoods…played a hand it keeping downtown from dying all together. But it was neighborhood citizen activist who moved into the low rent areas of inner NW, SW, & SE in the late 60’s and early 70’s who stopped the Mt Hood Freeway, the I-505 extension and really turned things around. Jaysus, the planners had freeways going in every direction in those days…check out ODOT’s ’69 plan.
    Some of us are still at it trying to stop the massive Columbia River Crossing, and go with something that fits with what Portland has become…lower cost, more choices, fewer cars, more bikes and more transit. Nothing new really.

  37. Development patterns tell us more about a community than just looking at average density.

    Without getting into judgements about which is better, there is quite a bit of difference between development patterns which concentrate households along a corridor will preserving large sections of open space (for parks, for example), than patterns which uniformly distribute households throughout an area, with less public open space (but larger private land areas.) Both can wind up having precisely the same density, but both will have distinctly different attributes when it comes to housing types and styles, commuting patterns, etc.

    Beyond household development patterns and ratios of open space, the distribution of commercial and employment uses within an area, can have profound effects on commuting, walking, VMT, etc., while otherwise being equal in density.

  38. Making this discussion about ideas:

    Having lived in Portland for considerably more than thirty years, the quality of life and the affordability of living here was far better back then than today. Additionally, the political agenda of the times thirty years ago did not include using tax dollars for the purpose of attempting to control, lifestyles, development, housing and transport choices.

    That said, examples of such include:

    Instead of meeting transport demand, the Columbia Crossing and the proposed tolling falls directly into this category by attempting to control, lifestyles, development, housing and transport choices.

    The preposterous non-essential vision of an endlessly-sprawling streetcar system is a concept that is cost prohibitive, too slow, only meets the needs of a small percentage of the population, creates more congestion when wedged in on high volume traffic arterials and if built, should be paid for by the users, NOT from taxpayer subsidies as proposed. One of the primary purposes of this scheme is designed to control, lifestyles, development, housing and transport choices.

    The debate about infill in East Portland where single family homes sit on large deep lots is heating up. Developers are increasing density at an alarming rate by dividing lots and building large single family homes or high density multi-family structures that take up the entire portions of the divided lots from property line to property line with no permeable area amenities. Living in this type of housing is usually only for only a short period of time before moving on to something that has more of the amenities people actually want. This constant turnover negatively impacts the stability of existing neighborhoods. Current zoning that was designed to control, lifestyles, development, housing and transport choices is therefore allowing the quality of life in these neighborhoods to decline.

    A person may ask why is there all this desire to reduce our freedom of choice and instantaneously rebuild, reconstruct and replace everything that has taken many decades to build. The reality check is to follow the money. By deceiving the public about global warming (the fact is the world was warmer in the 15th and 16th centuries than it is today) the streetcar builders receive government subsidies and find a customer for their product, energy company profits soar with talk of peak oil and insufficient supply, the media sells more advertising and newspapers with scare tactics, the speech makers like Al Gore make more money giving speeches and get rich by aligning themselves with investments with the global warming hysteria they help create, investors make millions in trading carbon credits, the politicians receive more campaign contributions from all the companies on the global warming band wagon and gravy train, and government gets bigger and bigger with more planning to replace what we already have in place.

    It doesn’t matter if a person rides a bicycle, takes transit or drives, all this proliferation of profiteering increases the costs of living for everybody and it is piling up public debt that will take generations to pay off. If humans were the primary cause of global warming, then the discussion would be about reducing population growth, not controlling lifestyles.

  39. Erik’s point seems to be that Tri-Met has gone and ripped the sidewalks out along Columbia Blvd because they hate bus riders so much or something, I’m not exactly sure…

    Matthew, you would be “exactly sure” if you actually took the time to read my post instead of making up some ludicrous statement and then crediting me with it.

    I never once said – or suggested – TriMet ripped sidewalks out from along Columbia Boulevard. I think “the rule” is, While you are welcome to disagree, you are not welcome to be disagreeable. Please treat fellow participants with the respect you would give a guest in your home, along with Constructive disagreement is welcome and Passion directed at individuals is not, and will be deleted promptly. Please confine your remarks to policy, opinion and data.

  40. [Terry:] “the fact is the world was warmer in the 15th and 16th centuries than it is today”

    Bob, there is also data and documentation to back up this statement, I just don’t have a current link to the source. As for Wikipedia, just about anybody can contribute to it and it has in many cases been proven to be less than correct or not totally updated. In other words, the science here is not exact and does not always come out the way you would like it to, especially when you add in some of the reality or missing parts that have been left out of the equation, or mindfully overlooked to give a false impression that would support a predetermined conclusion which then can be used to induce fear in the public. Killjoy was here too!

    [Moderator: Attribution and italics added for clarity.]

  41. Terry, while your rhetoric about “FREEDOM!” is moving, I am not “free” from paying for new road construction.
    Oh, it’s all paid by user fees, you say?

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs03/htm/hf10.htm
    Nope. Only 56% of freeway construction come from the gas tax and motor vehicle and fuel taxes.

    That took about 3 minutes of research.
    This blog depresses me. It’s the same argument on every thread, even though 99% percent of the world knows that Portland is a very livable city. If you want freedom from urban planning, move to Texas. I lived there for 18 years and I will not be returning to the land where you have to drive for everything.

  42. Susana,
    use the scroll key!
    The cover story on the April NW Examiner celebrates one of the founders of the NorthWest District Assoc…which was born in the 70’s to fight road widening, sidewalk narrowing, urban renewal that destroyed housing and the I-505 freeway (Thurman/Vaughn corridor). It was this story repeated many times over in inner SW, SE, NE and most recently N Portland that has lead this city to be what it is.

  43. Wait I’m confused…the table developed by the Federal Highway Administration that Susana linked to seems to say that 25% of highway funds come from property taxes, “other” taxes, and general fund appropriations. But that would mean that people who, for example, occasionally ride a bicycle help pay for roads. And everyone knows that is an absurd notion.

    Someone from the Federal Highway Administration should call Terry and get their facts straight.

  44. The website Susana supplied a link to is based on nationwide data, not how highways are funded in Oregon. Property taxes pay for sidewalks in Portland. Property taxes however do not pay for roadways. Income taxes do not pay for roadways. The majority of roadway funding in Oregon comes from motor fuel taxes, weight mile taxes on large trucks and other motor vehicle fees. The one exception is in urban renewal districts where tax increment funding helps pay for transportation projects. However in those same districts, the tax increment funds is money that would otherwise go to the general fund to support basic services like police and fire protection.

    The Federal dollars Oregon receives for roadways, mass transit, and bicycle infrastructure all come from the Federal Highway Trust Fund that only motorists pay into through the Federal tax on motor fuels.

    Therefore in Oregon motor vehicle user taxes and fees pay for roadways and are poached to pay for transit and bicycle infrastructure.

    Furthermore to call Portland “very livable city’ is a subjective term. Obviously if a person’s lifestyle is to be on the gravy train of public financed subsidies, they will call the city livable. However the people being taxed on the other side to pay for all the new comers and density to accommodate population growth see it differently.

    One of the basic problems with current planning efforts is that those who pay the taxes, motorists, long time homeowners and others, are without real direct representation on citizen committees and within the planning process. The newbies to the area want to add socialistic controls to the lifestyles of everybody else without giving consideration to who is paying the price tag. Those who have moved here and want that kind of free ride while telling everybody else what to do should be the ones that move to Texas where there is plenty of space to establish and entirely new community of their own making without having to replace everything that already exists.

  45. This is depressing. The very citizens of this city are totally ignorant that every freeway project they stop, every time they add bike lanes, and every time they allow more “infill development” (handouts to wealthy developers with Metro’s permanent tax abatement for high density) is just destroying the livability of the region.

    I remember back in the 1960’s when I could easily drive from Hillsboro to Gresham in only about ten minutes. The freeways were new, the roads freshly paved, and you could see forests on either side.

    There is so much land where traditional neighborhoods with cul-de-sacs, 10 acre lots, and Wal-Marts (working families need affordable food!) could be built. Instead, we’re stuck with people shooting themselves in the foot, advocating against their own interests by instituting the urban growth boundary, building toy trains that kill people, and Trump Towers everywhere.

    This nonsense needs to stop. Hasn’t the likes of Randy Leonard made enough millions and millions? Next we’ll be taken for fools by “Sam the Slammer Tram Bam Bam” man and mark my words, he’ll bankrupt the entire region.

    I am seriously considering moving to Atlanta, at least they have their priorities straight:

    http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2002/2002-10-11-01.asp

  46. Pete, besides the rest of your post, (very nice, by the way.) I notice that your article about Atlanta is from 2002…

    There were 37 days with smog alerts in 2002.
    It has gotten worse since then: 49 in 2007

    It should also be noted that Atlanta has the highest number of freeway-lane miles per capita, and from your article: “traffic congestion ranks as the number one concern among residents in metro Atlanta.”

  47. Bob R. Says: (Quoting Terry) the fact is the world was warmer in the 15th and 16th centuries than it is today

    Bob R. Says: Nope.

    JK: There you go again, using crappy data:
    Wikipedia’s Zealots – Caught Falsifying Information to Support Alarmist Position

    By Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post

    Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams and reams of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further. Others had tried to correct her interpretations and had the same experience as I—no sooner did they make their corrections than she pounced, preventing Wikipedia readers from reading anyone’s views but her own. When they protested plaintively, she wore them down and snuffed them out.

    From: network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx

    Thanks
    JK

  48. SusanaSanJuan fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs03/htm/hf10.htm
    Nope. Only 56% of freeway construction come from the gas tax and motor vehicle and fuel taxes.
    JK: Did you happen to notice this:
    Amount for Nonhighway Purposes -7.44%
    Amount for Mass Transportation -7.10%

    Put those back to road user fees and you get around 70% paid by users.
    Compare that to Trimet which gets around 20% from its users.

    Which is fairest everybody chips in 30% of the cost of something that most people use , or everybody chips in 80+% for the cost of something that only a few people use.

    Another view can be found in the journal Access NUMBER 16 • SPRING 2000, page 12:
    External costs per passenger mile:

    GASOLINE AUTO……5 to 28.4 [6.9] (numbers in brackets are author’s best estimate)
    ELECTRIC AUTO….8.8 to 24.8 [16.8]
    TRANSIT BUS………..33 to 57 [40]
    LIGHT RAIL…………..27 to 109
    HEAVY RAIL…………17 to 53
    Bottom line: Cars have only 17% the external cost of Transit bus. Even less external costs compared to rail.
    (see PortlandFacts.com/Roads/Docs/Delucchi_Chart.htm for the chart & link to original article)

    Thanks
    JK

  49. Matthew Says: Pete, besides the rest of your post, (very nice, by the way.) I notice that your article about Atlanta is from 2002…
    There were 37 days with smog alerts in 2002.
    It has gotten worse since then: 49 in 2007

    JK: You missed a few things. Here are direct quotes from your refrence:
    1. A “Smog Alert” does not necessarily mean an exceedance of Federal Air Quality Standards,
    2. Forecasts are issued for both Ozone and Particulate Matter.
    A. Ozone … is produced by the chemical reaction …of… hydrocarbons in automobile exhaust or vapors from cleaning solvents
    B. Particulate matter originates from a variety of sources, including diesel trucks, power plants, wood stoves and industrial processes.

