George Will Criticizes Transportation Secretary for Praising Portland


Apparently our New Urbanism is “metastasizing” to the rest of the country, according to Will.


118 responses to “George Will Criticizes Transportation Secretary for Praising Portland”

  1. He’s got some good points in that article.

    The point of over regulation is a good one.

    Things are not getting better in Portland, in case y’all haven’t noticed.

    The government is sticking its fingers in all the wrong pots.

    The pots that government should be sticking its fingers in are being left to boil over and potentially burn down the house.

  2. George Will’s piece is quite welcome — there has been an epidemic lately of glowing articles, lifestyle pieces, and travel guides from alternative rags like the New York Times.

    George is well-respected amongst the hipster/slacker/dungaree crowd, and based on his word, the influx of people we are experiencing will now be abated.

  3. If George Will is criticizing Portland–good for us.

    Will is such a waste. He’s a brilliant mind, which he could put to good use as an intellectual leader of a revitalized conservativism. Instead, he only deigns to be a highbrow Rush Limbaugh–repeating screed after screed, dogma after dogma, lie after lie–and giving the Limbaughs and Coulters of the world a veneer of respectability, when the same sewage spills forth from his pen–albeit in a nicer package.

    Really, nothing new to see here–just more gripes about “liberal tyranny” and such, from one of Bush/Cheney’s most stalwart defenders (up until the time Will threw B/C under the bus). Never mind–busses are “socialism”; and Will wouldn’t stoop to throwing anybody underneath one.

  4. It subverted their agenda of expanding government—meaning their—supervision of other people’s lives.

    I am continually baffled that people actually think this is part of the “liberal agenda.”

  5. George Will: It subverted their agenda of expanding government—meaning their—supervision of other people’s lives.

    Grant: I am continually baffled that people actually think this is part of the “liberal agenda.”

    And I’m continually baffled that people continue to make this argument (which is, after all, little more than an attempt to tie mainstream liberalism with communism and other forms of extremist leftism) with a straight face, after the past eight years. It ain’t the liberals that I’m afraid of busting down my door, that’s for damn sure.

  6. George Will really has cracked. I particularly like the claim that liberals hate cars because we hate people having the freedom to be peripatetic. It’s typical of the claims regularly made by neoconservatives about liberals — never mind that there is absolutely zero evidence to support it, as long as it makes liberals look evil and/or ridiculous.

  7. Will is a shill. This tired “car = freedom” line is pathetic. How free are the thousands who have been killed or injured by the auto? How free is the commuter who spends an average two years of life sitting still in traffic? How free are the flood and fire victims? How free are the soldiers losing their limbs and sanity in hopeless oil and gas-pipeline wars? How free is the urban worker who rides the bus everyday and gets rotten service because transit mismanagement benefits the oil-auto-sprawl industry. How free are taxpayers who are bailing out the unsustainable auto-industry. How free are we-the-people who tell pollsters we want transit, but can’t get our politicians to even mention it? How free are news consumers who have to listen to the constant barrage of lies about the “love affair” with the auto.

  8. I just don’t understand his logic. Government intervention and oversight created the interstate system…

  9. I just don’t understand his logic. Government intervention and oversight created the interstate system…

    And the US Highway network before it. The feds have been funding roads since the 1920’s. The last time the federal government wasn’t building roads was in the 1910’s when local governments were funding them, like the first version of the Columbia River Highway.

    You’d think he could have caught up with the past 100 years or so by now.

  10. Let know one accuse George Will of letting facts get in the way of his belief system.

    This is from Matthew Yglesias:

    “Will claims to find it unbelievable that as many as 0.01 percent of Americans would ever bike to work regularly. But rather than tossing off ridicule, he might have looked up the Census Bureau’s statistics on commuting patterns and seen that right now 0.4 percent of commuters normally get to work on bicycles. Now that’s a small percentage. But it’s forty times larger than a percentage that Will deems unrealistically utopian. This would be like saying Dwight Howard is 2 feet tall.”

    http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/05/george-wills-irritable-mental-gestures.php

    Amazing that Will gets away with such a disregard for the facts.

    And now I’m extra happy to live in Portland, a place that obviously bothers the guy to no end :)

  11. George Will is criticizing considerably more than just the Transportation Secretary for Praising Portland. Will is criticizing the undemocratic socialist movement within government that endeavors to control the lifestyles, transportation and housing choices of the people. Portland was mentioned because it is on the forefront of this socialist movement with undoubtedly one of the most progressively socialist agendas in the country. Will’s comments which illustrate an accurate definition of social engineering are right on target. And for you non-believers of social engineering; it is refreshing to read such a well written article by such a renown journalist who can actually see past the politically motivated and generated smokescreen the environmental social engineers are creating. Maybe this is the beginning of a public outcry and uprising that will bring back the freedoms this country, this state and this city were founded upon.

  12. Pray tell TP, what wasn’t socialist about the highway movement in the 50s?

    Not to mention, how dare they collect gas taxes user fees at a federal level and redistribute them to low growth population areas like Alaska?

    Ah rights, social engineering. This concept has no better testing grounds than any other typical suburban sprawl development; where any form of alternative transportation is designed against and people are forced to drive because there is of no viable option and zoned minimum density.

    I just find it so funny that:

    a) you accuse Portland/mass transit as “social engineering” but completely avoid criticism of conventional suburbia’s massive social engineering

    b) praise this article but completely avoid the “socialist” highway.

    I tell ya what, the highways in the US are about as red as the trains in China.

  13. Portland was mentioned because it is on the forefront of this socialist movement with undoubtedly one of the most progressively socialist agendas in the country.

    I heard there is this guy in Portland who advocates restricting people’s ability to produce offspring (presumably through forced sterilization). I also heard that same guy thinks we should restrict internal migration in the U.S. (presumably through military force).

    Add those 2 ideas to the notion of painting some bike lanes, and you’re right Terry, this town is downright nutty!

  14. “Maybe this is the beginning of a public outcry and uprising that will bring back the freedoms this country, this state and this city were founded upon.”

    I’m certain that it is, but not in the manner you, Terry, were envisioning. ;)

  15. Amazing that Will gets away with such a disregard for the facts.

    Oddly I just posted the same thought about that on my blog. I’m also now sure he’s never been to the Portland or the Pearl District, since he seems to think nobody would ever want to live somewhere without a backyard.

    Aren’t Manhattan high-rise penthouses also pretty expensive? They don’t typically have backyards either.

    And: Portland was mentioned because it is on the forefront of this socialist movement…

    May I ask the definition of “socialist” in that sentence? I even checked Merriam Webster, but I’m still confused. Is Sam Adams going to take all my stuff away?

  16. Via BlueOregon, Earl Blumenauer has informally invited George Will to come to Portland for a debate. BlueOregon’s calling it a “Bowtie Summit”.

  17. “Maybe this is the beginning of a public outcry and uprising that will bring back the freedoms this country, this state and this city were founded upon.”

    I think many people DID move out to Oregon (here) to get away from the culture wars of the east. Those wars have been going on for a long time. (I’m not picking sides here, just saying)

    It seems that if we are going to keep looking to Europe for transportation ideas we should also be looking at how they do it cost-effectively. Somehow, it is hard for me to imagine that countries like Poland, Hungary, Romania, or E. Germany have ever had a lot of money to spend on urban mass transit—regardless of what sort of government they had.

  18. In many cases, “cost-effectively” depends on several things:

    1) Autos are expensive, prohibitively so; so the trains and busses are usually full. It would be interesting to compare transit occupancy rates in many places.

    2) In many parts of the world, safety standards differ or are neglected altogether. It seems not a month goes by that we don’t hear of train crashes killing dozens in places like India–it seems to be an accepted fact of life, much as auto wrecks are here (we kill commuters in smaller batches, it seems). Also, the FRA basically requires that anything that runs on the freight rail network be built like a tank–many other rail regulatory agencies focus more on avoiding crashes than surviving them.

    3) “Social service” transport (door-to-door transport for the disabled, etc) is also an issue–while I think its a good thing to consider doing; perhaps it should be accounted for separately?

    4) Labor costs are frequently lower; red tape to add infrastructure is lower (no EIS and such), and so on.

  19. Somehow, it is hard for me to imagine that countries like Poland, Hungary, Romania, or E. Germany have ever had a lot of money to spend on urban mass transit—regardless of what sort of government they had.

    Large parts of those networks were built with funding from Moscow, essentially as part of an economic and defense network for the Eastern Bloc. While we were spending money on the IHS, the Soviets were building a massive rail network.

    After a little reading on Romania, it looks like their highest transportation goal by 2013 is to increase their motorway network by about 400% in km (from 280 to about 1250.)

    Of course, they also only have an estimated 3.2 million cars for 21.5 million people.

    Besides the points that Scotty made, there’s also the simple fact that they’ve been investing in their rail networks extensively and continuously, while we Americans were slacking off building the Interstate Highway network.

  20. Well, even if the Kremlin did have to foot the bill for that network (how they raised the necessary funds I am not going to get into) I still can’t help but wonder how much of their budget they appropriated for things like streetcars and buses. I suppose a more accurate way to look at it might be; how many manhours of labor are represented per mile in a Budapest streetcar line? That would be one way of measuring the comparable costs between us and them. I’m sure they know how to build them.

    The point I am trying to make is: Does the amount that Portland spends for rail transit equate to what the rest of the world has to spend? I know you cannot compare the actual costs side by side because labor is so much cheaper elsewhere. That’s why I suggested calculating the investment of time per measurable section. Not that I really want to do the research.

  21. “what wasn’t socialist about the highway movement in the 50s?”

    The Interstate Highway system not only aided the transport of goods in a free market, but it also expanded our individual freedoms by opening up this country to a more individual form of travel without time schedules and specified routes. That can hardly be considered socialist controls.

  22. Terry Parker:The Interstate Highway system not only aided the transport of goods in a free market

    No, it didn’t because railroads are 100% private and received no government help in funding its infrastructure and maintenance.

    The trucking industry got a huge heads up by having its trucks on a non-taxed ROW. The only taxes they owed were user fees, and they paid very little on the heels of pleasure cars which had to pay similar taxes.

