Led by the Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center, thirteen organizations have signed on to a letter (PDF, 81K) requesting an additional 60 days be added to the comment period for the Columbia River Crossing Draft Environmental Impact statement. From the letter:
Concerned citizens and implicated agencies cannot adequately participate in the NEPA process if they are only given 60 days to analyze and comment on a highly technical 5,000 page document. Meaningful public participation is central to the NEPA process. NEPA requires the sponsoring agencies to “make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures.” 40 CFR § 1506.6 (a). The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) NEPA implementing regulations further reflect the need for genuine public input, stating FHWA’s policy that “[p]ublic involvement and a systematic interdisciplinary approach be essential parts of the development process for proposed actions.” 23 CFR § 771.105(c). FHWA cannot seriously assert that a 60-day comment period meets its requirement to make public input an essential part of the final EIS, considering the scope and length of the DEIS.
Portland Transport is one of the 13 organizations signing on to the request…
0 responses to “13 Groups Request CRC Comment Period Extension”
CLF is with Portland Transport – the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is way too long and complicated to review in the 60 day period, and I hope the comment period will be extended. In the meantime, the comment period marches on, and elected officials are looking to the comments to help tell them what the public thinks.
PUBLIC COMMENT on the EIS
May 29 – Portland hearing
Time: 6-8pm (open house at 5pm)
Location: 2060 North Marine Drive, Portland (Expo Center, Hall D)
You can also comment by speaking directly to decision makers:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
June 5 – Metro Council
Time: 2pm (get there early to sign up)
Location: 600 NE Grand Ave, Portland, Metro Council Chambers
July 9 – Portland City Council
Time: 2pm (get there early to sign up)
Location: City Hall, 1221 SW 4th Ave, Portland
Mara Gross
Coalition for a Livable Future
The request for an extension was formally denied today. If the denial letter gets posted anywhere soon, I’ll provide a link here.
I don’t know why anybody bothers commenting on anything.
The decisions are already made anyway.
They just allow comments because they have to, not because they mean anything.
Al M
The denial letter is on BikePortland.org.
I thought this afternoon’s posting on Willy Week’s website was eye-opening.
“In other words, CRC staff analysis for demand growth uses a projected oil price of $59 per barrel in 2030. (Crude oil prices closed today at more than twice that price — $126.62 per barrel after trading over $135 last week).”
http://www.wweek.com/wwire/?p=12056
They’re figuring oil will be $59/barrel in 2030 and basing the demand modeling off of that??? I’m speechless.
Nuovorecord, that’s slightly interesting, but how many vehicles on the road will use petro-based fuels in 22 years? It does not mean the personal occupancy vehicle will be gone, just not running on so much gas.
That’s the entire point. What fuels, at what cost are going to be available? No one knows at this point. It’s all speculation and hope. Yet, we’re going to go ahead anyway and spend billions for a bridge for a mode that faces a very uncertain future, based on a model that’s pure fantasy.
Taking a step back and rethinking this project makes all the sense in the world.
Yet, we’re going to go ahead anyway and spend billions for a bridge for a mode that faces a very uncertain future, based on a model that’s pure fantasy.
Is do nothing really a better option? Why not let our trains degrade too, who knows if we’ll have electricity for them?
Well, we might not even have food, so let’s ban children too.
Mankind will find power sources. Maybe a large majority will switch to 200+ mpg bikes, the market will dictate availability. We still have to plan for our future, gas prices will not stop the commuter in this country. Maybe they’ll change the path somewhat, but they won’t stop the SOV commuter.
Who said anything about doing nothing? I think the connectivity between the two states needs improvement. I just think the way the current project is scoped and the options on the table don’t pencil out given the way the world is changing.
nuovorecord Says: “In other words, CRC staff analysis for demand growth uses a projected oil price of $59 per barrel in 2030. (Crude oil prices closed today at more than twice that price — $126.62 per barrel after trading over $135 last week).”
wweek.com/wwire/?p=12056
They’re figuring oil will be $59/barrel in 2030 and basing the demand modeling off of that??? I’m speechless.
JK: Here’s how you get to $59/bbl in 2030:
* Oil stays at $120-150 for a few years.
* People buy lots of plug in hybrids and maintain their current travel habits at lower cost, using far less oil.
*Producers find lots of new oil sources that are economically viable at over $50/bbl and make a killing. These include Canadian tar sands, Montana whatever and oil from coal.
* But demand has dropped due to the conversion to more efficient cars as supply has increased.
Result (per basic economic theory, of which the chicken littles are ignorant) is a drop of price until the reduced demand matches the increased supply.