    Summarizing:
    1. Smog alerts DO NOT mean an air quality violation actually happened.
    2. Cars are only associated with one of the two causes of smog.

    Thanks
    JK

  50. JK says There you go again, using crappy data:

    So far nobody’s posted data from any source whatsoever (credible or otherwise) supporting Terry’s claim that “the world was warmer in the 15th and 16th centuries than it is today”.

  51. The earth was definitely hotter:

    4,600,000,000 years ago.

    4,600,000,000 years ago:

    Formation of the approximately homogeneous solid Earth by planetesimal accretion

    4,300,000,000 years ago:

    Melting of the Earth due to radioactive and gravitational heating which leads to its differentiated interior structure as well as outgassing of molecules such as water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide

    4,300,000,000 years ago:

    Atmospheric water is photodissociated by ultraviolet light to give oxygen atoms which are incorporated into an ozone layer and hydrogen molecules which escape into space

    4,000,000,000 years ago:

    Bombardment of the Earth by planetesimals stops

    3,800,000,000 years ago:

    The Earth’s crust solidifies–formation of the oldest rocks found on Earth

    3,800,000,000 years ago:

    Condensation of atmospheric water into oceans

    UNLESS OF COURSE YOU ARE A FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN IN WHICH CASE THE EARTH IS 6OO0 YEARS OLD.

  52. All of the above is to prove Terry’s point:

    THE EARTH WAS DEFINITELY HOTTER IN THE PAST!

    See Terry, you have science behind you!

  53. “building toy trains that kill people”

    When I hear this argument I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

    Cars kill far more people than does public transportation. Death is absolute. To couch it in terms of VMT, or however it is being spun today, shows a shocking disregard for the value of human life.

  54. “building toy trains that kill people”

    When I hear this argument I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

    I think that post was meant as snark, given the article he linked to was talking about how crappy Atlanta’s air quality is.

    But you’re right about the validity of the argument nonetheless.

  55. Bob R. Says: So far nobody’s posted data from any source whatsoever (credible or otherwise) supporting Terry’s claim that “the world was warmer in the 15th and 16th centuries than it is today”.
    JK: see the chart at 7:30 into the video at: //blip.tv/file/791876
    You will see a graph based on Comparison of oxygen isotopes records from the GISP and GRIP Greenland ice cores., Nature 366, 1993 pp. 552-552
    It shows the following warm periods, with the three latest ones being warmer than present:
    3000 BC: Egyptian (Menes) warm period
    2300 BC: Egyptian old Kingdom warm period
    1300 BC: Minoan warm period
    300 BC: Roman Warm period
    900 AD: Medieval warm period
    1850 AD: Late 20th century warm period
    With a cold spell between each. (Based on Greenland Ice cores.)

    BTW, don’t miss this:
    Climate models generally predict amplified warming in polar regions3,4, as observed in Antarctica’s peninsula region over the second half of the 20th century. Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming9,10, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn. NATURE |VOL 415 | 31 JANUARY 2002 |www.nature.com

    Quit following fools and lars like Al Gore who is making millions off of scaring you. Not to mention Hanson’s handsome income from this scam.

    Thanks
    JK

  56. Quit following fools and lars like Al Gore who is making millions off of scaring you. Not to mention Hanson’s handsome income from this scam.

    Jim,
    Up until the above sentences, you give a fine reference to Bob R. But do you REALLY hope to persuade anyone with the above tripe? You sound both churlish and patronizing. It is very disappointing.

  57. JK –

    Thanks for the reference. Unfortunately, none of the information provided backs up Terry’s specific, twice-stated claim that “the world was warmer in the 15th and 16th centuries than it is today”.

    The key qualifiers in Terry’s assertion are the time period (somewhere in the range of 1400AD through 1599AD = “the 15th and 16th centuries”) and the affected area – “the world”.

  58. Smooth Operator Says: You sound both churlish and patronizing. It is very disappointing.
    JK: The only problem with you response, is that :
    1. Al Gore HAS admitted lying:
    Grist: There’s a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What’s the right mix?

    Al Gore: Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is,
    (From Grist, 09 May 2006, grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/ bold added)

    Oh, and he has company in this field:
    Steven Schneider , Editor of Climate Change Journal:
    … we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might. have. (DISCOVER OCTOBER 1989, Page 47)

    This guy controls NASA’s historical climate records:
    Jim Hansen:
    Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time , when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions. ( from http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html, bold added)

    2. Al Gore IS making millions:
    * Generations Mutual fund: Hon. Al Gore is Chairman. see: generationim.com/about/team.html

    * After “a conversation that’s gone on for a year and a half,” according to Gore, he has decided to join his old pal John Doerr as an active, hands-on partner at Kleiner Perkins, Silicon Valley’s preeminent venture firm.
    See: money.cnn.com/2007/11/11/news/newsmakers/gore_kleiner.fortune/

    * Al Gore appears to get $100,000 for speaking. See this for one example (price is on page 5):
    thesmokinggun.com/archive/years

    Bob R.: Thanks for the reference. Unfortunately, none of the information provided backs up Terry’s specific, twice-stated claim that “the world was warmer in the 15th and 16th centuries than it is today”.

    The key qualifiers in Terry’s assertion are the time period (somewhere in the range of 1400AD through 1599AD = “the 15th and 16th centuries”) and the affected area – “the world”.
    JK: You are ignoring that I just showed that there were several recent periods warmer than now. That was the bottom line.

    Thanks
    JK

  59. Gee-

    I sure love having this conversation over and over and over AND OVER!

    LET’S PUT IT TO A VOTE OF THE MEMBERS, MAJORITY RULES AND THAT’S THE END OF IT!

    forever!

  60. I like…

    wait a second…

    what was this entry about…?

    I think the topic has been quit avoided by now.

    But I digress, congestion pricing, I’d love that if it would actually be priced appropriately enough to A: keep a large percentage of wasteful trips from downtown (which is probably 10%-90% depending on what part of the day it is) and B: fill in the gaps that the gas tax doesn’t cover so they can quit taking road monies out of the general fund. Maybe they could even use some of it to take care of other things, like the massive amount of pollution that sits just above us in the air because of excessive auto usage.

  61. Question… mainly for JK.

    If the taxes or whatever screw the low income, why is it that after we look at taxes 97% of income taxes are paid by the upper 50%. So if we look at the general budget fund split that would equate to the lower 50% of income earners paying the other 3% that actually ends up in the budget.

    If you graduate the debt the Feds have added to our burdens the upper income also bears the weight of the majority of that also.

    So if the upper 50% income earners, people making over the 33k or so that is the average, pay 97% of the income tax, which covers a huge percentage of road costs these days (don’t give me that “gas taxes cover road costs mess”, the gas taxes last year where nowhere near the 100+ billion the feds blew, and easily 100+ billion the states spent on roads – it comes out of the general budget and such). It then, with simple math, shows that the bottom 50% of income earners pay either their way, or a small percentage of their actual road cost usage.

    The bottom 10% most likely are being PAID in a relative sense to drive. So in all reality, the lower incomes should find another way, autos aren’t environmentally, economically, or physically sustainable for the lower income in the US, ESPECIALLY the lowest 10% or so. With that in mind, how would any Libertarian, Republican, Constitutionalist, or other argument validate the poor having their auto road usage paid for freely? It does nothing but expand our reliance on foreign oil, pollute a ton, and decrease our individual income sustainability.

    …I’m still confused about your stance. I know ya dig cars, but really, if left to their REAL costs, which you state are so much better, the poor would have never gotten auto usage into their rank in society without heavy subsidies, re-apporpiation of wealth among society, and a manipulation of markets, with a heavy disregard for the environment and economic sustainability of the United States.

    …could I get more explanation on this? I’d love to see some points drawn on these topics.

  62. I’m AGAINST congestion pricing,

    because adding taxes
    IS NOT the way to handle this problem!

    But for seeming logical, educated, and literate folks actually putting forth the thesis that human behavior DOES NOTHING to the environment is ABSURD.

    500,000,000 cars all running at the same time and 1,000,000 factories spewing waste around the world obviously creates consequences, it’s beyond me that people try to deny it!

    WHAT’S THE MATTER WITH YOU ANTI WARMING EXTREMISTS? HAVE YOU LOST YOUR COLLECTIVE MINDS?

    It’s like putting forth the thesis that aphids slowly sucking on a plant do nothing to damage the plant.

    Its incomprehensible to me!

  63. “Its incomprehensible to me!”

    That’s the problem. You can’t comprehend the Global Warming hoax and how it is completely plausible and scientifically demonstrated that zero global warming is being cause by humans.

    The available power point videos with detailed science and explanations are not complicated or difficult to comprehend.

    That’s in stark contrast to the Al Gore-Bill Bradbury GW fable presentations which peddle polar bears on ice and satellite pictures of man’s global, nocturnal luminous presence.

    Funny thing is the Gore “consensus”, the establishement, pretends the skeptics are the flat earthers. When if fact the opposite is true as it is the establishment which refuses to relent to reality. Just as the flat earth establishment had done till ships regularly came back from falling off the edge.

    Franlky al m, it’s incomprehensible to me that you can’t figure out such an overwhelmingly obvious hijacking of science and common sense by the Global Warming movement.

  64. I’m AGAINST congestion pricing, because adding taxes IS NOT the way to handle this problem!

    I’m not going to get into a semantic discussion over what is or isn’t a tax. But let me ask you this, since we’ve created a transportation system that is oriented around one primary mode – the car – and we’ve discovered that the consequences of that decision will have grave impacts on society if we maintain the status quo, what then do we do to bring about change, other than pricing transportation according to its impact on the environment?

  65. “and we’ve discovered that the consequences of that decision will have grave impacts on society if we maintain the status quo,”

    Oh BS. That’s a fairy tale.

    The transportation system the tale tellers advocate is one of total gridlock. With ingoring traffic because of the imaginary grave impacts out system becomes worse every day.

    All the while defenders of this approach act as if it just keeps getting better.

  66. John E. said:

    “You can’t comprehend the Global Warming hoax and how it is completely plausible and scientifically demonstrated that zero global warming is being cause by humans.