    The interstate system was complete market manipulation by the government, and a direct subsidy to the trucking industry.

    Article from 1924:

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,717960,00.html

  23. To add to Will’s article piece. There’s nothing resembling “New Urbanism” in Portland, it’s just good urbanism.

  24. Expanding from “Portland”/city-of to “Portland”/metro area, places like Orenco Station are arguably “New Urbanism” and tout themselves as such.

    But places inside the city, such as the Pearl District, are definitely “urban urban”. :-)

    The success of places like Bridgeport Village, a private reproduction of a walkable town center, candy-coated to be sure, indicates that there is at least a partial market for walkable, urban places, even in the suburbs, even if you have to drive to them in order to subsequently walk around.

  25. I have to say, Orenco is one of my favorite New Urbanist communities that I have seen, while we are on the topic.

    I think I have the same reaction to Bridgeport Village as you do. It’s so faux but at least addresses something absent in people’s lives: pedestrianism. I just cannot get over the numerous architectural sins that have been committed there. I actually like internalized malls, just not the ones in the middle of nowhere surrounded by miles of asphalt.

    I think the success of such places like Disneyland is proof that people enjoy walkable environments, and that even if people do live in autotopia, that does not mean they necessarily enjoy only driving places.

  26. Orenco & Bridgeport.

    Which got the most subsidies?

    Which was designed with little input from government planners?

    Don’t forget that masterpiece of Perfectly Planned Portland’s Planning, Cascade station 1.0. A complete failure. Nothing was built. Nothing. A complete repudiation of Portland’s anti car planning.

    Of course another repudiation of Portland’s planing is the fact that Vancouver residents drive less than Portland area residents (per person.)

    Thanks
    JK

  27. jimkarlock Says: Don’t forget that masterpiece of Perfectly Planned Portland’s Planning, Cascade station 1.0. A complete failure. Nothing was built. Nothing. A complete repudiation of Portland’s anti car planning.

    You need to get out more, jk. In fact, you should get in your car and drive out to Cascades Station first thing today and then get back to us about “nothing”.

    Of course another repudiation of Portland’s planing is the fact that Vancouver residents drive less than Portland area residents (per person.)

    Where would they go?

  28. I think JK is referring to:

    This Table
    and
    This Graph

    The report (published by Metro) shows a per-capita VMT per capita for the Portland Metro area (including Vancouver) of 19.5, with a VMT per capita for Portland (excluding Vancouver) of 20.0.

    At first glance, that would seem to support the claim that Vancouver residents drive less.

    But in fact, that’s not what the numbers mean. I contacted the author of the table to confirm: The numbers are based on the individual state departments of transportation of miles driven in those jurisdictions, divided by the population in those areas.

    In other words, if a Vancouver resident drives in to Portland, that adds to Portland’s VMT, not Vancouver’s.

    Because more Vancouver residents work and shop in Portland than vice versa, this means that Vancouver residents are increasing Portland’s VMT numbers.

    So it is not actually correct to use this data to claim that “Vancouver residents drive less than Portland area residents”.

  29. Regarding Cascade Station, JK did indicate “1.0” in his comment, which may mean the original master plan for the area, which was indeed very slow to develop until the plan was revised and standards for square footage (“big box”) relaxed.

    What is interesting to me is that despite the adjustment toward more retail and more big-box, the area is now developing upward with a few multi-story office designs and hotels more in keeping with the original plan, and even the big-box is of a different character. Ikea, for example, though it is large and surrounded by parking, requires far fewer parking spaces per square foot for this store than for comparable stores elsewhere in the US.

  30. Ws said: “No, it didn’t because railroads are 100% private and received no government help in funding its infrastructure and maintenance”

    Not true. Back up a few decades to the 1800’s when the railroads received massive federal land grants. The O&C timberlands are just one example. The railroads are still benefiting from those grants.

    “The trucking industry got a huge heads up by having its trucks on a non-taxed ROW. The only taxes they owed were user fees, and they paid very little on the heels of pleasure cars which had to pay similar taxes.”

    It is the user fees – weight mile taxes and fuel taxes – that has paid for the interstate highway infrastructure.

    “The interstate system was complete market manipulation by the government, and a direct subsidy to the trucking industry.”

    Again not true. It allowed more freedom of choice. If anything is manipulative, it is using motorist and motor freight taxes and fees – including fuel taxes – to pay for bicycle infrastructure and subsidize transit. Moreover, with new national fuel efficiency and tailpipe standards on the horizon, the need is even greater for a bicycle tax (so bicyclists pay their own way) and increased transit fares that better reflect the system construction and operational costs.

    Dave H asked: “May I ask the definition of “socialist” in that sentence? Is Sam Adams going to take all my stuff away?”

    As used, it is a person or persons that want to control the lifestyle choices of the people, including our transportation choices (how we move about) and housing choices (where we live and what type of dwelling we live in). What Sam wants to do is take away is some of our choices – in some cases by over taxing some choices to subsidize others.

  31. As used, it is a person or persons that want to control the lifestyle choices of the people

    Why make up new definitions like that?

    Don’t you see how by using a completely made-up definition for “socialist” you’re alienating any audience you might help to persuade?

    It’s completely inaccurate at best, misleading in many ways.

    Tip: People in this state have been trying (sometimes with success) to take away my rights and get the state involved in my “lifestyle choices” for years, but they’re generally self-described as “Conservatives”.

    You’re using such a watered-down definition that _anyone_ who uses the political system to accomplish an end-goal which involves some kind of human activity is a “socialist”.

  32. To Terry Parker:

    This isn’t about user fees or non users fees. The interstate system at the time was consider by many railroad leaders to be a “socialistic” endeavor because the industry received government intervention where RRs were mostly private and paid taxes to the government, and funded their own construction and maintenance without being able to tax RR goods like the highways did (tires, gas, etc.).

    YES, RR’s had land grants, but the entire “manifest destiny” westward-ho expansion was essentially a land grant. Farming operations got land grants too, free land, etc.

    Overall, RR were and still are a private adventure.

  33. al m said:

    “Things are not getting better in Portland, in case y’all haven’t noticed.”

    >>>> You’re right–it looks like the transit system here is getting more and more screwed up. Look at what’s happening to the #14 bus, for instance. Starting 9/24, it will be more inconvenient for me to get from places along Hawthorne to the NW District.

    Why Trimet wants to butcher one of its best lines is beyond me. Remember, the more dysfuctional the transit system gets around here, the more ammunition the anti-transit crowd is given.

  34. Bob,

    As per Webster, one definition of “socialism” is as follows: “any various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and the distribution of goods’

    The word “collectivism”, as the word “collective” applies in the definition of socialism is defined by Webster as: “political or economic theory advocating collective control esp. over production and distribution or a system marked by such control”

    “Administration of the means of production or advocating the control over production” can apply to the types of housing constructed including the application of tax subsidies, and (means of or control over) “the distribution of goods” can also apply to services and thereby controlling the individual transport mode choices people make to move about.

    Another definition of socialism by Webster is similar: “a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state”

    The key similarly throughout all the definitions is the word “control” or the phrase “controlled by the state” – the word “state” meaning the government. Therefore, it is appropriately descriptive using the words “socialist” or “socialism” when referring to the government, groups or politicians acting to promote the “control”, controls or even the manipulation including behavior changes that relate to lifestyles and/or the transportation and housing choices of the people.

    People who often advocate for such controls for what ever reason often do not want to believe and are blind to the suggestion it is the promotion of socialism.

  35. Just one other note: Unlike the controls, tax codes and controls being applied in Portland to get people out of their cars, nobody is being forced to travel on or even use the interstate highway system. It is a choice that has been offered not mandated.

  36. Terry if you don’t provide any “choices” than you are mandating what people do. For example, try getting to an LA Dodgers baseball game without driving.

  37. It is a choice that has been offered not mandated.

    If I want to walk or ride my bike on those interstate highways, in most urban areas, including Portland, I am barred for doing so, and I will be cited and/or arrested.

    Interstate highways which were set up from a trust fund seeded with billions of general fund dollars, not user fees.

    What’s that about freedom and choice again?

    (Yes, there’s one day a year in which a few lanes of freeway are closed for a few hours for the Bridge Pedal event. The remaining 99.8% of the year, no.)

  38. Terry, your Webster quote is indeed a definition of socialism, but it is drastically different than your personal definition which you keep insisting we should all go along with.

    You’re practicing linguistic socialism.

    It’s not cromulent Terry, not cromulent at all.

  39. The comment above about Orenco being a New Urbanist success story is a little misleading. The most successful part of Orenco is the shopping center with Winco and Kohls. It is always packed, but it is nowhere near Max nor is it easy to walk to yet it is a park of Orenco.

  40. TP: “Administration of the means of production or advocating the control over production” can apply to the types of housing constructed including the application of tax subsidies, and (means of or control over) “the distribution of goods” can also apply to services and thereby controlling the individual transport mode choices people make to move about.

    No, Terry, they really can’t be applied like that. These are very clear words that define a very clear ideology that has nothing to do with your dislike of Portland’s government. You don’t get to just pluck words out of the air at random and redefine them to suit your own argument.

    “Means of production” is an integral part of Marx’s theories, with very specific meanings about the relationship of capitalists and the proletariat.

    Try a new word. I think I suggested “totalitarian” to you before. It’s hyperbolic, but at least it isn’t completely at odds with your point.

  41. Terry’s “definition” isn’t Terry’s (which I’m sure most of you are aware)–many on the political right have been using the word “socialism” to refer to any sort of liberal ideology for years.

    Obama’s tax proposals were mocked during the campaign as “socialism”, even though they have nothing to do with means of production and such.

    And of course, the word also gets applied to the worst forms of totalitarian communism–many communits countries preferred the world “socialism” to describe themselves.

    It’s a word that nowadays means everything–it’s a term which is a tool of deliberate obfuscation; one which permits the speaker to equate moderately-literal democratic (small d) politicians to Stalinism and such. And words that mean everything–mean nothing.

    Quit denouncing things as “socialist”, especially when they have little to do with who owns industry, the key concern of real socialists. It makes you look like a tool.