Who knows, maybe even back to $10/bbl as OPEC is broken by new supply that is forced to produce all they can at any price to pay off the debt used to build the new plants.
The other scenario, is like what happened 35 years ago: inflation will take the $130 down to $30 (picking a # from thin air) at the expense of people who have life savings.
Or a combination of both.
The only way that truly awful things will happen, as history has shown time after time, is if government tries some quick fix.
I recall the gas lines of the 1970s when there were price controls on gas. Some smart person brought in gas from Canada and sold it at free market price – no shortage – no gas lines. But you had to pay a market price.
It’s a little like those news stories you hear from time to time, after a natural disaster, about profiteers who bring flashlights, water and food into areas after an earthquake or other natural disaster and charge high prices. The news generally calls them vermin for making a killing off of people in need.
Of course the other choice is that theses people stay home and the people in need stay in need – no light – no water and no food. Which is best (those are the only two choices)?
Thanks
JK
JK speculates that oil prices might go down significantly in the future, in part, if: “People buy lots of plug in hybrids and maintain their current travel habits at lower cost, using far less oil.”
The problem with this theory is that other developing economies are out there with large populations which are rapidly consuming more and more oil per capita (China, India, etc.), putting pressure on world markets.
If everyone in the USA (who could benefit based on current habits and needs) started driving plug-in hybrids, we’d still consume more oil than current easily-tapped domestic sources, and world demand continues to increase, so I highly doubt there will be a significant price-sinking drop in demand.
Any long-term dip in real oil costs is going to have to come from the supply side, and as easily-obtained reserve discoveries continue to diminish (my prediction), I don’t see that happening.
A (possible) re-strengthened dollar, new fuel sources (sustainable bio-fuels), plug-in hybrids, etc., will help (some) consumers weather the storm, but I continue to think that storm is coming. Best we be ready for it in advance.
(As an aside, it’s fun to stumble across old articles about hybrids which state that there’s no economic payoff to owning one with gas at $2/gallon…)
Another opinion about oil prices: George Soros, in a recent interview in the UK’s Daily Telegraph, thinks that current oil prices are at least partly because of a speculation bubble. Unfortunately, if he’s right, he thinks this bubble will burst and oil prices will come down because of massive recessions about to hit the US and UK.
The other part of the problem with JK’s theory is that it doesn’t mesh with his “cost per mile” estimates. With the average age of cars on the road being 7 years old, even if we only bought hybrids from now on, (we aren’t,) it would take 14 years to double the fuel economy. So if we are all going to be using plug in hybrids in a few years, then we are going to have to spend a ton of money on new cars. And by ton I’m talking $48k/car (the estimated street price of the Chevrolet Volt,) even though it isn’t even going into production until 2010, and the initial run will only be 10,000, or 0.16% of the yearly car market. To put that ton number into more perspective: Right now the average person spends $2000/year on gasoline with $4/gallon and a 25 mpg car, and you’d need to pay $3200/year for the Volt assuming 0% interest for 15 years. It is $6-8/gallon gasoline that makes the Volt cost effective against keeping an old car.
My personal issue though: OPEC’s internal demand growth, (i.e. how much of the oil they produce that they end up use themselves,) keeps going up. By 2012, if present trends continue, Iran will be importing oil. By 2015, Saudi Arabia will be importing oil, (although one has to ask: from where?) I expect that we’ll be free of foreign oil before 2020, not because we’ve actually done anything about it, but because there will no longer be any to buy on the international market anyways. And if we have to rely on what we produce in this country, we are going to be taking more public transit and bicycles, and a whole lot less cars regardless of how efficient they are.
Bob R. Says: The problem with this theory is that other developing economies are out there with large populations which are rapidly consuming more and more oil per capita (China, India, etc.), putting pressure on world markets.
If everyone in the USA (who could benefit based on current habits and needs) started driving plug-in hybrids, we’d still consume more oil than current easily-tapped domestic sources, and world demand continues to increase, so I highly doubt there will be a significant price-sinking drop in demand.
JK: Please give us some solid numbers to support your speculation. Otherwise you are just repeating alarmist rhetoric.
Bob R. Says: (As an aside, it’s fun to stumble across old articles about hybrids which state that there’s no economic payoff to owning one with gas at $2/gallon…)
JK: Why is looking at reality something unusual?
Bob R. Says: Unfortunately, if he’s right, he thinks this bubble will burst and oil prices will come down because of massive recessions about to hit the US and UK.