    The available power point videos with detailed science and explanations are not complicated or difficult to comprehend.”

    I think the problem isn’t Al’s lack of comprehension. I think the problem is that you’ve anointed your viewpoint as being infallible based upon what you’ve read. Even though you’re not an expert. And even though most of the experts, who have seen any number of arguments saying global warming is a hoax, have continued to believe that global warming is real. Why? Are they just idiots who managed to get advanced degrees and can’t see the simple truth before them? Are the vast majority of them corrupt enough to get funding based upon something they know is a hoax? Are the people who fund them stupid enough to be duped by the bad science or have they seen Power Points “with detailed science and explanations” demonstrating the opposite of what you’ve said? Let me just say that, if I were dishing out millions, I’d want to be sure it wasn’t towards some easily dis-proven hoax.

    Beyond global warming, I wonder if increasingly expensive gasoline wouldn’t make a bigger CRC unneeded. I wonder if the extra cars going through NoPo wouldn’t decrease the quality of living in those neighborhoods. I wonder if the concept of suburban sprawl hasn’t already been demonstrated to be a failure.

  67. “Let me just say that, if I were dishing out millions, I’d want to be sure it wasn’t towards some easily dis-proven hoax.”

    So you are saying that the fact that people give money to researchers means that the research is actually good? So the fact that Philip-Morris gave a bunch of money to “The Advancement of Sound Science Center” to prove that cigarettes don’t cause cancer, means that they really don’t? Or maybe the fact that a bunch of people give money to studies of intelligent design, means that that is really what happened?

    Personally, I’d use different logic: If “The Advancement of Sound Science Center” got money to disprove/prove something, then I figure the opposite is most likely true. And given that the biggest donor to “The Advancement of Sound Science Center”‘s research into Global Warming is Exxon, well…

  68. keep a large percentage of wasteful trips from downtown

    Wait a second, exactly how do you define what is “wasteful”??? What is “wasteful” to you might not be “wasteful” to me, and vice-versa.

    If we are to tax/fee people based on “wasteful”, then my assertion is that since people live in the Pearl District or South Waterfront because they want to be close to “everything”, than ANY TRIP to/from the Pearl (other than deliveries) that isn’t taken on the Streetcar or walked is wasted travel, and should be taxed accordingly. We could start by establishing a “no private auto” zone for all streets north of Hoyt, between I-405 and Broadway; as well as the SoWa (anything east of Macadam and north of Bancroft).

    Further, let’s tax transit users, airport users, and so on, based on why they are travelling – if we weed out the “wasted” travel, we could reduce a large number of planes in/out of Portland as well, as well as the number of cars and MAX trains that go to/from the airport. We could even assess transit fares based upon “gross revenues” so that someone who earns more money for the economy pays less for transportation than someone who earns less revenue. Someone who doesn’t work shouldn’t need to travel much, for example.

    Then, let’s eliminate all TriMet privileges for PSU students – they can CHOOSE to live on campus, or they can CHOOSE to pay for their commute. They can also CHOOSE to telecommute to class and avoid travel altogether.

  69. If we are to tax/fee people based on “wasteful”, then my assertion is that since people live in the Pearl District or South Waterfront because they want to be close to “everything”, than ANY TRIP to/from the Pearl (other than deliveries) that isn’t taken on the Streetcar or walked is wasted travel, and should be taxed accordingly. We could start by establishing a “no private auto” zone for all streets north of Hoyt, between I-405 and Broadway; as well as the SoWa (anything east of Macadam and north of Bancroft).

    Eric,
    I know that your comments are dripping with sarcasm, but I think that you might be on to something here. Imagine if you will, a planned community of mid to high rise buildings with no/little parking facilities and some form of mass transit running through it. I figure that it could be 4-6 blocks wide, with stops/stations every 3-4 blocks. It is too bad that an idea like this wasn’t considered for the South Waterfront District…

  70. “”You can’t comprehend the Global Warming hoax and how it is completely plausible and scientifically demonstrated that zero global warming is being cause by humans.””

    ~~~>JOHN E-

    I’ve been reading your posts for months and months.

    You are intelligent, you are literate, but here you sit at your computer and relentlessly attempt to convince me and others that somehow the whole global warming thing is a complete hoax and lie?

    TO WHAT END?

    WHY WOULD ANYBODY BOTHER?

    There is a bathtub, its full of cold water, you add 5 cups of hot water to the cold water, you do that every 10 minutes, eventually the bath tub water gets to the point where it gets hot.

    It’s the same thing with the atmosphere.

    How can you sit at your computer and tell me and others it’s a hoax?

    I’m incredulous!
    “““““““““““““
    “”But let me ask you this, since we’ve created a transportation system that is oriented around one primary mode – the car – and we’ve discovered that the consequences of that decision will have grave impacts on society if we maintain the status quo, what then do we do to bring about change””

    ~~>It’s a good point and I do not discount your logic. But government taxes are *NOT* the answer, maybe some form of regulation, but not TAXES!

    I don’t have an answer for this. My assumption is that gas prices will skyrocket and the problem will solve itself via pure economics.
    ““““““““““““`
    “Beyond global warming, I wonder if increasingly expensive gasoline wouldn’t make a bigger CRC unneeded.””

    ~~>WHAT HE SAID!
    ““““““““““““

  71. Erik, let me start out by saying hello. I’ve been lurking here for a long time, and I appreciate your dedication to purpose. Regarding this thread, you typed, “So you are saying that the fact that people give money to researchers means that the research is actually good?”

    No. I didn’t say that at all. What I said is how _I_ would want to spend my money, and my implication was that people don’t like to throw their money away. Your response, though it misconstrues my statement a bit, is wonderful. It brings us closer to the point. How does one decide what science is good and what is bad? Some people will spend on what they _know_ to be bad science. Others will spend on issues where they have a point to prove. You, appropriately, list some comical examples of “science”. You listed examples of “science” that really couldn’t survive the process of peer review. Appropriately, you’ve picked examples where the funding came from people who weren’t throwing their money away.

    Philip-Morris didn’t waste their money. They seeded the arena with confusion and were able to make billions more because of the smoke screen they threw up. A good investment for them, and proof that you’re correct when you assert that massive funding alone is not proof of good science. However, most scientists weren’t fooled for a second, Philip-Morris clearly had a horse in the race, and the Philip-Morris “science” couldn’t survive peer review.

    Compare and contrast to funding sources for global warming. Yes, Al Gore stands to make money, but he looked at the science, and then he decided to invest in (was it) Ausra. To the best of my knowledge, he did not fund global warming research. Big Tobacco, however, looked at the science, and didn’t like what it saw. It picked the minority of scientists who disagreed with or were likely to disagree with the data, and funded them in order to change the data. Philip-Morris, in other words, is the opposite of Al Gore. Al Gore saw the science and didn’t choose to change it. Big Tobacco saw the science and tried to change it.

    If you look at the science of global warming, most funding is not so blatantly biased as Big Tobacco’s or Creationists’. Most of the results that stand up to peer review suggest that man-caused global warming is real. Some suggest it is not. However, in my experience, most of the people who adamantly deny that global warming is real are people who A) look at limited region data sets and extrapolate for the whole planet, and/or B) look at data that has subsequently been trashed and then refuse to hear anything about their data being debunked, and/or C) fail to understand the scientific method, and/or D) are willing to question the integrity and/or intelligence of the vast majority of scientists who happen to disagree with them. I’m not willing to say that man has, for sure, caused global warming, but I’ll say that _most_ of the data suggests it. I’ll also say that, if the denialists are wrong, and we continue down our path, the consequences will be devastating. If the denialists are right, well, we may suffer quite a bit, but not nearly as much.

  72. This one’s in response to Erik’s suggestion that it is impossible to bias – or even define – “wasteful” trips.

    Ok, I’m going to tackle this one. Everyone here should know that commuting trips only account for around 25% of all ‘trips’ people make; people still get around to go to school, to the store, the doctor, vacation, pick up a prescription, post office, and so on.

    Everyone should also know that for most of the day, the roads and freeways are open and traffic-free. There is little congestion for most of the day. The congestion only occurs during the peak commute hours.

    So… you have 3 options for reducing congestion:

    1) get the commuters out of their cars and have them use an alternative method of transportation

    2) have them work different hours, staggering shifts

    3) have everyone else reduce their traveling during peak commute hours

    Now, unless you start making drastic changes in people’s behavior – the so-called “social change” bogeyman, then it would be a lot easier to make a lot of little changes. Variable congestion tolling can accomplish #3, by providing a monetary incentive (penalty) for people who don’t really need to travel at that time, because they could save a couple of bucks and run their errands an hour later. If a bunch of people figure this out, then it can reduce congestion noticeably.

    However, tolling does not solve the related problem with pollution; if everyone drives, you are still pumping out benzene, particulates, NO2, and CO2.

    Driving also ignores the health risks of killing and maiming people in traffic accidents. There are 6.2 million traffic accidents per year in the USA. 42,000 were killed in 2006, and 2.9 million injured.

    By comparison, the FRA indicates 12,000 rail accidents in 2007, 863 dead. Of course, the French TGV and Japanese Shinkansen have an almost perfect safety record in contrast…

  73. William Says: Philip-Morris didn’t waste their money.
    JK: This is not about Philip-Morris. Why are yu introducing a straw man?

    William Says: Compare and contrast to funding sources for global warming.
    JK: It is about $5 billion/year to study warming. Everyone with a room temperature IQ knows that that will go away if we find there is no warming or no reason to panic.

    William Says: Yes, Al Gore stands to make money, but he looked at the science, and then he decided to invest in (was it) Ausra.
    JK: Al Gore is incapable of looking at science – he is scientifically illiterate. Further he is a liar:
    1. He showed us the Antarctic ice core data that shows millions of years of CO2 and temperature going up and down together. He left out the fact that first temperature rises, the CO2 rises. He clearly intended us to get the impression it was the other way around. He lied.

    2. Did you see 20-20 last night? They were dubunking myths and showed a scene of melting ice from the movie “day after tomorrow” and talked to the specvial effects person who created that computer generated sequence. Guess what? Al Gore stole that sequence for his fictional “an inconvenient truth”. He used a hollywod special effect and told us it was real. He lied.

    3. A British court found a number of exaggerations in his film, compared to the IPCC report, which, itself is greatly exaggerated.

    Why do you follow liars?

    William Says: Most of the results that stand up to peer review suggest that man-caused global warming is real.
    JK: Yep, even the fraudulent “hockey stick” got past peer review. As did many papers using the same flawed techniques.