  42. Congratulations to Al, Terry, and Ron who’s posts here made the 5:30 KOIN news.

    A duck getting shot was channel 2’s top story at noon. A duck. It got shot.

    I’m sorry, how is a duck getting shot news worthy in any market?

  43. Thanks, Dave… Looks like EngineerScotty’s post got featured as well, although his screen name wasn’t fully visible in the piece.

  44. Looks like EngineerScotty’s post got featured as well, although his screen name wasn’t fully visible in the piece.

    I guess it was what I saw on the corner of the screen. It’s not Mr. Ferguson’s Oops Craig Did it Again, but it’s better than the Fox 12 News @ 10 on a Saturday. It embiggened me, as a Simpsons fan.

    Yes, I know it’s not always cromulent to be a David X Cohen fan.

  45. Jeff F Says: jimkarlock Says: Don’t forget that masterpiece of Perfectly Planned Portland’s Planning, Cascade station 1.0. A complete failure. Nothing was built. Nothing. A complete repudiation of Portland’s anti car planning.

    You need to get out more, jk. In fact, you should get in your car and drive out to Cascades Station first thing today and then get back to us about “nothing”.
    JK: You are referring to Cascade station AFTER the planning zealots gave up on their original fantasy and allowed the mainstream, efficient, low cost money saving stores that people actually want, instead of the crap the planners tried to force on us. Yet another example of the planners being out of touch with reality.

    As to me needing to get out more – I was there just this afternoon, but you need to learn a bit more of local history.

    Thanks
    JK

  46. It looks like Obama is going to get people killed to reduce CO2:

    The National Academy of Sciences, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Congressional Budget Office and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have separately concluded in multiple studies dating back about 20 years that fuel-economy standards force automakers to build more small cars, which has led to thousands more deaths in crashes annually. Even though the standards were updated in recent years to reduce the incentive for automakers to sell more small cars by allowing different fuel-economy targets for different vehicles, the fastest way to make cars more fuel-efficient is to make them smaller.

    Some safety experts worry that the administration’s green focus could reverse progress made in reducing the highway death toll. The fatality rate in car crashes reached its lowest ever in 2007 and is projected to drop even lower for 2008 — to 1.28 deaths per 100 million miles traveled.

    President Obama this month withdrew the name of his nominee to lead the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, longtime safety advocate Charles “Chuck” Hurley, after an outcry from environmentalists over Hurley’s statements linking fuel-economy rules to highway deaths.

    from: usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-05-19-auto-safety-small-cars_N.htm

  47. jimkarlock Says: As to me needing to get out more – I was there just this afternoon, but you need to learn a bit more of local history.

    I’m doing fine just living it, thanks.

    Before going off on another diatribe about planners, keep in mind there was one particular event that happened a few days before the planned grand opening of the Red Line.

  48. It looks like Obama is going to get people killed to reduce CO2:

    Gee, JK, in another thread, you were just exclaiming the new fuel efficiency standards as a great and wonderful thing which was going to trump transit.

    BHO is reportedly set to mandate automobile efficiency standards of 47mpg average. This will end the debate about the best way to save energy, reduce CO2 and reduce foreign oil imports. Hands down it will be to encourage people to abandon transit and save money, energy,CO2 and oil by driving a new car!!

    That was less than 72 hours ago. Are you now against the fuel economy proposal? Or were you always against it, but just using it at the time to bash transit? (Your denials of cherry-picking notwithstanding.)

    But since we’re on the topic of deaths related to fuel consumption standards, care to work out how many people die around the world in conflicts related to oil? Care to work out how many people die from respiratory-related illnesses from living near freeways?

  49. Before going off on another diatribe about planners, keep in mind there was one particular event that happened a few days before the planned grand opening of the Red Line.

    It was one day after the opening, I recall.

  50. Jeff said: Before going off on another diatribe about planners, keep in mind there was one particular event that happened a few days before the planned grand opening of the Red Line.

    Bob R. said: It was one day after the opening, I recall.

    The Grand Opening was scheduled for Friday.

    [Moderator: Attributions corrected.]

  51. Jeff F Says: Before going off on another diatribe about planners,
    JK: Why not? Planners clearly are wrong on most of the things they tell us. Cascade station was just another in a long line of failed promises. Add The Round as another clear failure.

    Contrary to planners claims:
    High density DOES NOT reduce traffic congestion.
    High density DOES NOT reduce pollution.
    High density DOES NOT more.
    Mass transit costs more than cars per passenger-mile.
    High density DOES NOT reduce commute times.
    Land use controls increase housing costs.
    Light rail kills people at a higher rate than cars.
    Most people DO NOT want to live in high density.
    Light rail dose not cause development, the government incentives do.

    Jeff F Says: keep in mind there was one particular event that happened a few days before the planned grand opening of the Red Line.
    JK: Terrorists killed 3000 people when they targeted the highest density of people they could find. (Terrorists don’t target low density areas when they want to kill the maximum number of people.)

    Thanks
    JK

  52. High density DOES NOT reduce traffic congestion.

    On a per-capita basis, it can. Hit and miss.

    High density DOES NOT reduce pollution.

    On a per-capita basis, it most certainly does.

    High density DOES NOT more.

    What?

    Mass transit costs more than cars per passenger-mile.

    Your assertion and the numbers you ave presented in the past to back this up have been repeatedly debunked.

    High density DOES NOT reduce commute times.

    Incorrect… higher densities improve the likelihood of origin-destination pairs being closer. Put another way: It doesn’t help me to drive at 2X a rate of speed if I have to travel 2.5X as far to my destination.

    Land use controls increase housing costs.

    Debatable. Other costs are also reduced.

    Light rail kills people at a higher rate than cars.

    Never proven. As with your cost-per-passenger-mile figures, your deaths-per-passenger-mile figures are a conflation of different trip types and prove nothing.

    Most people DO NOT want to live in high density.

    And, lucky for you, most people will never have to. Instead, people will have a choice of types, rather than being forced into monolithic suburbs via decades of inflexible zoning laws.

    Light rail dose not cause development, the government incentives do.

    So you say.

  53. Bob R. Says: Tip: People in this state have been trying (sometimes with success) to take away my rights and get the state involved in my “lifestyle choices” for years, but they’re generally self-described as “Conservatives”.
    JK: Why don’t you advocate for freedom for all, instead of just freedom for “lifestyle choices”.

    Where do you stand on letting people have freedom to live where they wish, instead of where the state says they can live?

    Where do you stand on letting people choose their mode of travel from a level playing field where each node pays its own way. (Bystanders: don’t give me that subsidized road crap – it is bikes & transit that is subsidized.)

    Where do you stand on letting people carry effective means of self defense?

    Where do you stand on reimbursing people when the state steals most of the value in your property.

    If you do not answer in support of ALL the above rights (and a bunch more), why don’t you explain why we should respect your “lifestyle choices”

    BTW, you can be against the government wasting money and support ALL rights without hating “lifestyle choices”. See LPOregon.org

    Thanks
    JK

  54. JK: Jeff F Says: keep in mind there was one particular event that happened a few days before the planned grand opening of the Red Line.
    JK: Terrorists killed 3000 people when they targeted the highest density of people they could find. (Terrorists don’t target low density areas when they want to kill the maximum number of people.)

    In other words, we should all move to Heppner? But then Heppner would be high-density! Terrorists would bomb us!

    Or was there a point to that comment?

  55. Where do you stand on letting people choose their mode of travel from a level playing field where each node pays its own way.

    I’m all for it. Short of that, I’d like to shift the subsidy balance more toward pedestrians, transit, and bikes, with land-use decisions to match.

    We haven’t been on a “level playing field” regarding surface transportation since as far back as the 30’s, and lots can be done to restore balance.

    (Bystanders: don’t give me that subsidized road crap – it is bikes & transit that is subsidized.)

    Sorry, JK, I’m not a bystander and it’s not “crap”. If you personally wish to ignore all the negative impacts and hidden and overt subsidies for automobiles, no matter how many times they’ve been presented to you, that’s fine, but it doesn’t change reality.

  56. Or was there a point to that comment?

    JK has made a number of comments indirectly critical of air travel recently, I’m not sure why.

  57. Worse than Cascade Station (which with all that vacant land would be a good location for a new ball park), is The Round in Beaverton – taxpayer subsidy after taxpayer subsidy, bankruptcy, law suits, taken over by the city, and still not completed! In other words, just another expensive political ploy funded by taxpayers.

  58. Bob R. Says: That was less than 72 hours ago. Are you now against the fuel economy proposal?
    JK: Did I ever say I supported it? You appear to be jumping to conclusions, maybe even questioning my motives.

    Bob R. Says: Or were you always against it, but just using it at the time to bash transit?
    JK: It is always best to use the opponent’s data, positions and arguments against them. I am against mandate of most kinds, but find it ironic that the latest mandate, if it succeeds, will end the debate about transit vs, cars with cars (and therefore the public) the winners.

    Bob R. Says: … to work out how many people die around the world in conflicts related to oil?
    JK: That is why we need to “drill here, drill now” and do nuclear, nuclear coal->liquid etc.

    Bob R. Says: Care to work out how many people die from respiratory-related illnesses from living near freeways?
    JK: Why don’t you find us a credible source for this. (That lets out the “green” multinationals and transit advocacy groups.)

    Thanks
    JK

  59. High density DOES NOT reduce traffic congestion.
    Bob R. Says: On a per-capita basis, it can. Hit and miss.
    JK: Then why are the highest density areas, the most congested? NYC, HongKong, London.

    High density DOES NOT reduce pollution.
    Bob R. Says: On a per-capita basis, it most certainly does.
    JK: But it concentrates the pollution where the people are – making the habituated areas the most polluted. Is that what you want to reduce pollution by concentrating it where people live?

    Mass transit costs more than cars per passenger-mile.
    Bob R. Says: Your assertion and the numbers you ave presented in the past to back this up have been repeatedly debunked.
    JK: Absolutely NOT true. You keep picking nits but have not been able to attack the overall conclusion that overall, mass transit costs more than driving. Few exceptions include very high density areas like Tokyo.