JK: Please clarify which is “unfortunate” the lowering of oil prices or the “massive recessions”
Thanks
JK
Matthew Says: The other part of the problem with JK’s theory is that it doesn’t mesh with his “cost per mile” estimates.
JK: What is to mesh? My cost per mile estimates are based on real, recent past costs.
The above post is one conceivable scenario. It contains NO cost per mile speculation.
PS: at no time did I propose a theory.
FYI: a theory is a well established scientific fact, not a speculation or hypophysis.
Thanks
JK
Please give us some solid numbers to support your speculation. Otherwise you are just repeating alarmist rhetoric.
From the CIA World Factbook:
China:
Oil – production: 3.73 million bbl/day (2007 est.)
Oil – consumption: 6.93 million bbl/day (2007 est.)
Oil – exports: 79,060 bbl/day (2007)
Oil – imports: 3.19 million bbl/day (2007)
India:
Oil – production: 834,600 bbl/day (2005 est.)
Oil – consumption: 2.438 million bbl/day (2005 est.)
Oil – exports: 350,000 bbl/day (2005 est.)
Oil – imports: 2.098 million bbl/day (2004 est.)
Both countries are already importing significantly more oil from world markets than they are producing domestically.
I don’t have a link to a graph of year-over-year consumption, but this site claims China’s oil consumption is increasing by 7.5% per year, and their rates of automobile ownership are increasing even more rapidly.
Why is looking at reality something unusual?
Because those original articles didn’t take into account the probability (one way or another) of rising gas prices. People who bought hybrids early, aside from simply wanting to consume less and pollute less for a given driving pattern, were also hedging against future increases in gas prices. It looks like those early bets paid off.
Please clarify which is “unfortunate” the lowering of oil prices or the “massive recessions”
Sheesh, JK, what do you think I meant? Good grief.
Of course, the beauty of the oil market is that you can buy/sell futures, today. If you really think we’ll be $10/bbl in a post-OPEC world, you can make a killing by trading in oil futures.
As for Matthew’s comments, I think he’s spot on… if you are going to assume that oil prices will come down quickly as a result of a widespread shift to plug-in hybrids, you have to assume that people will be buying a lot of new cars a lot faster than they do now, which does drive up the cost-per-mile under any formula.
Here is the China data on the EIA’s website:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_data.cfm?fips=CH
In 2000 they consumed 4.8 MB/day, in 2006 they consumed 7.2 MB/day. That is a growth rate of 7%.
I’ve got another theory:
A lot of governments (including China and India) subsidize fuel for their citizens, and those governments are spending larger and larger percentages of their budgets on oil. If they stop subsidizing it, the citizens will revolt and the government will fall, but if they continue, they’ll default on their international bonds, their currency will collapse, and then they won’t be able to buy oil, (and then citizens will revolt and the governments will fall.) Either way, that should lower oil demand, which will lower prices, but given how closely linked our economy is with the rest of the world, the lower fuel prices might have to be balanced out with higher costs for everything else that we used to buy from those countries but we can’t anymore because they are in the middle of a civil war…
I don’t know how likely that theory is: The US will default on our international debt long before China does unless oil shoots up far higher, and so in either case, (more expensive oil, or our currency collapsing as a result of us defaulting on our debt,) we’ll be looking at much more expensive oil than we have now…
All i’m saying is, my shopping list includes:
500 pounds of rice
a solar or hand crank generator
an AM transmitter
a 9mm handgun
500 pounds of rice
Buy it now, the price is going up (like oil) in part because the dollar isn’t worth much right now. That one factor alone is a huge part of oil and gas price increases.
If the dollar gains on the Euro significantly the price of oil will fall fairly rapidly for us.
Oh, and I’d re-think the 9mm. You can do much better for protecting your generator and rice.
“””500 pounds of rice
a solar or hand crank generator
an AM transmitter
a 9mm handgun””””
And how long do you think that will keep you alive?
Better to just use the gun on yourself and get it over with fast!
Al,
I suspect you don’t consider yourself a black humorist,
but you are excellent at it.
mrb-
Yea, I am guilty of excessive use of sarcasm, it gets me into a lot of trouble!
However, there are plenty of scenarios that make suicide a viable option.
I’d rather be dead than living in a Nazi state for example.
If they start carting off “Jews” and everybody just goes on about their business as if nothing is happening, better to be dead than living in a world like that.
There is a famous quote, I can only paraphrase it but it goes something like this;
“if you don’t have ethics/principles that you are willing to die for then you are not fit to be alive”
As humans we can make that choice, death is nothing to fear as far as I am concerned.
Its the final outcome in any event.
Al