    William Says: However, in my experience, most of the people who adamantly deny that global warming is real are people who
    A) look at limited region data sets and extrapolate for the whole planet,
    JK: Much of the data we have is suspect. For instance the USHCN, is recognized as the best in the world, but about 80% of its data comes from sub standard stations. See surfacestations.org/.
    The rest of the worlds surface measurements are worse. Interestingly, our USHCN data set shows 1998 tied with 1934 as the warmest years since the beginning of the data, at the tail end of the little ice age.

    William Says: B) look at data that has subsequently been trashed and then refuse to hear anything about their data being debunked,
    JK: Of course it is the warmers that are using crappy data:
    1. The hockey stick used bristle cone pines and strip bark trees, both of which were known, before the curve’s creation to be unsuitable temperature proxies.
    2. The surface stations data records are full of data that has been corrected multiple times, frequently having larger corrections than the total measured warming. Most of the stations have had increasing urbanization around them. If one uses only stations that have always been rural, reduces the total warming to well below the alarm level.

    William Says: C) fail to understand the scientific method,
    JK: Like Al Gore.

    William Says: D) are willing to question the integrity and/or intelligence of the vast majority of scientists who happen to disagree with them.
    JK: Of course it is the warmers that are name calling and threatening to ruin people’s careers for disagreeing with their mantra. They call them“deniers”, “Flat Earthers”

    Then there are the admitted liars:
    I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, ( Al Gore, From Grist, 09 May 2006, grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/ bold added)

    Thanks
    JK

  74. Jim, I know you’ll have an answer for all of this, but, here are my comments to some of yours.

    –I didn’t introduce Philip-Morris. That was Erik. I simply rolled with the punch. But it is relevant to the question of how one distinguishes between good and bad science.

    –Regarding your comment about $5 billion in annual funding, please see my comment “D” regarding global warming denialists.

    –Regarding Al Gore, well that’s just great that you can pick out a few examples where he was wrong or lied or both (although I’m not affirming any of your claims). And how does that jive with climatologists suggesting that the bulk of his movie was accurate even though it was a bit fear-mongery? My degree (probably unlike yours) is in science, and I have been following the debate long before Al Gore made major news about it. I mention him because people sometimes list him as an example of somebody who’s using money to change the science. He’s not. Incidentally, what is your educational background that you can call him scientifically illiterate? From reading your posts and comparing them to what he puts out there, I’d say he’s a good deal more literate than are you.

    –“He left out the fact that first temperature rises, the CO2 rises.” Your comment has been explained in depth before (maybe even on this very site, but I wouldn’t swear on it), but you continue to trot out that same old tired line. Pardon me for sounding a bit adversarial, but I’ve seen your posts before. I’ve also seen how you choose to ignore when people render your arguments bunk. But, for those who are interested in your argument, here’s an article that discusses why it’s a bit off. It begins about 2/3 of the way down on the 2nd page. It’s the layman’s view, but, then, so is your comment on it. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/index.html

    –Your hockey stick / peer review comment is also a bit off. First of all, it’s understood that scientists will be wrong from time to time. Second of all, am I to understand that, because scientists are wrong from time to time, withstanding peer review is now useless and not indicative of good science? Third, are you suggesting that the anti-stick claims have not been, themselves, found to be suspect?

    –regarding your comments on limited data sets, I rest my case.

    –regarding your comments on ignoring data, are you suggesting that the scientific community has ignored criticisms of the hockey stick? Maybe they’ve considered them and (knowing a lot more about science than you & me, by the way) still recognize the direction in which most of the data is pointing.

    –regarding your comments on understanding the scientific method, it’s not a matter of Al Gore understanding it or not (though he seems to understand it better than you). To be fair, I should mention that most people who _do_ believe in man-caused global warming also fail to understand the scientific method. The thrust of my statement is that arguments against global warming would be far more compelling if they were levied by people who understand the scientific method.

    –regarding your comments on integrity and intelligence, I also rest my case. The majority of the scientists aren’t demonstrated to be lacking in integrity or intelligence. The name callers are more the populous at large. Conflating the status of name-caller with the status of scientist is most sophomoric, indeed. Do you or do you not question the integrity and/or intelligence of the scientists? I also find it to be a bit amusing that you’d, all in one breath, refer to “warmers” as being name callers.

    That having been said, the work of non-“warmer” scientists should get a fair shake. This doesn’t happen as reliably as it should–especially when many scientists out there don’t consider the matter of global warming to be thoroughly understood.

  75. Erik, let me start out by saying hello. I’ve been lurking here for a long time, and I appreciate your dedication to purpose. Regarding this thread, you typed, “So you are saying that the fact that people give money to researchers means that the research is actually good?”
    ———-
    William Says: Philip-Morris didn’t waste their money.
    JK: This is not about Philip-Morris. Why are yu introducing a straw man?

    ———-
    I didn’t introduce Philip-Morris. That was Erik. I simply rolled with the punch. But it is relevant to the question of how one distinguishes between good and bad science.
    ———-

    Actually, the quote that was attributed to me, and the comments about funding of science – that had absolutely nothing to do with me.

    In fact, the quote that William had attributed to me, was in fact typed by Matthew at April 18, 2008 5:53 PM:

    So you are saying that the fact that people give money to researchers means that the research is actually good? So the fact that Philip-Morris gave a bunch of money to “The Advancement of Sound Science Center” to prove that cigarettes don’t cause cancer, means that they really don’t? Or maybe the fact that a bunch of people give money to studies of intelligent design, means that that is really what happened?

    Personally, I’d use different logic: If “The Advancement of Sound Science Center” got money to disprove/prove something, then I figure the opposite is most likely true. And given that the biggest donor to “The Advancement of Sound Science Center”‘s research into Global Warming is Exxon, well…

    I did post a comment AFTER Matthew’s, but it was not in direct response to his statement nor did it reference or reply to the above quoted post from him.

  76. So… you have 3 options for reducing congestion:

    Outside of the government, financial and educational institutions, most businesses DO NOT operate on a 8:00-5:00 schedule. Most retail jobs don’t work those hours (and those retail shops that are in downtown Portland usually open around 9:30 or 10:00 AM and close between 7:00 and 9:00 PM), many of the large businesses have to keep “East Coast” hours and open up early (5:00 or 6:00 AM) or are staffed extended hours or around the clock.

    My work, for example, is a 24/7 operation. While I currently work 7:45-4:45 (to coordinate with my wife’s and son’s schedules) I have worked as late as 11:30 AM-8:30 PM (the graveyard schedules are actually highly coveted, as are the 6:00 AM starts which I would desire to have and have worked in the past for other employers).

    So, if the argument is to deal with those who are working the 8-5, then GOVERNMENT needs to take the first step – not dictate to the private sector – in making the change.

    Step One is for Portland City Hall to open at 6:00 AM and close at 9:00 PM, and also be open on Saturdays. The same needs to be true for any other government agency operating downtown (you probably can’t convince the Feds to go along, but the County, State and Metro can).

    Step Two is for Portland State University to have early, late night, and weekend classes. Those students who demand an 8-5 class schedule need to pay accordingly, whether it be extra in tuition, extra in parking rates, to pay more for their transit pass, whatever.

    Step Three is for OHSU to eliminate any shift that is an 8-5. Hospitals should be 24/7 operations simply due to their nature, and there’s no reason that OHSU has a mass exodus of personnel leaving at 5:00 PM.

    Of course, another solution is to ban government employees from driving their personal vehicles into the downtown core (by prohibiting them any parking privileges), except for those few employees that require it (i.e. police officers and firefighters). All other government employees (including elected officials and executive level officials) can ride the bus – incidently, just as I do.

  77. I see we may have some confusion regarding who said what. I’d like to take this opportunity to remind everyone of the preferred quoting style here.

    When quoting an individual, at the very least, type the name, a colon (optionally “says:” or “said:”) and put the text in quote marks. Such as:

    Bob: “I see we may have some confusion…”

    Even better, enclose your text in HTML emphasis marks, starting with <em> and ending with </em> … for example:

    Bob: I see we may have some confusion…

    You can also use the older italics tags <i> and </i>, but these are considered obsolete.

    Important: The blogging system here automatically cancels emphasis/italics with the start of a new line, so be sure to add the tags for every line or paragraph when quoting large portions of text.

    Finally, when attributing an external source such as a newspaper quote or another web site, or when trying to distinguish levels of quotation in a complex conversation, consider the <blockquote> and </blockquote> tags:

    Bob: I see we may have some confusion…

    Thanks and enjoy the fray.

  78. Step One is for Portland City Hall to open at 6:00 AM and close at 9:00 PM, and also be open on Saturdays.
    Just how much government sector work would get done on early mornings, evenings and weekends? My guess is this would actually cost more because of additional heating/cooling costs, IT needs, etc.

    Step Two is for Portland State University to have early, late night, and weekend classes. Those students who demand an 8-5 class schedule need to pay accordingly, whether it be extra in tuition, extra in parking rates, to pay more for their transit pass, whatever.
    As I understand, PSU already has evening and weekend classes in some majors. Additionally, many college students these days work in some capacity, and the employers that will work around their schedules practically demand that they be available to work evenings and weekends. So by forcing students to attend classes evenings and weekends, you’d be essentially denying them the ability to work while going to school (thereby meaning they’d be unable to pay for it, and/or would have to take out even more loans).
    Also, from what I hear, PSU’s TriMet pass discounts are paid for out of parking permit revenues.

    Step Three is for OHSU to eliminate any shift that is an 8-5.
    I hear OHSU pays for most (all?) of the cost of TriMet routes 61, 64, 65, and 66; as well as C-TRAN route 190. They practically require everyone who’s not a doctor to ride TriMet, and even then the parking rates are extremely steep. So, IMO, they’re doing their part to cut down on SOV trips up Pill Hill.

    Of course, another solution is to ban government employees from driving their personal vehicles into the downtown core (by prohibiting them any parking privileges)…
    I don’t believe that anything can prohibit an employer from an employee parking in a private lot. I will say that the Federal agency I used to work for provided vouchers for free TriMet or C-TRAN passes (depending on where the employee lived) to all employees. As I understand the program worked so it was valid for any transit agency or vanpool, so if someone needed a SMART or Cherriots pass that could be accomplished as well. I think many agencies and local governments operate in a similar fashion. So the “penalty” in this case is the employee has to spend their own money to park, where they could otherwise ride the bus at no cost to them.

  79. William,
    I haven’t “anointed” my viewpoint as anything. The skeptic’s show overwhelmingly that the Gore/IPCC case is a fraud by MANY measures.

    And for the 100th time, one does not need to be “an expert” to grasp this reality.
    You can all stop raising that canard. Any layperson can understand when the distortions the IPCC have made are pointed out in simple graphs and other data.