    High density DOES NOT reduce commute times.
    Bob R. Says: Incorrect… higher densities improve the likelihood of origin-destination pairs being closer. Put another way: It doesn’t help me to drive at 2X a rate of speed if I have to travel 2.5X as far to my destination.
    JK: NO, I am talking real data about real cities, not some planners daydream.

    Land use controls increase housing costs.
    Bob R. Says: Debatable. Other costs are also reduced.
    JK: It takes a lot of other costs to overcome land falsely inflated to almost a MILLION an acre.

    Light rail kills people at a higher rate than cars.
    Bob R. Says: Never proven. As with your cost-per-passenger-mile figures, your deaths-per-passenger-mile figures are a conflation of different trip types and prove nothing.
    JK: Wrong again. Just look at local and/or national data. For every passenger-mile carried, there are over double the deaths associated with LRT compared to bus. And that is with out comparing externalites like the mercury, uranium and thorium out in the atmosphere by LRT’s power plants across the country.

    Light rail dose not cause development, the government incentives do.
    Bob R. Says: So you say.
    JK: So said city planners, developers and city council folk when Portland initiated the tax incentives. See Oregonian, October 24, 1996 and debunkingportland.com/Transit/LightRailDevelopment.htm

    Thanks
    JK

  60. Bob R. Says: We haven’t been on a “level playing field” regarding surface transportation since as far back as the 30’s, and lots can be done to restore balance.
    JK: Roads are pretty much a user pays system, unlike transit & bikes where others pay the majority of costs.

    (Bystanders: don’t give me that subsidized road crap – it is bikes & transit that is subsidized.)
    Bob R. Says: Sorry, JK, I’m not a bystander and it’s not “crap”. If you personally wish to ignore all the negative impacts and hidden and overt subsidies for automobiles, no matter how many times they’ve been presented to you, that’s fine, but it doesn’t change reality.
    JK: What are “all the negative impacts and hidden and overt subsidies for automobiles” that don’t also apply to transit? Bus transit uses imported oil too and in large quantities that today’s average car. That means it pollutes more too.

    But my real question is the ones that you didn’t respond to:
    JK: Why don’t you advocate for freedom for all, instead of just freedom for “lifestyle choices”.

    Where do you stand on letting people have freedom to live where they wish, instead of where the state says they can live?

    Where do you stand on letting people carry effective means of self defense?

    Where do you stand on reimbursing people when the state steals most of the value in your property.

    If you do not answer in support of ALL the above rights (and a bunch more), why don’t you explain why we should respect your “lifestyle choices”

    BTW, you can be against the government wasting money and support ALL rights without hating “lifestyle choices”. See LPOregon.org

    thanks
    JK

  61. Thanks JK, I am well aware of your party activism. I checked out the LP many times, for various reasons I won’t go into here, I respectfully disagree with where that party wants to take us.

    As for the rest of your points, you’re just repeating the same debunked stuff, which in past years I’ve posted many paragraphs and many links to many sources. Since you’re being entirely circular about this, I’ll let your comments be the final word in our little argument in this thread (assuming you will, too) and let my past responses stand.

  62. jk: Light rail kills people at a higher rate than cars.
    Bob R. Says: Never proven. As with your cost-per-passenger-mile figures, your deaths-per-passenger-mile figures are a conflation of different trip types and prove nothing.
    JK: Wrong again. Just look at local and/or national data. For every passenger-mile carried, there are over double the deaths associated with LRT compared to bus. And that is with out comparing externalites like the mercury, uranium and thorium out in the atmosphere by LRT’s power plants across the country.

    Already well-refuted by data I posted a link to several months ago. You keep coming up with these phony numbers because you conflate people struck by vehicles with people riding in vehicles. How many LRT passengers have died? For that matter, how many transit passengers in general? As a safe source of transportation either a bus or a train is very clearly safer than an automobile.

  63. I’ve seen the “WES costs $100k per week to run” figure bandied about several times– but I haven’t seen a reliable source cited for that figure (I may have missed it, in case I apologize).

    It’s a figure I find hard to believe–labor and fuel for the service can’t possibly come close to amounting to that much. I’ve heard that insurance is expensive (according to one blog, WPRR is requiring complete indemnification from Tri-Met); but that expensive?

    It kinda sounds like capital expenses, or other acquisition expenses, are being amortized in.

    Can someone enlighten me?

  64. Then why are the highest density areas, the most congested?

    Because there’s so many people there. But, there probably would be even more congestion if everyone there drove at the same rate as people do elsewhere. The thing is that, while NYC may be congested, its not that dire of an issue because a) there’s a lot higher chance that the place you’re trying to go to is closer (meaning that while you may still have to deal with the congestion, you won’t have to do it for as long of a distance) and b) the density makes it feasible to have a very good subway system.

    real data about real cities

    Well, for a real-life example, allowing higher-density housing in/near a central city means that there’s more options for people who work in the central city to actually live closer to their work and, therefore, have shorter commutes.

    Roads are pretty much a user pays system

    Except for things like oil defense, pollution cleanup (e.g. 40% of the Big Pipe), some road projects, “free” parking, …

  65. Jeff F Says: You keep coming up with these phony numbers because you conflate people struck by vehicles with people riding in vehicles.
    JK:
    We count pedestrians killed by cars. Why do you want to ignore pedestrians killed by LRT?
    We count drunks killed by cars. Why do you want to ignore drunks killed by LRT?
    We count people wandering the freeway killed by cars. Why do you want to ignore people wandering the rails killed by LRT?
    When you count ALL DEATHS directly caused by all modes of transportation (that is the way it is done except in the rail apologist world) you find that light rail kills at about 21/2 times the rate of cars. Buses are safer than either. See PortlandFacts.com

    Jeff F Says: How many LRT passengers have died? For that matter, how many transit passengers in general?
    JK: The absolute numbers are low because so few people use transit. About 2% of national milage. We use a ratio deaths per travel, otherwise auto racing would look safe because so few do it.

    Jeff F Says: As a safe source of transportation either a bus or a train is very clearly safer than an automobile.
    JK: Absolutely false. If you really believe that, why not take up mountain climbing – it probably kills less people than transit.

    Thanks
    JK

  66. Then why are the highest density areas, the most congested?
    Jason McHuff Says: Because there’s so many people there. But, there probably would be even more congestion if everyone there drove at the same rate as people do elsewhere. The thing is that, while NYC may be congested, its not that dire of an issue because a) there’s a lot higher chance that the place you’re trying to go to is closer (meaning that while you may still have to deal with the congestion, you won’t have to do it for as long of a distance) and b) the density makes it feasible to have a very good subway system.
    JK: Then why are commute TIMES longer in high density? Or does wasting people’s time not matter to you?

    real data about real cities
    Jason McHuff Says: Well, for a real-life example, allowing higher-density housing in/near a central city means that there’s more options for people who work in the central city to actually live closer to their work and, therefore, have shorter commutes.
    JK: The real data shows longer commute TIMES in higher density.

    Roads are pretty much a user pays system
    Jason McHuff Says: Except for things like oil defense
    JK: Transit uses oil too. Buses use MORE per passenger-mile because they use more energy.

    Jason McHuff Says: pollution cleanup (e.g. 40% of the Big Pipe),
    JK: Due to high density. With suburban density, the solution would have been cheap.

    Jason McHuff Says: some road projects,
    JK: Mostly in urban renewal districts where the city shovels money to developers to get them to build things no one is willing to pay for.

    Jason McHuff Says: “free” parking, …
    JK: Pennies. Around the cost of bank cards. Any store is free to NOT have free parking. Just like the can charge for shopping bags or rent shopping carts. Most have the good sense to do things to attract customers. Unlike city planners.

    Thanks
    JK

  67. Re: WES operating costs

    From the TriMet “Route Ridership Report Weekdays Spring 2009 Quarter” [The report is not online but is available as a Microsoft Excel file on request from TriMet]
    Wes Commuter Rail
    Boarding Rides: 1150
    Cost per ride: $18.57
    Rides per vehicle hour 47.3
    Therefore cost per vehicle hour = $18.57 x 47.3 or $878.361 rounded to $878.36
    and cost per week = 1150 rides per day divided by 47.3 rides per or about 24.31 (service hours per day) x 5 (service days per week) x $878.36 (cost per hour) which equals $106,764.658.

    Assuming for the moment that the average WES rider pays $1.00 per ride [which is about 20% – 25% more than the average MAX/bus riders] then TriMet would net 1150 (riders per day) x 5 (days) x $1 = $6,850 per week leaving TriMet with a weekly operational drain of $99,914.66 to operate WES.

    In all fairness, the April ridership report shows WES gaining 20 additional rides per day to 1170. So WES might just be costing us $99,814.66 per week if the $1.00 revenue estimate per ride is accurate.

    As the hourly cost figures for MAX and bus in the report are about $220 and $93 respectively, it’s safe to assume that these numbers for WES represent operational expenses only.

  68. JK:Pennies. Around the cost of bank cards. Any store is free to NOT have free parking. Just like the can charge for shopping bags or rent shopping carts. Most have the good sense to do things to attract customers. Unlike city planners.

    ws:I don’t believe they can. Parking is mandated by a municipalities’ comprehensive plan. Shopping carts are not.

    If you don’t own a car or drive, you still pay the price in your rent or items you consume – as these costs are just passed off others. In effect, a person who doesn’t drive but lives in a development that had to provide 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit (or whatever) will ultimately pay for it in increased rent costs – and be subsidizing people who do drive – usually ones with higher incomes in the first place.

    If a consumer were given the actual cost that was accrued to provide that parking space, and a choice to pay it, this subsidization of automobiles would not occur.

    Land is expensive, Jim.

    I don’t have a huge issue with businesses wanting to provide free parking as a service to their customers, however, these parking space requirements are mandated by the city and not true market forces.

    Also, curb cuts are dangerous for pedestrians and take up on-street parking spaces. If your business generates many vehicles and keeps cutting across the sidewalk and making walking unsafe, then that is unfair.

    That is why we need planning. Hopefully those types of businesses, the Costcos and such, should be planned in an “auto-dependent” area vs. a neighborhood area.

    Most people agree with planning, it’s just libertarians who don’t because they’re trying to seek relevance in a world beyond being whiny brats at the local public school meeting.