    The GW experts who have seen any number of arguments showing global warming is a hoax are doing the same thing you are. Using canards and strawmen. There science is fatally flawed and there’s no other choice for them.
    They continue to trumpet that global warming is real because the policies they advocate and the funding for is riding GW alarm. This week the Californian PUC announced it would be adding a Global warming fee to every utility bill to raise $600 million to fight GW.
    Are they just idiots who managed to get advanced degrees and can’t see the simple truth before them? Now they are dishonest.

    Just as is our own government locally.
    Which is the perfect example of deliberate hoax.

    The CoP Office of Sutainablile development put together a report in 2006 claiming Portland had reduced CO2 emission to 1991 levels. They reported that to justify various politcies.
    But they never even measured emissions. They had no science at all to back it up and yet the report stands to day as a source for GW alarmist to use in propagandizing.

    They are working to continue funding and policies by way of fraud.

    We can’t trust our government agencies any more right here in our backyard. The examples are many.

    Are the people who fund them stupid enough to be duped by the bad science. I’d ask the same thing of you.

    I want the funding and bad policies driven by this easily disproven hoax stopped.

    You can wonder all you want about sprawl but I’m sick of science by wondering and convenient presumption.

    alm,

    Your take that I am relentlessly attempting to convince you others that global warming is a complete hoax and lie is as useless that would be if I were.
    I pop in here occasionally only to plaster you all with reality. You have had abundant opportunities to get it with this hoax. The only thing stopping you is your extraordinary bias.

    I know that as time passes and GW never shows you are going to be spinning like mad that today’s corrective science never existed. That you were going with the best experts and science at the time. You are not. You are duped and blind with bias unable to distinguish between a GW summary report and the hard facts that dispute ithem.

    I could barely read your bathtub tale without laughing. You raise a perfect example of how duped you are. You see human CO2 is not anything like “adding 5 cups of hot water to the cold water, you do that every 10 minutes, eventually the bath tub water gets to the point where it gets hot.”

    No that’s not the “same thing with the atmosphere” my friend.

    If I were to use your bathtub analogy it would be closer to tub full of water that is constantly having the cold and hot water running at variations (natural atmospheric changes) and the bathroom heat (solar output) is fluctuating,,,,, and there you are with any eyedropper dropping in few drops of hot water and the IPCC says you are causing tremendous warming of the tub. They have models that show that to be the case and predict that unless you alter the eyedropper pace alm (human) warming will flood the tub and make bathing impossible.

    You should be incredulous over this hoax. But you can’t even figure the many local hoaxes.

    And back to William,
    Your experience is wrong. You have it backwards and this is why you can’t understand.
    It is the IPCC/Gore/Bradbury people look at limited region data sets and extrapolate for the whole planet. That’s why they are so clearly debunked by broader data sets and considerations. It is the Gore alarmists who refuse to look at the broader data claiming it has no validity, no peer review, no experts etc.
    It isn’t hard to understand the scientific methods and when they are corrupted then questioning the integrity and/or intelligence of the consensus makers is entirely appropriate.

    Just a with our local officials and their phony reports.

    You really sway from reason suggesting the scientific community has ignored criticisms of the hockey stick because they’ve considered them and still recognize the direction in which most of the data is pointing. What a cop out that is. It doesn’t matter if the hockey stick is wrong? You obviously don’t know how important it was to them.

    And then you use another canard that “arguments against global warming would be far more compelling if they were levied by people who understand the scientific method”.

    This just shows how far off base you are with your understanding. The arguments against GW HAVE BEEN levied by people who are EXPERTS and do understand the scientific method. It’s amazing that you haven’t progressed enough to even know where the skepticism comes from. You’ve apparently concluded no experts skeptics or skeptic’s science exists.

    That’s convenient.

  80. JOHN E-

    I’m sure your a nice guy but you will,

    NEVER, EVER,

    convince me that global warming is a hoax.

    You have no logic whatsoever behind your theory.

    Hopefully we will kick your collective asses out of office next election and all you will be able to do is blog endlessly about your silly theories.

    No offense intended,

    Have a nice day,

    AL, your pal.

  81. Jason Barbour wrote: My guess is this would actually cost more because of additional heating/cooling costs, IT needs, etc.

    Are you saying that at 5:00 PM, that electricity is basically cut off to City Hall and most City Buildings? That the lights and HVAC systems shut down, that the IT server room and Telecom rooms shut down, etc.?

    I don’t believe so…

    Jason: PSU already has evening and weekend classes in some majors. Additionally, many college students these days work in some capacity, and the employers that will work around their schedules practically demand that they be available to work evenings and weekends. So by forcing students to attend classes evenings and weekends, you’d be essentially denying them the ability to work while going to school

    No, I’m not denying anyone anything – to the extent that some people want to deny people who also choose to commute during peak-hour commute the same price to travel.

    Further, your first sentence: “PSU already has evening and weekend classes in some majors” – the operative word is “SOME”. I wish I could use the buzzer sound from a game show here, because “SOME” is the wrong answer. The correct answer is “ALL”.

    ALL majors need to offer classes outside of 8-5.

    Jason: I hear OHSU pays for most (all?) of the cost of TriMet routes 61, 64, 65, and 66; as well as C-TRAN route 190.

    I want to see the proof. Does TriMet actually charge the cost of operating these busses to OHSU, and charge OHSU the standard charter rates?

    And Jason adds that most non-doctors can’t park at site. Why not the Doctors too? Maybe we ought to put in tollbooths on Terwilliger Boulevard and Sam Jackson Boulevard – after all those two streets have some unique maintenance hassles that aren’t shared by, say, the streets leading to Adventist Medical Center, or Providence Medical Center, or Emmanuel Medical Center. (I’d say Good Samaritan, but those streets have streetcar tracks that have to be maintained.)

    Jason: I don’t believe that anything can prohibit an employer from an employee parking in a private lot.

    Sure they can. You choose to work for that employer and as a result you agree to abide by the rules pertinent to employment – so long as the rules do not discriminate against a protected class. I do not believe that “car-driver” or “transit-rider” are protected classes, like age, sex, and race are.

  82. AL M
    “NEVER EVER? Wow that’s along time.

    Boy are you going to be embarassed.

    Are you paying attention?
    It is not I who should be, or will be convincing you that global warming is a hoax.

    It will be reality, valid science, weather, global temperatures, ice core samples, ocean temperatures, snow packs, polar bears, Greenland, Antarctica and time.

    The more you stick you fingers in your ears the more time it will take.

    It isn’t my theory you ignore.

    Why do yo not get as mad at local agencies who lie to you?
    Instead you want more of then elected?

    The truth is only my silly theories?

    I will have a nice day thank you. But I’ll need to get some sleep. Because I’ll be up at Hood Skiiing all day in the fresh snow.

    Today Portland set a record for the lowest high temp of this day. Tomorrow another.

    Now of course one or more of you instantly play that I am suggesting a couple days of cold means global warming is a hoax. No, the huge body of evidence shows that. The cold simply aligns with it.

    An Al, in another 10 or 15 years an no human warming can be detected will you claim it’s still coming or that Kulongoski and Gore stopped it?

    You’re funny, have a nice day too.

    Maybe see yo at CGW next week.

  83. Some global warming thoughts:

    First off, it’s clearer than clear that the planet has been warming over the past, 100 or so years; and that this rise has been coincident with the industrialization of the planet.

    What’s not clear is that the industrialization has CAUSED global warming.

    BUT… it’s not important.

    If our climate changes, our food systems fail, and 4 billion people starve to death over the next 200 years, will be important if it was human-caused or just a natural fluctuation in temperature? I mean, the reality is, our children will be living in a world that’s not as able to sustain them as it has us.

    If climate change (and the related depletion of our cheapest, most convenient energy source) occurs, for whatever reason we need to start doing something about it now. QED.

  84. Go ahead, keep trying, its ok, its a free blog!

    So far you have shown me nothing to believe that you are anything but a bunch of anti global warming nut cases, but I appreciate your tenacity, I really do.

    It’s truly commendable!

    [political remark involving the candidacy of a Portland Transport organizer removed to avoid conflict with the blog’s 501(c)(3) status]

  85. Oh yea I also just realized that someone is impersonating me on this blog.

    I am very proud of the fact that I can make people so angry that they would have to ‘pretend’ they are me.

    Several bloggers over at the Tribune blog do that to me too!

    SO REMEMBER, NOT ALL POSTS THAT ARE SIGNED BY ME ARE BY ME FELLOW BLOGGERS!

  86. One further comment, temperatures don’t go up or down in a straight line you knot heads!

    GLOBAL WARMING CREATES EXTREMES ON BOTH ENDS OF THE SCALES.

    Sheesh!

    And I thought you guys at least had some smarts!

    What a disappointment y’all are!

  87. Al wrote: bob r at it again….

    Wasn’t me.

    Please share with me the timestamps of the posts which are from an impostor, and I’ll investigate.

  88. If our climate changes, our food systems fail, and 4 billion people starve to death over the next 200 years, will be important if it was human-caused or just a natural fluctuation in temperature? I mean, the reality is, our children will be living in a world that’s not as able to sustain them as it has us.

    If climate change (and the related depletion of our cheapest, most convenient energy source) occurs, for whatever reason we need to start doing something about it now. QED.

    Well, if we’re going to talk about climate change and all that stuff, what is changing transportation going to really do about it?

    We need food – we keep destroying productive farmlands for housing. We need to stop the growth of housing by restricting population growth, human movement (stop or severely limit emigration/immigration, even WITHIN countries), and make housing a right, not a privilege – stop subsidizing rich developers who are out to make a buck, and subsidize those who simply are building necessary housing for all. Possibly even go so far as to ration housing so that each person is give 400 square feet of housing with a maximum of 2,000 square feet per household (meaning a household can be no larger than five indivdiuals). Limit two children per household (the fifth person would be someone who is being cared for, like a parent, relative, foster child or adopted child).

    Prohibit the possession of second/third/vacation/investment homes. Buy into a hotel chain if you want to invest in real estate.

    Restrict how much electricity a house (and business) can use – any home that uses more kwh than the allotment gets their power shut off until the following month. My household (which isn’t exactly “green” uses no more than 12 kwh/day, or for a 30 day month about 360 kwh/monthly – AND this is 100% offset with clean energy. If I (for a household of three) can do it, anyone else can.

    Restrict the purchase/possession of energy-hogging appliances. No reason why a household needs five computers.

    Restrict households to one car, unless there is a verifiable need for a second vehicle. The type of car should also be regulated.

    Regulate businesses open/close hours – INCLUDING GOVERNMENT (see above).

    Restrict miles travelled per vehicle. I do about 15,000 miles a year – with one vehicle. Could I cut back? Maybe (it’d sure help if TriMet provided decent bus service).

    Restrict long distance travel, air travel should also be rationed.

  89. Bob-

    I can’t find the post!

    Maybe I’m seeing things or losing my mind, the possibilities are staggering!

    As usual Erik hits the nail right on the head.

    That’s exactly what would need to happen, forget the tax idea.

    Of course none of it will happen because it would restrain trade, and America is all about trade and profit, the environment is the last thing on the ‘rulers’ minds.

  90. John E wrote: “And for the 100th time, one does not need to be ‘an expert’ to grasp this reality.”

    William says: In observing your statements, I’d sure say that being an expert would help. An expert wouldn’t do some of the things you do. For example, you continually rail upon GW alarmists who are making money on the whole thing. So? What has that to do with the science of global warming? There’s a huge difference between making a dollar off of the science and the science itself. I mean, it seems rather implausible to me that the majority of these scientists are willing to make up stuff just to get funding. They have an incentive _not_ to; too much bad science will soil the reputation, and _then_ it becomes difficult to obtain funding. As far as corporations making money off of a message, and as far as governments using a message to justify their existence, NO DUH! And if they don’t mess with the data, then they’re not even being unethical. Show me massive quantities of research funding where there’s obvious conflict of interest, and then we’ll talk.

    John E wrote: “The arguments against GW HAVE BEEN levied by people who are EXPERTS and do understand the scientific method.”

    William says: Ahem. The conflicting data has been presented by people who are experts and many of them understand the scientific method. However, the majority of experts are not as shrill as you and I, and most of the experts will present the data in a less absolute fashion than you have. They will instead suggest that their data indicates that x-and-such a piece of the puzzle is strengthened, weakened, confirmed, disproved by their latest data. They may even suggest that their data has significant bearing on the whole big picture.

    That’s a far cry from what you’re doing. Go ahead. Find me more than five scientists who say that their _peer-reviewed_ data PROVES that global warming is a hoax. I will eat profuse amounts of crow and, hey, I’ll even read an article or two you link to.

    In addition to the reality that most anti-GW experts wouldn’t go as far with their claims as you do, I’d like to remind you that _most_ of the experts still think the scales weigh very heavily on the side of GW being reality. The fact that anti-GW experts are still getting their voice out there, however, is fantastic. That’s all part of science, and if they’re right, we’ll hopefully some day soon recognize it.

    John E wrote: “It doesn’t matter if the hockey stick is wrong? You obviously don’t know how important it was to them.”

    William says: You bet that it matters. And I would hasten to add that it would be difficult to walk away from Gore’s little horror flick without recognizing how much importance some people assigned to it. But your perspective appears to be wayyyy off. First, the hockey stick is not some Holy Grail of GW. GW can stand on its own legs with or without. Second, although McIntyre did show problems with Mann’s methodology in creating the hockey stick, warming is still evident with the model–just not as dramatically. In short, the hockey stick model was probed and prodded extensively, and while “hockey stick” might no longer be a really good name for it, it’s still indicative of warming and is still supported by most scientists (and please realize that this is _after_ they factored in McIntyre’s criticisms). Third, an overlay of myriad other temperature reconstructions does, in point of fact, present us with something resembling a hockey stick. In short, this “wrong” hockey stick has been bolstered by subsequent data, but it’s just part of the whole picture.

    In closing, you fit nicely into my categorization of a typical GW denier. A) You think that problems with a few data sets (the hockey stick, etc) disproves the whole of a much larger picture. B) You have failed to see the trashing of the debunking of the hockey stick model. C) You fail to understand the scientific method, as exemplified by your ludicrous belief that a few waves of contradictory data somehow disprove the much vaster body of data supporting the notion of global warming. I’ll not say that GW is a 100% certainty, but please recognize that there’s no way it’s 100% disproven, either. D) It sure sounds to me like you’re questioning the integrity or intelligence of scientists. They’re not some bunch of saints, but to be so uniformly corrupt as to engage in a massive hoax?

    I may not be responding to you again, as such posts do take time. But then I may depending upon whether you can raise the bar a little higher.

  91. Willliam,
    What you call responding is nothing of the kind.

    I stated one doesn’t need to be an expert to grasp the extensive case against GW.

    You then “responded” that being an expert would help me by not doing things I haven’t done.

    I haven’t “continually railed upon GW alarmists who are making money on the whole thing.” In fact I don’t recall making that specific charge of making money even once.

    I’ve certainly pointed out the countless millions in government funding for variouys policies dependent on perpetuating his hoax. And there’s many billions in carbon credits about to be bought and sold.

    Yet you ask what has that to do with the science of global warming???????

    Gee I don’t know.

    What are you “responding to with “There’s a huge difference between making a dollar off of the science and the science itself”

    Your escaping into generalities is not responding to my points. Especially to my more specific, germane and demonstrative points that you ignore.

    Since it “seems rather implausible” to you that the IPCC case is bunk do you have any opinion on the local hoax Portland and Metro perpetrated with claims of reduced emissions from their programs and policies?
    They made up science in their hoax. Not caring one bit about soiling their reputation.
    Hefty quantities of their funding is the obvious conflict of interest.

    Your marginalizing mischaracterization of the skeptic expert’s case misses the overwhelming and broad case they have.
    I wonder if you honestly have any interest at all in the “whole big picture”.

    There are far more than five scientists involved in proving global warming is a hoax. But you’lll never discover it or eat crow.

    Frankly, I don’t believe you are a simple observer. More like you are a participant in the agenda that benefits from the hoax. And you are mascarading as something else.

    The giveaway was your suggestion that you haven’t yet read an “article or two” of debunking.

    It’s easy to observe the ongoing campaign by the Gore/Bradbury/Oregonian hoax machine as it trumpets out the daily dose of nonsense. Example today’s Jack Ohman cartoon.
    But that hoax machine is without integrity or the extensive science and climate reality that is increasingly inconsistent with their campaign.

    You really stumble in pretending the anti-GW experts are getting their voice out there.

    Where is the anti-GW experts getting their voice in the Oregonian?

    Their science is far more thorough, they’re right, and the day is now to recognize it.

    Instead there’s the obvious bias that censors it. We can no longer trust our government agencies, the science they twist or our newspapers.

    The hockey stick theory is of course moot. But the exceedingly thorough debunking of AGW is not dependent upon that being the “Holy Grail” you concocted.

    Oh but you were “responding” to ME conveying that it was Holy Grail? Nope I never said that.

    GW does not stand on its own legs with or without the Hockey stick theory as the IPCC model and projections are corrupted and invalid in other ways. THOROUGHLY.

    That includes, specifically, other temperature reconstructions, subsequent data and the whole picture.

    There’s nothing vague or presumptive about the GW debunking. That’s the game Gore and our governor play.

    It is they who fit nicely into your category of a typical GW loyalist.
    A) You think that the problems with the IPCC case are but a few data sets and the whole of a much larger IPCC picture is still sound.
    B) You have failed to see the extensive debunking of the IPCC model.
    C) You fail to understand the motivations behind the ludicrous adherence to the waves of propaganda used to bolster support for global warming.
    D) You use the lame failsafe that there’s no way it’s 100% disproven as a means to perpetuate the hoax.
    E) The bar has already been raised far above the integrity of our local hoaxers and the IPCC.
    F) You chose what to respond to with injections of straw men and canards that fit the hoax.
    G) You avoid the easy accessed, extensive debunking like the plague.

    The skeptic’s show overwhelmingly that the Gore/IPCC case is a fatally flawed by many measures.
    One does not need to be “an expert” to grasp it.
    Any layperson with an open mind can understand it when the distortions the IPCC have made are pointed out in simple graphs and other data.

    Policies and funding are riding the GW alarm.
    Californian PUC announced it would be adding a Global warming fee to every utility bill to raise $600 million to fight GW.
    The CoP & Metro made up a report in 2006 claiming that policies they want funded and continued had reduced CO2 emission to 1991 levels.
    They never even measured emissions. They had no science to back it up and yet the report stands today as a source for GW alarmist to use in propagandizing.

    They are working to continue and expand funding and policies by way of fraud.

    We can’t trust our government agencies any more right here in our backyard. The examples are many.

    Are the politicians who fund them duped? Apparently.

    You’ve had many opportunities to get it with this hoax. The only thing stopping you is your bias.

    You can’t even stay consistent in one blog thread.
    One minute you say the
    “arguments against global warming would be far more compelling if they were levied by people who understand the scientific method”.

    And the next you say,
    “The fact that anti-GW experts are still getting their voice out there, however, is fantastic.

    Well, which is it?

    IMO you have not reviewed the arguments or have done so only within the “responses” by the IPCC loyalists where they mischaracterized and marginalizes the arguments before responding.
    Sound familiar?

  92. al m,

    You can cghange the subjest all you want but you can’t hide from reality.

    Hurricane expert left IPCC

    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

    January 17, 2005
    Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC

    It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

    All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

    Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

    After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

  93. Why argue about global warming here? It only has relevance when those who “oppose it” also support a massive new highway bridge across the Columbia.
    Then, one smells a rat.
    The Interstate Bridges were both paid for with tolls; the replacement and/or retrofit of same will be paid for with tolls (or you won’t have 3 votes on Portland City Council). Why not start collecting them now…reduce congestion now by reducing non-essential trips and salt away some bucks for want could be the biggest project this region has ever seen. Talk about no-brainers.

  94. Why not start collecting them now

    Because it’s against federal law? DUH!!!

    On the other hand, maybe it’s not such a bad idea. Break federal law, which would make the region ineligible for any federal transportation dollars. Without federal transportation dollars, no more light rail projects would get built either.

  95. Actually, in lieu of taxing I-5, let’s do this:

    1. A tax on any private vehicle entering Rivergate.

    2. A tax on any private vehicle entering the Portland International Airport.

    3. A tax on any private vehicle entering Swan Island (that means your car, Lenny.)

    4. A tax on any private vehicle entering Downtown Portland (that exits the freeway).

    Oh, screw it. Any time a private vehicle EXITS the freeway in Portland, or enters Portland from a non-freeway, it is charged a $10 per day fee. That way you are not fouling federal law (because cities can do whatever they want on local streets), yet it does not impact commercial trucks/freight movement.

    On a positive note, communities like Gresham, Wood Village, Fairview, Troutdale, Oregon City, Clackamas, Tigard, Beaverton, Tigard and Tualatin would do well because those cities would be “free”.

  96. Why argue about global warming here? It has relevant when those who push it also support a massive new light rail expansion across the Columbia.
    No we wouldn’t want to talk about Portland and Metro claiming light rail reduces Global warming.

    That’s the rat you smell. It’s our local agencis forcing more ight rail under false pretenses and hoaxes.

    The Interstate Bridges were both paid for with tolls; the replacement and/or retrofit of same will be paid for with tolls much easier without light rail or starting to collect them now.

    The Glenn Jackson was not tolled to build.