  69. real data shows longer commute TIMES in higher density

    Where did you read that? If someone commutes the same distance in a higher-density as they would somewhere else, then, yes, its possible that their commute times will be longer. But if some of that higher-density consists of housing, than the person has a greater chance of being able to live closer to work. Moreover, if the increased travel times are caused by slower speeds, then that the area surrounding the street is probably more livable.

    Buses use MORE per passenger-mile because they use more energy

    Are you talking about buses that run mostly empty as a social service, for those who may have no other way to get around, or buses that are well utilized and are true mass transit?

    With suburban density, the solution would have been cheap

    Road runoff carries pollutants, whatever density the road is located in. Just go to a parking lot to see all the stuff vehicles leave behind. And moreover, what about air pollution, including the human health problems it can cause?

    Mostly in urban renewal districts

    First of all, the district around the Clakamas Town Center is subsidizing road projects, and that’s hardly a typical urban renewal area. And its paid real road projects like Sunnybrook Blvd–not just ones that mainly benefit bicyclists or pedestrians.

    But many other non-motorist-funded sources go to road projects. Washington County has a Major Street Transportation Improvement Program funded by property taxes and, elsewhere, many are funded by those or sales taxes. In addition, the Interstate Highway System was financed by the Federal government, even if the gas tax covers every dollar that they spend on roads.

    Pennies.

    Are you sure about that? I think virtually every parking meter and private lot charges that. OK, I did spot a lot that charges $1/day (close to pennies/hour), but that was way out on Alberta, where I didn’t see any restrictions on surrounding street parking (and I have a feeling that the property owners don’t plan on the parking being the permanent use)

    Any store is free to NOT have free parking.

    I believe if you look in the zoning codes, parking often actually is required. And if everybody else is required to have parking, it doesn’t make sense for one store to charge for it. Plus, other laws and regulations can encourage the type of development that basically requires parking for it to work.

  70. Regarding deaths caused by accidents involving transit vehicles vs those caused by accidents involving private vehicles–many such deaths aren’t accidents, but suicides. Do the statistics cited by JK include people who kill themselved by deliberately walking in front of trains (or busses, trucks, or cars)?

    Walking in front of a speeding train (whether a transit vehicle, Amtrak, freight) is a particularly effective way to off oneself, if one is so inclined. Trains cannot dodge the suicide; they generally cannot stop it time–and the impact is almost always fatal, and instantaneously so. Jumping in front of a speeding car is far more likely to be unsuccessful.

    I’d wager that at least half of those struck by MAX are on the tracks intentionally.

    I apologize for continuing a macabre discussion, but the “light rail is a killing machine” myth needs debunking.

  71. JK:Then why are commute TIMES longer in high density? Or does wasting people’s time not matter to you?

    ws:Commute times via what mode of transport?

    Dense cities have congestion because there’s more people, but even low dense cities have enormous amounts of congestion to, in relation to their population.

    JK:Due to high density. With suburban density, the solution would have been cheap.

    ws:The 20th century city does have issues regarding stormwater runoff, however, Portland’s “green streets” and vegetated roofs all but alleviate this problem. South Waterfront is built very dense but offer no increase of local stormwater runoff.

    Suburbs consume land and energy at alarming rates, which is a much bigger environmental problem than ones concentrated in a smaller space.

  72. JK:What are “all the negative impacts and hidden and overt subsidies for automobiles” that don’t also apply to transit? Bus transit uses imported oil too and in large quantities that today’s average car. That means it pollutes more too.

    ws:Transit use in conjunction with denser living consumes so much less energy than sprawl and only automobile use.

    Fact.

    Please, look at the entire picture.

  73. Trains cannot dodge the suicide

    Turning that around, its a lot easier to avoid a train than it is a car. Its pretty clear to see rails (where there’s going to be trains) and to tell where trains are going to come from/go to since they only go in one, maybe two, directions. Cars, on the other hand, can go whichever way they want (and travel farther off-street than a derailed train can off-track) and abruptly decide to turn and go through a crosswalk. That being said, I’ve heard that its “when and not if” you hit somebody when you become a MAX operator.

    Lastly, I’ve heard that some of the MAX deaths occurred before the first passenger was counted, so its not entirely fair.

  74. R A Fontes Says: Assuming for the moment that the average WES rider pays $1.00 per ride [which is about 20% – 25% more than the average MAX/bus riders] then TriMet would net 1150 (riders per day) x 5 (days) x $1 = $6,850 per week leaving TriMet with a weekly operational drain of $99,914.66 to operate WES.

    In all fairness, the April ridership report shows WES gaining 20 additional rides per day to 1170. So WES might just be costing us $99,814.66 per week if the $1.00 revenue estimate per ride is accurate.

    All trips on WES are all-zone, which means a cash price of $2.30. Even making the reasonable assumption that a commuter has a monthly pass ($86 for all-zone), they would be traveling 20 days per month, and even with a return trip, this comes to $2.15 per ride, not $1.

  75. I agree with Jeff as far as Jeff goes, however there are several other fare situations which drop the average. Youth/student fares are $1.50 and honored citizen fares are $.95.

    WES honors transfers, so riders coming off buses do not directly fund WES operations. Of course, the situation could be reversed on the return trip if a rider only uses buses on one end.

    My “guestimate” was based on a rough average for TriMet of about $.80 which in turn was based on the agency’s claim before WES that riders pay about 20% of costs and an average bus ride costing a little more than $2.50, and MAX ride less than $2.00. (I don’t remember the exact amount)

    It could well be that the $1.00 estimate is off -either way- but even if every rider was paying the full $2.30 we’d still be losing well over $90,000 per week.

  76. PS – I know that 20% of 2.50 is only .50 and much less for MAX. A full explanation of the $.80 estimate will have to wait for another time.

  77. Jeff F Says: You keep coming up with these phony numbers because you conflate people struck by vehicles with people riding in vehicles.
    JK: We count pedestrians killed by cars. Why do you want to ignore pedestrians killed by LRT? When you count ALL DEATHS directly caused by all modes of transportation (that is the way it is done except in the rail apologist world) you find that light rail kills at about 21/2 times the rate of cars. Buses are safer than either. See PortlandFacts.com

    I’m going to ignore the remaining comments about the relative safety of transit v mountain climbing or auto racing because they’re clearly specious.

    The primary error in your model is that you’re extrapolating from miniscule data, but it’s easy enough to disprove your repeated contention based on your own numbers.

    MAX deaths from 1986-2007

    We can even ignore the insertion of people who either committed suicide-by-LRT or were careless enough to walk on the ROW. Since 1986, when the first MAX line opened, there have been 20 fatalities — in 21 years.

    But you’ve claimed that the appropriate comparison is deaths per vehicle mile (although you used deaths per passenger mile in your claim that numbers of deaths were low because few people ride transit). In the 21-year span in your chart, MAX track mileage doubled, and based on your model we would see a consistent increase in fatalities over time. In fact, numbers in 2007 should be double those in 1986.

    In fact, what we see is that fatalities have been consistent since 2003: one fatality per year–which is itself consistent with the average over 21 years. The only period of time showing relatively high numbers of fatalities coincide with the startup of Westside MAX, which may be attributed to a known problem with “familiarity” with rail, or to problems with grade-level crossings (but the numbers also include people either walking in the ROW — even lying in the ROW — and at least one known suicide).

    You can’t extrapolate anything from one event per year. But clearly, there is no relationship between vehicle miles and fatalities — because the data simply doesn’t support it.

  78. You can’t extrapolate anything from one event per year.

    You can extrapolate that in any given year, a statistically insignificant percentage of the population are either stupid enough or suicidal enough to walk, lie down, or drive in front of moving trains.

  79. numbers in 2007 should be double those in 1986

    Good point! And I’ve heard that its been the same with bicycling in the city of Portland–bike travel has substantially increased but crashes and/or deaths have not. Overall, as I said its alot easier to avoid a train than a car whose driver might be distracted by having a phone conversation or any number of other things.

  80. to problems with grade-level crossings

    And that reminds me that Westside MAX is unique because trains should be traveling at full speed (55 MPH) through some of those crossings that are not next to a station. In addition, trains travel that fast between crossings and, unlike stretches along freeways, trespassers have easier access to the alignment.

  81. ws Says: Land is expensive, Jim.
    JK: Only because planners made it so in our area.

    Addressing your claim: Now figure the cost of one parking space for one hour of shopping and compare that with the average amount a shopper spends. You will, once again, find that I am right and you are wrong. This is because I did a rough calculation before I opened my mouth and your didn’t.

    ws Says: Also, curb cuts are dangerous for pedestrians and take up on-street parking spaces. If your business generates many vehicles and keeps cutting across the sidewalk and making walking unsafe, then that is unfair.

    That is why we need planning.
    JK: We need 357 planners in the Portland region to plan curb cuts!!!!

    ws Says: Hopefully those types of businesses, the Costcos and such, should be planned in an “auto-dependent” area vs. a neighborhood area.
    JK: Would you we rather we put big stores in bike-dependant areas?

    ws Says: Most people agree with planning, it’s just libertarians who don’t because they’re trying to seek relevance in a world beyond being whiny brats at the local public school meeting.
    JK: We need planning for what people want and need. Unfortunately the city planning movement has become planning for a new society that the average person neither knows about or understands what it mans for them. We are getting a hint in Portland as city services are being cut to support planners’ fantasies.

    Jason McHuff Says: real data shows longer commute TIMES in higher density
    Where did you read that?
    JK: Alan Pisaraski, Commuting in America Gave a presentation at PSC a couple years ago and or Weneal Cox. It is real world data, not some planner’s lie. Spend some time looking at the real world at DebunkingPortland.com.

    Jason McHuff Says: Are you talking about buses that run mostly empty as a social service, for those who may have no other way to get around, or buses that are well utilized and are true mass transit?
    JK: I am talking real buses in the real world as opposed to the transit advocates theoretical world. Open you eyes to national data in the National Transportation Databook

    Jason McHuff Says: But many other non-motorist-funded sources go to road projects. Washington County has a Major Street Transportation Improvement Program funded by property taxes and, elsewhere, many are funded by those or sales taxes.
    JK: Just look at real data and quit reading the car haters garbage. At the Federal level various studies put the cost of roads paid 80 – 120% by road users. At the local level, there are some areas where some tax money goes to roads, but you forget that roads are used by everyone including transit which DOES NOT pay for the roads.

    Jason McHuff Says: In addition, the Interstate Highway System was financed by the Federal government, even if the gas tax covers every dollar that they spend on roads.
    JK: That is called a USER FEE you should learn about them.

    EngineerScotty Says: Regarding deaths caused by accidents involving transit vehicles vs those caused by accidents involving private vehicles–many such deaths aren’t accidents, but suicides. Do the statistics cited by JK include people who kill themselved by deliberately walking in front of trains (or busses, trucks, or cars)?
    JK: Learn to read. I said: When you count ALL DEATHS directly caused by all modes of transportation (that is the way it is done except in the rail apologist world) you find that light rail kills at about 21/2 times the rate of cars

    Is that somehow unclear?

    EngineerScotty Says: I apologize for continuing a macabre discussion, but the “light rail is a killing machine” myth needs debunking.
    JK: There is nothing to debunk. Light rail IS A KILLING MACHINE. It needs to be widely recognized that light rial is a deadly addition to a community. People should also know that rail transport has ALWAYS BEEN VERY DANGEROUS.

    ws Says: JK:Then why are commute TIMES longer in high density? Or does wasting people’s time not matter to you?
    ws Says: Commute times via what mode of transport?
    JK: Real cities in the real world. It is the real commute times. Mode does not matter, times are long for the average real person. It is only in the planners’ fantasy world where the times are short. That is because planners don’t live in the real world, they live ins a dream world where they dictate people’s lives. You are reading too many planner’s fantasies.

    ws Says: Suburbs consume land and energy at alarming rates, which is a much bigger environmental problem than ones concentrated in a smaller space.
    JK: Are you trying to argue that one house on a one are lot is worse that a completely paved over area?

    ws Says: Transit use in conjunction with denser living consumes so much less energy than sprawl and only automobile use.
    JK: Why don’t you prove this with real data. Then tell us why we should cram people into rat cage density just to save energy. Why do you think it is OK for you to dictate how others live, while resenting Bush’s wanting tell people how to live?

    Jason McHuff Says: Lastly, I’ve heard that some of the MAX deaths occurred before the first passenger was counted, so its not entirely fair.
    JK: We are not talking fair. We are just counting the bodies caused by each mode of transport and comparing that to the people transported. Face it: rail is very deadly.

    Jeff F Says: The primary error in your model is that you’re extrapolating from miniscule data, but it’s easy enough to disprove your repeated contention based on your own numbers.
    . . .
    You can’t extrapolate anything from one event per year. But clearly, there is no relationship between vehicle miles and fatalities — because the data simply doesn’t support it.
    JK: MAX’s kill rate is about the same as the national LRT kill rate, so what is your problem? Quit trying to deny reality: LRT is deadly compared to buses and cars.

    Douglas K. Says: You can extrapolate that in any given year, a statistically insignificant percentage of the population are either stupid enough or suicidal enough to walk, lie down, or drive in front of moving trains.
    JK: Your lack of caring about people is showing.

    Thanks
    JK

  82. May 21, 2009 3:48 PM Bob R. Says: Thanks JK, I am well aware of your party activism. I checked out the LP many times, for various reasons I won’t go into here, I respectfully disagree with where that party wants to take us.
    JK: How do you answer the charge that you just want people to recognize your “lifestyle choices”, but refuse to recognize other people rights to their own choices in other aspects of “lifestyle choices” such as property rights, gun rights, where to live, how to travel.

    Some of us believe that all people should have freedom in all aspects of their life, not just “lifestyle choices”. Why do you appear to believe otherwise?

    Thanks
    JK

  83. JK: MAX’s kill rate is about the same as the national LRT kill rate, so what is your problem? Quit trying to deny reality: LRT is deadly compared to buses and cars.

    My problem is that you’ve made that statement over and over and your own numbers prove just the opposite. Please explain why a doubling of miles has not resulted in a doubling of deaths? Or any increase in death at all? You create correlations that do not exist.

    Oregon had more than 400 highway deaths last year. How many miles of LRT railway would be necessary to create levels like that?

    Also notice that Zero deaths in your list are passengers on LRT. Compare that to auto deaths and forget about mountain climbing.

  84. Here is a little basic education on the issues we have been discussing in this thread: The Tipping Point: The Transportation-Housing Trade-Offs of Suburban, Urban and Rural Living by Alan Pisarski (who gave a lecture at PSC’s transportation lecture series a couple years ago.) (heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/wp052209a.cfm)

    Page 13:
    This suggests that we don’t need to redesign our world to make it more “efficient.” The existing distribution of jobs housing and other destinations provides ample opportunities to live closer to destinations if we should choose. There is no indication of such a preference.
    – Work trip length increases with income!
    – In a job-scarce environment access to jobs over greater distances is a key economic survival factor.
    – Work trips are increasingly a minor part of people’s lives.7

    The days of living outside the factory gate are gone. There are sound reasons why most people don’t focus on living near work. Among them:
    • The typical worker changes jobs about every 2½ years or so—would they move each time? There are immense economic and social frictions involved. They might be back in a few years!
    • Jobs and workers are more dispersed; typically at smaller work destinations; there are far fewer factory gates to live next to.
    • 70% of workers live in a household with other worker(s). Whose job are they going to live next to?
    • Expansion of job specialization spreads the range over which one can/must seek jobs
    – If we work in a chain store—the closest one is probably as good as others
    – Work in environmental physics—is there a reactor down the street?

    Since the suburban boom of the fifties and sixties jobs have been following workers to the suburbs; first retail jobs and household-related services, then the fundamental job base. A recent study8 indicates:
    • 17 of 18 industries decentralized further from 1998 to 2006
    • Only 21% of jobs were within 3 miles of center in 98 metros; 45% of jobs more than 10 miles
    • Outer parts grew 17% in employment: center by 1%

    Page 14:
    An important measure of this is the continuing increase in the percentage of workers leaving their home counties to work. In 1990 it was just below 24% rising to almost 27% by 2000 and at 27.4% in 2007. Virginia, the state that leads the nation, rose to about 52.5% in 2007, i.e. more than 52% of workers in Virginia leave their home county to work. Some might see this as a bad thing and evidence of some kind of failure. Rather it needs to be recognized as a powerful knitting together of very large labor forces and jobs on the order of millions of jobs and workers in our largest metropolitan areas. In this way transportation makes metropolitan areas both smaller and bigger. Smaller in that the times to traverse large distances are reduced; bigger in that a metropolitan area knitted together with effective transportation acts bigger both economically and socially. The example of Atlanta, one of the nation’s biggest growth centers, is significant. The region, encompassing about 26 counties, with strong flow among them, is a powerful economic
    force.

    Page 17:
    The taste for changing the public’s behavior, as if they were recalcitrant children who need guidance, leads to potentially deeply injurious effects, at a minimum expensive, coercive, antagonistic to the preferred lifestyle opportunities of the public, and fundamentally ineffective. This focus on behavior change diverts us from very real issues that the society faces such as:
    • Enhancing economic opportunities
    • Increasing access to workers; access to jobs
    • Mainstreaming minorities
    • Safety
    • Serving an aging population
    • Greater freedom of mobility
    • National infrastructure reconstruction
    • And more!
    We have no choice but to care greatly about transportation. Transportation is all about reducing the time and cost penalties of distance on our economic and social interactions. To the extent that nations succeed in that function they enable tremendous forces of economic opportunity, social cohesion, and national unity.

    Peering into the future as various legislative options move forward. One can see strong threats in the offing as well as tremendous opportunities.

    Among the threats:
    • The enactment of policies to penalize current life style preferences such as:
    o Dispersed housing
    o Dispersed job locations
    • The enactment of policies to promote
    o Higher density
    o “Organized” society
    • The utilization of subsidies to
    o Recentralize populations and jobs
    o Promote density

    Among the opportunities:
    • Market forces are naturally moving jobs closer to skilled workers
    • Increases in mobility, especially among minorities, has been growing and should
    continue absent contravening policies
    • Better long distance transportation promotes greater/broader job access
    • America is reaching a stage that no other nation has ever achieved, in which people can live where they want and work where they want. Hard to believe the government—much less the society—would decide that that is a bad thing.

    Nothing is more fundamental to ways of living preferences than the density at which people live. An array of density options ought to exist to serve the various choices and preferences of the society. Nothing that has been said here precludes the opportunities for higher density clusters in suburban areas as portions of society—perhaps younger people and retirees—opt for that life style. But it is clear that the American people have no obligation to life in ways that make it convenient for governments to serve them.
    —————————
    thanks
    JK

  85. Jeff F Says: My problem is that you’ve made that statement over and over and your own numbers prove just the opposite. Please explain why a doubling of miles has not resulted in a doubling of deaths? Or any increase in death at all? You create correlations that do not exist.
    JK: Fine, then look at the national LRT kill rate. It is basically the same as MAX.

    Thanks
    JK

  86. How do you answer the charge that you just want people to recognize your “lifestyle choices”, but refuse to recognize other people rights to their own choices in other aspects of “lifestyle choices” such as property rights, gun rights, where to live, how to travel.

    You start from a false premise. There is no need for me to answer “charges” which have no basis in fact.

    It’s funny that even when I explicitly let you have the last word in one of the many arguments we’ve had online, you still just go on making demands and, like in this case, making stuff up.

  87. Only because planners made it so in our area.

    Regardless of the actual cost of land, it is much more expensive to provide services to it when it is developed at a low density. Let’s say a service like the phone company, post office, etc has an area of 200 people to serve. If the density of the area is 100 people/square mile, that means the service has to cover two whole square miles to serve everybody. But if the density is instead 200 people/square mile, the service only has to cover one square mile–half of the land area even though the same amount of people are being served.