    The tolls won’t reduce congestion any more than light rail will.

    Global warming is a hoax just like SoWa and the Tram that Lenny found no price too high and no biotech tale too tall.

    Having been entirely wrong about SoWa Lenny now promises congestion relief with tolls.

    As strange pitch for Lenny since he has often stated that congestion relief will only increase congestion.

    My guess it light rail adds $1-2 billion to the ultimate cost with many more millions to be diverted to TODs, etc.
    We shouldn’t be repeating Cascade Station and SoWa.
    Talk about no-brainers.

    But no price is too high from more rail is it?

    Why not forget the new freeway crossing and just build light rail to Vancouver over a new light rail bridge. Spend 6,10, 20 billion adding light rail throughout the region. Stop pretending traffic, gridlock, commerce or idling vehicles is of any concern.
    When traffic grinds to a halt in rush hours that run together, and in wider areas, it will only mean we need more rail transit. Right? Especially since it help reduce global warming?

  97. Yawn. You have anything new to add to the conversation John?

    Your absolutist views make you sound crazier than the hardliners you spout off against. After seventeen posts to just this thread I think we know what you stand for by now.

    The truth is there simply isn’t enough room here for everybody to get in a car and drive where they need to go. Four lanes, six lanes, or twelve lanes, it doesn’t matter. You get >1Million people in an area the size of Portland and there just isn’t enough room for everybody to use their own car. If we were a small town? Sure. But we’re not. And we have to get over it and start acting like a big city – and that means not trying to build our way out of congestion. It just won’t work. It’s been demonstrated over and over again in cities throughout the world… we don’t need to make the same mistakes. If you want to live or work in an area as populated as Portland then you have to deal with congestion – on the roads, the sidewalks, and even on public transportation. Want less congestion? Move to Eugene. Or Montana.

    And seriously, get over it: everywhere except here people pay tolls for new infrastructure. It is completely ridiculous to ask for a $4B handout. Lenny’s right: the I-5 bridges were paid for by tolls and so should any new highway infrastructure. The gas tax is an inadequate source of funding for maintenance, let alone new construction. Collectively the public demands expensive infrastructure, so we all need to get over our aversion to paying for it. Car = luxury. Luxuries get taxed.

  98. Why not start collecting them now…

    HOW??? I had to read it twice to think that was seriously posted.

    Wow, what a bad idea. There are legal, infrastructure, administrative and time costs.

    Costs like building the toll collection pieces, selling the passes, hiring employees to oversee it, identifying funding for enforcement, getting federal laws changed, environmental impact studies, not to mention the lawsuits this would likely spawn. I’d bet we’d need $50m to get the thing started, much of which would be replaced on the new bridge anyway.

    Don’t forget the cameras, speed sensors, RFID readers, etc that would need data channels available, meaning more infrastructure costs not currently built in. I doubt that lift span has enough wiring across it to handle all those aspects.

    As part of something that’s a significant improvement tolls have a chance. Not on the current bridge. There’s too many constraints. It’s such an amazing waste of resources I’m amazed it could even be a suggestion.

  99. Why not start collecting [tolls] now

    “Because it’s against federal law? DUH!!!”

    No, it isn’t. If they are doing seismic upgrades to the bridge, that would qualify as an improvement, and could be paid for by tolls. If they are doing improvements to the interchanges, then again: an improvement and tolls. And then there is a federal “demonstration” program, where you can use tolls for other things. In any case, if they toll I-5, then everyone will just rush over to use 205 unless they toll it too, so they’ll need to figure out how to deal with that issue anyways…

    The big reason why it isn’t tolled right now is political will: any politician that wants to get reelected in Clark County knows that tolling the bridge right now is a sure way to lose the next election. Spending $4.2B, and then tolling it is politically viable, but just tolling it and keeping it 6 lanes is not…

  100. Wow John E, your blogsplosion gave me about the best laugh I’d had all day! Let’s just go over a couple cute little things in a hurry.

    John E wrote: “Your escaping into generalities is not responding to my points. Especially to my more specific, germane and demonstrative points that you ignore.”

    William says: You mean like my ignoring the “hockey stick” debunking, which you earlier commented upon thusly: “It doesn’t matter if the hockey stick is wrong? You obviously don’t know how important it was to them.” And I think most readers would agree that I didn’t (at least on that one point) escape into generalities.

    John E wrote: “I haven’t ‘continually railed upon GW alarmists who are making money on the whole thing.’ In fact I don’t recall making that specific charge of making money even once.

    I’ve certainly pointed out the countless millions in government funding for various policies dependent on perpetuating his hoax. And there’s many billions in carbon credits about to be bought and sold.”

    William says: OK, I retract the word “continually”. But it seems to me, still, that you’re suggesting the science is bad because people who are separated from the science are out to make money. I don’t think government funding implies bad science or bias. A grant proposal may present a hypothesis, but it should not present the outcome. Thus (unless you wish to malign the reputation of the scientific community), even when the gov’t funds GW research, the data is what it is.

    Besides, let’s look at the government’s behavior on the Federal level. Top secret energy task force? More funding for fossil fuel research than for renewable energy research? Endless meddling in oil-rich countries? Reducing EPA standards to allow more pollution? As you ponder these points, keep in mind that you’re right that the Federal gov’t kicks out a lot of research grants. Do these actions sound like they’re coming from a party that wants GW to be more strongly demonstrated, or do they sound like they’re coming from a party that has other goals in mind?

    There are many parts of our government, but I think this demonstrates that the people who control the purse strings, our legislators and the executive branch, aren’t uniformly biased towards strengthening the case for GW. In fact, it might even suggest THE OPPOSITE!!! GASP!!!!!

    So where’s this conflicted funding coming from? And where are these greedy scientists who are falsifying the data?

    John E wrote: “You can’t even stay consistent in one blog thread.”

    William says: Ahem, in the first instance, where I pleaded for people with scientific understanding to make the case, I was referring to people like you, who really do a disservice to the anti-GW data that’s out there. In the second instance, where I referred to anti-GW experts getting their voice out there, I was referring to scientists. _Not_ inconsistent. And those links you just provided… have you looked into who signed the letter? Not climate scientists! But let the data speak for itself. Give _experts_ (not Dr. Schreuder and his scar treatment cream team) the chance to study the data and integrate it into the big picture.

    Well, hey, I guess you’re right. Global Warming is bunk. Too bad peak oil is on the way to make a new bridge a bit… overkill. That’s a joke, but please don’t tell me that peak oil is a hoax, too.

  101. No, it isn’t. If they are doing seismic upgrades to the bridge, that would qualify as an improvement, and could be paid for by tolls.

    Unlikely, in California that attempt always was shot down due to cost of implementing it legally at the federal level. The improvements generally have to show at least auxiliary lanes, acceptable shoulders, and acceptable lane widths, none of which the Interstate Bridge will qualify for without significant costs.

    In any case, if they toll I-5, then everyone will just rush over to use 205 unless they toll it too, so they’ll need to figure out how to deal with that issue anyways…

    No, more likely some will look for employment outside Portland, some will pay, and some will change jobs or houses. Depending on the mix of each depends on the outcome. I’m not going east to go north to go west, I’d either pay the toll (and ask my employer for more based paying a toll to get to their location, causing them to charge more) or find another job.

    Spending $4.2B, and then tolling it is politically viable, but just tolling it and keeping it 6 lanes is not…

    You’re not going to find the political will to toll inadequate structures throughout the country without improving them. Especially not with current gas prices. Removing the federal gas tax is being discussed even. It’s not just a local issue, it becomes a federal issue because it’s part of I-5.

  102. It’s not like we’re going to be able to afford this bridge, either way.

    Unless you guys want to, for instance, axe higher ed or K-12 schools. I’d like to know where a couple billion dollars are going to float down from the heavens.

    Anyways, we’re going to kill this bridge anyways, so it doesn’t really matter. It’s going to die a very slow, painful, decades-long agonizingly torturous death…

  103. So the Doc says you gotta have major surgery, and once its done, you gotta take this nasty pill…twice a day.
    But wait, there is a chance that if you start that nasty pill now, you might avoid the surgery?
    What would you do?
    Congestion pricing or tolls solves a lot of problems in the I-5 corridor. Why not give it a shot?

  104. re the Tram…where in the history of Portland have we got so much for so little? Less that $10 Million to enable (on their timeline, admittedly) the City’s largest employer and the region’s only research institution to grow. What’s not to like.

  105. Perfect Lenny. Another example of your total lack of understanding of SoWa. No such tiny cost number exists and there is no expansion of OHSU or research coming. The exact opposite is occuring instead. OHSU is moving research to Florida and their local missions are being cut back under the fiscal calamity this SoWa scam played a big part in.

    “Congestion pricing or tolls solves a lot of problems in the I-5 corridor. Why not give it a shot?”

    Yeah and the Tram and SoWa will lead to 10,000 biotech research jobs?
    Lenny you supported everything happening in SoWa with no more understanding of it than your echoing that OHSU is Portland’s biggest employer. That institution now sits in near bankruptcy because of reckless policy schemes you supported.

    Or Global Warming is causing stronger and more frequent hurricanes?

    Joseph Edge and William you had no comment on this.

    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

    The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

    It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming.

    Or this

    World Temperatures Falling Whilst CO2 rises
    http://uddebatt.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/2008-04-14_234350.jpg

    Or to this

    The CoP & Metro made up a report in 2006 claiming that policies they want funded and continued had reduced CO2 emission to 1991 levels.

    What were you laughing at Willaim?

    I have specifically demonstrated how science has been hijacked and why.
    Local officials and politicians have perpetrated an emissions hoax to further local polices, many billions in carbon credits about to be bought and sold, and that IPCC scientists have themselves distorted science to push an agenda.

    The GW science is corrupted, as demonstrated by one of IPCC’s own hurricane experts in his resignation.

    Whatever your problem is with devouring plain language you are having trouble grasping this issue.

    This isn’t that “government funding implies bad science or bias”. It’s that bad science is being utilized to gain funding to advance policies and an agenda.

    Don’t rely upon me. This IPCC scientist said it in perfectly plain ENGLISH.
    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

    “when [IPCC] people make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

    “the IPCC leadership dismissed the misrepresentation of climate science”
    “leadership said Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.

    “this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers”
    “Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to IPCC conclusions”

    “the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost.”

    “the IPCC selected Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view.”

    “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

    Sincerely, Chris Landsea”

    Now why would anyone malign the reputation of the scientific community? Now that’s a laugher.

    But you have no comment?

    So where’s this conflicted funding coming from? I’ve given examples of local billions from Metro/TriMet/the State, examples of California PUC money grabbing, and the feds with all sorts of programs. You reduce it all to imaginary “greedy scientists who are falsifying the data”? That I supposedly can’t show you?
    Trenberth and the IPCC leader are among them. Our local officials and whoever they use to cook up reports are too. Along with countless other officials and experts delivering the daily dose of the GW hoax to advance the “cause”.