    I am talking real buses in the real world

    And in the real world, the marketplace is tilted towards automobile use with subsidies like oil defense, “free” parking, pollution clean up, planning that encourages or forces low-density and/or auto-oriented development, road projects funded by things like municipal general funds (in Salem) or property taxes (in Washington County) or sales taxes (elsewhere) or the Federal government, not passing on the additional costs it takes to serve new- and/or low-density development…

    quit reading the car haters garbage

    For your information, I try to be fair and stick to sources that either shouldn’t be biased or are generating the actual data.

    That is called a USER FEE

    And I understand and agree with that. However, I was talking about the actual financing costs–the money it takes to front the money collected from the gas tax for use on roads (since I don’t believe there already was a massive pot of gas taxes collected when they started building the Interstate system). And moreover, the fund that the gas taxes go into is broke and gas taxes should go first to issues like oil defense and pollution cleanup caused by using the gas.

    rail is very deadly

    And roads are deadlier. Especially since its easy to tell where a train is going to be and which way its going to come from/go to. Unlike with roads, where cars can often come from many directions (at driveways and intersections) and instantly decide to go in many other directions. Including off the roadway and up a curb. Oh, and what about the health problems, including deaths, caused by pollution?

    other people rights to their own choices…such as property rights, gun rights, where to live, how to travel.

    Well, what about when someone’s right negatively impacts others? Such as sullying a creek that then flows through downstream properties or, moreover, developing land and passing the costs of serving it (like new schools that are then needed) to society? And gun rights has nothing to do with this blog.

    Lastly, if high-density results in a person being able to walk to a store to pick up some milk or other groceries, how does that increase congestion compared to low-density where driving is basically required to go anywhere?

  88. Bob R. It’s funny that even when I explicitly let you have the last word in one of the many arguments we’ve had online, you still just go on making demands and, like in this case, making stuff up.
    JK: Sorry, I misunderstood your request to drop the mater.

  89. Jason McHuff Says: Regardless of the actual cost of land, it is much more expensive to provide services to it when it is developed at a low density. Let’s say a service like the phone company, post office, etc has an area of 200 people to serve.
    JK: Lets not say. Lets look at real data instead of planner’s dream world.
    Pearl district: $200 million UR money; 5000 units (roughly) = $40,000 per unit. In Houston burb this is 1/4 the cost of a non-subsidized home on a 1/4 acre or so.

    Jason McHuff Says: And in the real world, the marketplace is tilted towards automobile use with subsidies like oil defense, “free” parking, . . .
    JK: You are wrong on every one of these points – see above. See DebunkingPortland.com

    Jason McHuff Says: (since I don’t believe there already was a massive pot of gas taxes collected when they started building the Interstate system).
    JK: Read some actual history – you are wrong again.

    Jason McHuff Says: And roads are deadlier. Especially since its easy to tell where a train is going to be and which way its going to come from/go to.
    JK: then why do trains kill so many people compared to cars on a per passenger-mile basis?

    Jason McHuff Says: Oh, and what about the health problems, including deaths, caused by pollution?
    JK: Are you talking about the particulate pollution from diesel train and buses or the mercury from the electric power plants that power most electric rail?

    Jason McHuff Says: Lastly, if high-density results in a person being able to walk to a store to pick up some milk or other groceries, how does that increase congestion compared to low-density where driving is basically required to go anywhere?
    JK: Because most trips are still by car. Add 1000 people in low density and you get 1000 drivers over a wide area. Add 1000 people to a high desnity and you get, maybe, 800 NEW DRIVERS to the already crowded streets.

    Thanks
    JK

  90. Pearl district: $200 million UR money

    How much of that went to preserve and reuse historical buildings, which society sees as a benefit, even if its costly to do? And what about land contamination from the past use for a rail yard?

    What about the savings that the post office sees because the mail carriers are able to stop at one place and serve many 10s of mailboxes at once, without using any fuel and time to drive to the individual mailboxes? (Lets forget the fact that the main post office happens to be next door) What about a delivery person who can travel to many, many possible customers in such a small area?

    You are wrong on every one of these points

    So are you saying that motorists do pay for the Big Pipe or similar projects going on in any number of other cities (needed because of the pollutants that traffic leaves behind)? Or to treat asthma someone gets from living near a freeway or other busy traffic area? That governments don’t require businesses to provide a certain amount of parking (instead of letting the marketplace solve any possible spill-over issues)?

    Read some actual history

    Well what about the fact that Interstate Highway funding came and comes from the Federal government, and that states don’t have an option of saying, no, we don’t want to be taxed for this? (Yes, the same argument goes for transit projects, but they are at least somewhat of a response to the road building)

    then why do trains kill so many people compared to cars on a per passenger-mile basis?

    Are we taking about trains in general now, many of which have zero passengers? But just considering light rail systems, it is because there are not that many of them and people may not be used to them. But that doesn’t totally matter since its easy for a person who’s actually being alert to see where a train might be, look for them and avoid them. Trains can’t instantly decide to make a turn into a crosswalk and run into somebody. If somebody gets hit by a train (light rail or not) its very often because they were somewhere they were not supposed to be (trespassing) or were not obeying signals at a crossing. On the other hand, someone can easily get hit by a car even though they’re being 100% legal (e.g. in crosswalk when the signal permits it).

    Add 1000 people to a high desnity and you get, maybe, 800 NEW DRIVERS

    So you’re admitting that, on a per-person basis, higher density does mean less drivers? But, moreover, its not the amount of drivers that matters, its the amount of driving. Someone in high density might still be a driver, but because they are able to accomplish some trips by walking or other modes they only drive maybe 25% of the time and not close to 100%.

  91. On other thing I just remembered: Did some of the urban renewal money in the Pearl District go towards affordable housing? If so, that’s another thing that society sees as a benefit and money that should be spent regardless of location.

  92. We wouldn’t need to build “affordable housing” if the planner’s hadn’t made most housing un-affordable.

    Before Oregon’s planning on steroids, there was plenty of affordable housing. Now they have made land cost a MILLION an acre in the burbs and tear down affordable housing to build overpriced condo bunkers.

    Thanks
    JK

  93. Before Oregon’s planning on steroids, there was plenty of affordable housing. Now they have made land cost a MILLION an acre in the burbs and tear down affordable housing to build overpriced condo bunkers.

    He’s got a good point there ya know.

  94. “Before Oregon’s planning on steroids, there was plenty of affordable housing. Now they have made land cost a MILLION an acre in the burbs ”

    Why on earth would anybody pay that much for land? Oh, right … because the location is SO DESIRABLE because of SUCCESSFUL PLANNING! High land values are irrefutable evidence that planning did exactly what it was supposed to do: it gave us a highly livable city.

    How do you measure a city’s “livability”? By how many people are willing to pay a premium to live there! The down side to a highly desirable area is that so many people want to move there that market forces drive up real estate prices.

    If an area wasn’t desirable, nobody would want to pay money to live there. Period. If the planners had failed, housing would be cheap, lots of it would be sitting empty, and we’d be seeing a slowly declining population as more people left than moved in.

    I salute our region’s planners for several decades of success, and look forward to seeing the results of their continued good work in the years to come.

  95. If an area wasn’t desirable, nobody would want to pay money to live there. Period.
    They aren’t Houston has a much higher growth rate than Portland – that is real evidence against your rant. Higher average income too. And housing prices about 1/2 of ours. Many cities without planners’ screwed up land policies have faster growth and higher income than Portland.

    BTW, you forgot another little detail about the highly desirable Portland planning: the fastest growing county in the Portland region is Clark county WASHINGTON.

    Hope you like wasting half of your monthly house payment on planners’ screwed up land policies. Hope you like having a lower average income because of the planners’ screwed up policies.

    BTW, since you don’t seem aware of basic economics, it is not demand that drives up prices it is supply and demand. If supply can increase with the demand, there is no increase in price. Econ 101 – I suggest you take a class or two.

    BTW, I understand that it is possible to get a degree in planning without taking econ. Just another reason planners are wrong about just about everything.

    Thanks
    JK

  96. JK: Before Oregon’s planning on steroids, there was plenty of affordable housing. Now they have made land cost a MILLION an acre in the burbs and tear down affordable housing to build overpriced condo bunkers.

    There was a lot of affordable housing because the economy was depressed and there were a lot fewer people here.

    I would like to know, however, where anyone has been tearing down affordable housing to build condos (which were “overpriced”, incidentally, because people wanted to buy them). There were a small number of such units in NW Portland several years ago, but otherwise? I’ve seen empty lots with new construction (condos and skinny houses), but “affordable housing”? Where?

    Decades ago, the people of Oregon decided (and have re-affirmed) that they were opposed to urban sprawl and created land-use regulations to reflect that decision. We have preserved farmland and forests (assuring readily-available fresh food, among other things), and the result? People have been moving to the region in record numbers for years, and they move here because of the “quality of life.”

    JK, if they wanted only cheap housing and the possibility of more income, they would move to Houston, apparently. Isn’t choice great?

  97. We wouldn’t need to build “affordable housing” if the planner’s hadn’t made most housing un-affordable

    That certainly isn’t true because much affordable housing goes for, at most, the actual cost of just building and maintaining it, before any unusually high land and other costs are included. And, moreover, land is not that big a portion of the costs to purchase property and build houses on it. Also, the need for affordable housing certainly isn’t confined to the Portland region.

    how many people are willing to pay a premium

    And that also sounds like the standard they use for precious metals and other valuables.

  98. Well, JK is still going, but rather than argue again, I thought I’d try and look up what JK was talking about so others can have a reference…

    I’m not sure if JK actually meant “average” income, because these things are usually reported as “median” income. The median is the point where half the people (or households, or whatever group you’re trying to meausre) make more, and half the people make less.

    (As an example: If you have a conference room in Redmond, WA with a dozen techs making between $40K and $50K, and Bill Gates walks into the room to say “hi”, the average income shoots up into the millions. But the median is still somewhere between $40K and $50K.)