    I never attempted to make the skeptic’s case myself. So I wonder what the heck you are talking about with me “doing a disservice to the anti-GW data that’s out there” I’m merely passing it on the expert’s overwhelming debunking.
    GW experts from around the globe have debunked the IPCC, including their own experts.
    The data has been studied and integrated it into the big picture. You just hide from it.

    Yes I am right, Global Warming is bunk.
    Peak oil has also been demagogued and politicized beyond belief. With some predicting an end to automobile use as we know it in a dozen years because of it.
    Is that a hoax? Not according to Lenny or Sam Adams.

  106. So the Doc says you gotta have major surgery, and once its done, you gotta take this nasty pill…twice a day.
    But wait, there is a chance that if you start that nasty pill now, you might avoid the surgery?
    What would you do?
    Congestion pricing or tolls solves a lot of problems in the I-5 corridor. Why not give it a shot?

    So a bunch of people have to get from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’, and you going to need a way to get there. It’s too far to walk, so you know you’re going to need a vehicle. But you can’t afford a car.

    Multiply this by 5,000 and it’s a community issue.

    The doctor says you’re going to need a transit system to move people.

    The doctor says “let’s build a light rail line” (surgery), but once the light rail line is built, you’re going to need a bus system (nasty pill) to get people to/from the light rail station at either end.

    But wait, there is a chance that if you start the busses now, you won’t need the light rail system later. What would you do?

    Thanks for the analogy, Lenny. I hope you will apply the same logic in your future posts to this website.

  107. Gee folks, looks like you’re offended by the truth. You shouldn’t be.

    “DON’T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU ON THE WAY OUT!”

    That’s what the IPCC says to it’s scientists who sway from the agenda.

    Perhaps if come out of hiding and simply see some pure science in video form you’ll grasp reality.

    Come on,, here you go,,,good boy,,, sit.

    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.22

    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.21

    The Myth about Global Warming and CO2 Levels
    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.12

    Or more
    Global Warming Myth / Hoax Videos (11 items)
    at
    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?cat.8.view

  108. Flipping off a virtual worldwide scientific consensus is about as smart as stiffing a city’s largest employer or region’s only research institution. Truely inspired thinking. Let’s move on.
    Now why would we spend $4.2 Billion to help out a few dozen Clark county commuters who made some poor choices?

  109. QUESTION:

    “Now why would we spend $4.2 Billion to help out a few dozen Clark county commuters who made some poor choices?”

    ANSWER:

    Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. [Oscar Wilde]

  110. John E –

    You’ve had plenty of floor time here and you’ve had a great opportunity to get your information out there. (21 posts in this thread alone!)

    Please don’t use this blog as a place to repeatedly rant that global warming is a “hoax” every time somebody mentions it in a policy discussion. That goes for JK, Terry and others, too. That’s not really the primary point of this blog and every time you do it it takes us way off-topic.

  111. I wouldn’t necessarily call GW in itself a “hoax,” but the human caused climate change fad does fit all of the the characteristics of a major religion and/or a destructive cult.

    I can understand why some people would get ticked off when others attempt to legislate adherence to a religion.

  112. OK Bob, but one more reply,,,

    al, you’re a knucklehead.

    Lenny,
    How naive can you be?
    The Tram and SoWa plan was the biggest BS in the city’s history. And it’s panning out worse than the plan’s skeptics even anticipated.

    Going along with a bogus plan that risks the city’s largest employer’s fiscal stability is not supportiive. It’s foolish.

    At this point in time for you to be continuing to trumpet the plan as successful is beyond irrational.
    You must be truely inspired to a level where cost, results and facts matter not.

    IPCC’s own scientists are flipping them off so you need to wake up to that as well.

    The 4.2 Billion for new bridge isn’t just about commuters and you know it. It’s about the major west coast interstate with a choke point adversely effecting commerce, commuters and every other use.
    Light rail and it’s cost should be abandoned for this plan.
    Nothing is going to change the affordable housing in Vancouver and jobs in Portland. Certainly not tolls, light rail or costly smart growth shcemes.

  113. Now why would we spend $4.2 Billion to help out a few dozen Clark county commuters who made some poor choices?

    The same reason we spent how much money on a Tram because OHSU and its predecessors made a poor choice by siting a research facility and a hospital in a remote area of Portland that is difficult to get to, instead of in a more accessible location like PSU, Good Sam Hospital, Emanuel Hospital or Providence Medical Center.

    Further, let’s decipher your statement:

    1. “Why would we” – “We” includes Clark County, as they will be paying part of the cost too. They are putting their money into the project.

    2. “to help out” – this is condescening, as if Clark County needs our “help”. I’m sure Clark County residents/Portland employees feel the same when they “help” out Oregon by paying Oregon income tax, or by buying things in Oregon.

    3. “a few dozen”. If “a few dozen” commuters were coming in from Clark County, we would only need a small ferry to handle the traffic.

    4. “poor choices”. Was it a poor choice to live where housing is affordable, where a $175,000 home can be attainable? Was it a poor choice when there are good jobs in Washington, but one household member still works in Oregon? Was it a poor choice for small businesses to relocate to Washington, but still require the services of other Oregon businesses resulting in cross-river trade? The only poor choice made is Portland’s inability to provide affordable housing for the average Portland resident, thus creating a huge market for affordable housing in Vancouver and increased cross-river traffic. Half the people I work with live in Vancouver just for that reason alone.

  114. In Vancouver, a family can buy a decent sized home with a medium yard on a low traffic street or cul-de-sac for a reasonable price. They also have tons of shopping options, wide modern roads, and excellent schools. Duplexes, triplexes, and row houses are not crammed into every spare bit of open space within the “UGB.”

    Since Vancouverites who work in Oregon also pay Oregon income tax, maybe its time they start demanding that Oregon modernize the roads and at least attempt to meet travel demands.

  115. Unfortunately my job is in WA, but I live in Portland. Why? I like living in Portland. What’s so evil about me?

    Or is it only liking the suburban lifestyle of WA that’s evil, and liking Portland, but working in WA is acceptable?

    I hate the current bridge for a number of reasons, and it’s the financially responsible way to proceed. Maybe both states should look at a new construction fee based on square footage (or something, I don’t really care) of a property to finance this, and other regionally significant transportation options.

    Maybe some BRT can get moving from the Vancouver Mall area, across SR-500, and down to the MAX Red Line if we try to think this as a bigger bi-state negotiation. Just one idea, I’m sure there’s other options too.

    Have we really looked at what can make a new CRC a better trade-off for everyone, past the bridge itself? Many of us in both states think that it’s time to improve the bridge, especially if it can be done with minimal impacts to those around it.

    The plans I’ve seen give plenty of incentive to help the surrounding communities with minimal impacts, maybe I’m not seeing the harm? There’s trade-offs, like southbound traffic might cause more pollution in North Portland, but northbound traffic should cause less from getting out more efficiently. Am I missing something?

  116. Nice Oscar Wilde quote, Al!

    From a different perspective, I have a question for people. If we hadn’t already been taxed for the bridge money, and if the bridge serves an area of about 1 million people (disregarding freight, because that’s not why the bridge is congested), that works out to about $4,000 in tax money from each of us.

    If the government had never collected that tax, and instead said to us, “ok everybody, pay up $4000 today, or instead pay us a daily toll of $1 if you want to cross during rush hour,” what then would CRC supporters think of the idea?

    Better yet, what if the gov’t, having already collected our taxes said, “OK, to everybody who works in the state opposite the one where they live, we’re going to give you a choice. We give you $4000 today, and you deal with rush hour, OR we give you this faster bridge. Because we don’t have to pay most Portlanders, we can spend that money on more needed things in the local area.” Would your average Clark County person want the money or the bridge? Would your average Portlander want the bridge or other improvements?

    I think the answer is clear in both cases (though arguably short-sighted). Agree? Disagree?

    PS: I know a lot of projects wouldn’t get done if this became the way of thinking, but… just as a different way to look at things…

  117. “OK, to everybody who works in the state opposite the one where they live, we’re going to give you a choice. We give you $4000 today, and you deal with rush hour, OR we give you this faster bridge.”

    If you are just looking at the people that cross the bridge, (i.e. the people that work in different states than they live in,) then it isn’t $4,000 each, it is $40,000 each… And given that that is less than the difference in house prices, (the: “Vancouver housing is cheaper than Portland housing” argument,) then the bridge really becomes a subsidy to developers in Clark County. If that level of subsidy happened in the Pearl or South Waterfront, it would have a lot of people screaming bloody murder.

    Also, if you use tolling to pay for the bridge, it isn’t $1 at rush hour… Right now they are proposing $2.50 each way, with the tolls paying about a third of the costs, (assuming the 40% VMT increase really happens.) If the 40% VMT doesn’t happen, (say, peak oil is happening right now and so in 2030 gasoline prices are in the double digits, or we actually did something about global warming and so VMT is down instead of up,) then the tolls need to be raised to around $10/each way in order to make the bond payments to pay for the bridge… And that would reduce bridge travel even further, (not to mention be a big drag on the economy of the metro area,) so all we’d really need was a 2 lane bridge but we’d have a 12 and be making payments on it…

  118. Matthew, I don’t disagree with your reasoning at all. My low toll number came out as an expression of what would be appropriate if we were choosing to stick with out existing bridge and pull in money for maintenance while at the same time reducing the rush-hour congestion… and as an idea of how to unsell this crazy CRC idea that’s been very much sold to too many people so far. Personally, I think the bridge is a major waste of money. But then, some of my friends think the Sauvie/Flanders bridge would be a waste of money…

  119. William, I understand completely. I’m just pointing out that if we offered people $4k each to deal with the congestion that it would be a bargain compared to the CRC…

    And in any case, $40,000/person that crosses isn’t actually right. The average person that crosses that bridge crosses it twice a day, (they go to work and then back home,) so the new bridge actually costs $80,000/person that actively uses it…

  120. Matthew Says: The average person that crosses that bridge crosses it twice a day, (they go to work and then back home,) so the new bridge actually costs $80,000/person that actively uses it…
    JK: Glad that you agree the price is too high.

    You make a good case for NOT BUILDING LIGHT RAIL as it will cost around $1.2 billion for 16000 crossings = $75,000 per crossing or $150,000 per person. In terms of people taken out of cars triple that to $225,000 per person at one person per car. For 1.6 per car, make that $360,000 per car taken off of the road. As you can see, the toy train will cost 400-500% that of cars. That is why we call it a toy train – costs too much & does too little.

    Thanks
    JK

Leave a Reply

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