    Using the Census Bureau’s online American Factfinder tool, the following statistics can be retrieved about Portland (city) and Houston (city), presented as 2005-2007 3-year estimates:

    Median Household Income
    Portland: 45,512
    Houston: 40,285

    Median Per Capita Income
    Portland: 27,941
    Houston: 24,177

    Families Below Poverty Level
    Portland: 11.2%
    Houston: 18.1%

    Individuals Below Poverty Level
    Portland: 16.6%
    Houston: 21.8%

    Owner-Occupied Housing Units
    Portland: 57.0%
    Houston: 47.2%

    Vacant Housing Units
    Portland: 6.6%
    Houston: 13.7%

    Median Owner-Occupied Home Value
    Portland: 257,100
    Houston: 119,300

    Mean Travel Time to Work
    Portland: 23.6 minutes
    Houston: 26.3 minutes

  99. Jeff F> People have been moving to the region in record numbers for years, and they move here because of the “quality of life.”
    JK: If Portland planning is so great, then why is Clerk the fastest growing county?

    Thanks
    JK

  100. JK: If Portland planning is so great, then why is Clerk the fastest growing county?

    Multnomah County doesn’t have a lot of room for population growth and Clark County has a high tolerance for sprawl. The odd thing, of course, is that so many of those people come to Portland for work. Why is that?

    Why is rapid population growth a good thing?

  101. Bob R. Says: Using the Census Bureau’s online American Factfinder (http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en) tool, the following statistics can be retrieved about Portland (city) and Houston (city), presented as 2005-2007 3-year estimates:
    JK: The planners have screwed the entire region, not just the city, so lets look at regional (bea.gov/regional/reis/default.cfm?selTable=CA1-3&section=2):

    Average wage per job (dollars) [CA34 – Wage and salary summary]
    Portland: $43,826
    Houston: $52,924
    So much for good jobs in Portland

    Personal income increase 1969-2007 (CA1-3 – Personal income, percent change):
    Portland: 8.1%
    Houston: 9.5%
    So much for planing making us better off

    Unemploymernt percentage, March 2009: (data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost)
    Portland: 11.8(p) ( Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA Metropolitan Statistical Area)
    Houston: 6.5(p) ( Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area)
    Simply amazing what Portland planners have done to us.

    We do appear to agree on housing prices being affordable in Houston and not in Portland, but the average number comparison doesn’t show the fact that the lower cost home in the Houston MSA is also on a larger lot.

    Thanks
    JK

  102. Jason McHuff Says: And, moreover, land is not that big a portion of the costs to purchase property and build houses on it.
    JK: Quit embarrassing yourself.
    Just a vacant 1/4 acre lot in Portland area will buy a whole house in Houston area. At the peak, one acre in Tigard sold for close to one million (not view property), that is $250,000 for 1/4 acre. $180,000 will get you a brand new house on a 1/4 acre lot in a planned development in Houston. (That is planned by planners who are planning based on what people want, not what city planners want to dictate to people.)

    Jason McHuff Says: Also, the need for affordable housing certainly isn’t confined to the Portland region.
    JK: No, the need is confined to areas with restrictive land use policies. Most other areas have very affordable housing. It is the planner’s idiot ideas that have drive up housing costs.

    Thanks
    JK

  103. We do appear to agree on housing prices being affordable in Houston and not in Portland

    It’s not about “agree” or “disagree”, JK. As I explained, I was posting references to data, not continuing to argue with you. You did not provide references, or define the scope of city vs. metro area, in your original comment.

    Your insistence on continuing to misconstrue my comments is astounding.

    As to whether “average” income is a useful metric instead of “median” income, I’ll leave that evaluation to other commenters.

  104. Why is rapid population growth a good thing?

    It isn’t. It is, however, the inevitable side effect of successfully planning a city where many people want to live. People outside will react by moving there. It also tends to drive unemployment up, both (a) because people fall in love with the place and move here hoping to find a job, and (b) people who lose their jobs are less likely to leave to chase more readily available ones elsewhere.

    Houston has a much higher growth rate than Portland – that is real evidence against your rant. Higher average income too. And housing prices about 1/2 of ours.

    So move to Houston. Seriously. If it’s such a great place and Portland is so screwed up, why are you tormenting yourself (and annoying us) by staying around here and whining about it all the damn time? If you were a truly rational economic actor, you’d vote with your feet. The same way that the people (not planners) who are driving up Portland’s housing market are doing by moving here.

    If Portland planning is so great, then why is Clerk the fastest growing county?

    Clark County is growing rapidly BECAUSE the Portland Metro area did such a great job planning. Portland’s success is attracting residents to Vancouver. Since our highly successful planning has made housing a lot more expensive, people are moving to the less desirable areas on the region’s fringe where land is cheaper (mostly Clark County), and commuting to work in Portland where the jobs are.

    I know six couples living in the suburbs, including one in Vancouver, who moved out of Portland even though they would have preferred to live in town. They moved because they could no longer afford a home in Portland large enough for families. They didn’t move out of Portland because planning made the place bad; they moved out because planning made it too good for their incomes to keep up with a competitive housing market.

    Hope you like wasting half of your monthly house payment on planners’ screwed up land policies.

    I don’t think anyone who bought a house that they could afford in a neighborhood they wanted at fair market value would consider their housing payment “wasted.” If you had any real comprehension of how supply and demand works, you’d understand that. In the real world, people who don’t aren’t willing to pay the asking price for a home simply don’t buy it; they rent or they look elsewhere to find a place they can afford. Even if that means crossing the river to a less desirable neighborhood.

    Hope you like having a lower average income because of the planners’ screwed up policies.

    Boy, you really don’t have the first clue about how real-world economics works, do you? My income is based on my marketable skills and my ability to find people willing to pay me for them. That’s entirely on me; “planners” have nothing to do with it — except that they’ve created a region that’s so desirable that more people are moving here, creating more competition for job-seekers. One more down side of success.

    If supply can increase with the demand, there is no increase in price. Econ 101 – I suggest you take a class or two.

    I’ve taken three. And unlike you, I’ve actually comprehended the subject matter. There isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell you’ll understand this, but in the REAL world (as opposed to the libertarian fantasy world you think you’re living in), land supply cannot increase with demand. It’s a fixed supply. We can make decisions about how to use the land, and you are of course free to disagree with the decisions, but increasing land supply simply isn’t an option. (Of course, in your world I’m sure you can just scatter about a generous dose of libertarian fairy dust, and presto — a new empty quadrant of Portland will magically appear, centrally located, ready for development, and growing as fast as necessary to match demand.)

  105. Jeff F Says: There was a lot of affordable housing because the economy was depressed and there were a lot fewer people here.
    JK: Oregon & Portland WAS NOT depressed before government policies started screwing up our economy, starting with closing down the logging industry.

    Jeff F Says: I would like to know, however, where anyone has been tearing down affordable housing to build condos
    JK:
    1. That ugly tower next to PGE park used to be affordable apartments.
    2. About 2 blocks North of Jefferson on the street car line – new tower used to be affordable apartments.
    3. Whatever was under all those new towers around downtown safeway probably used to be lower cost.

    The outrageous thing is that this did not happen because of market forces, it happened because the city government made it happen though policy, tax giveaways and cash.

    Don’t forget that, all over town, affordable single family houses are being torn down to be replaced with over priced skinny houses.

    Jeff F Says: (which were “overpriced”, incidentally, because people wanted to buy them).
    JK: What people? You mean all those people that aren’t buying up those towers in North Macadam?

    Jeff F Says: Decades ago, the people of Oregon decided (and have re-affirmed)
    JK: You know that is an outright lie. They reaffirmed fair treatment of people screwed by the government and got more screwing through a deceptive ballot title made exempt from review by the 1000 friends’ puppets at the legislature.
    Hope you know the voters SOUNDLY rejected high density back in 2002 where, probably 75% of the people voted against more density. See debunkingportland.com/Smart/MetroDensityVote.htm

    Jeff F Says: We have preserved farmland and forests (assuring readily-available fresh food, among other things), and the result?
    JK: Yeah, pay an extra $1000/month for housing to get food a few hours fresher.

    Jeff F Says: People have been moving to the region in record numbers for years,
    JK: Yeah, VANCOUVER

    Jeff F Says: and they move here because of the “quality of life.”
    JK: VANCOUVER

    Jeff F Says: JK, if they wanted only cheap housing and the possibility of more income, they would move to Houston, apparently.
    JK: Actually they are. Houston is growing faster than Portland. Higher paying jobs too. Lower cost housing.

    Thanks
    JK

  106. JK: Oregon & Portland WAS NOT depressed before government policies started screwing up our economy, starting with closing down the logging industry.

    I guess you haven’t lived in the area that long, JK. If you had been here in the early 70s, you’d know what a ridiculous statement that is. There have been boom and bust cycles since then, including a great period with the arrival of Silicon Forest, but “planners” had nothing to do with it.

    Don’t forget that, all over town, affordable single family houses are being torn down to be replaced with over priced skinny houses.

    Nonsense. The skinny houses have been going up on empty lots. “Affordable single family houses” would be, and are, lived in by single families.

    And the apartments over the downtown Safeway are income-restricted, just like a lot of “planned” housing in places like the Belmont Dairy and some other very nice new housing.

    JK: You know that is an outright lie. They reaffirmed fair treatment of people screwed by the government and got more screwing through a deceptive ballot title made exempt from review by the 1000 friends’ puppets at the legislature.

    Like I said, you apparently haven’t been around long. Oregon’s land use laws and “planning” dates back to the early 1970s.

    Jeff F Says: People have been moving to the region in record numbers for years,
    JK: Yeah, VANCOUVER

    Jeff F Says: and they move here because of the “quality of life.”
    JK: VANCOUVER

    People do not move to the region because they want to live in Vancouver, JK. Be serious. They may choose to move to Vancouver from Portland to own more property, but no one is immigrating here specifically to live in Vancouver. And you still haven’t answered the question, why do so many of them commute to Portland?

    JK: Actually they are. Houston is growing faster than Portland. Higher paying jobs too. Lower cost housing.

    Dandy. Let them move to Houston. You, too. You seem to think that rapid population growth is a great thing, while others appreciate living right here.

  107. JK:“Yeah, VANCOUVER”

    ws:Complete non-sense. Portland has gained 25% population since the early 1990s. Many people in Vancouver move for lower costs but also to be close to a nice city.

    Clark County has gained a large portion of “percentage” of growth, but this means very little considering even moderate growth is going to jack up this percentage.

    NYC grew only 2.6% from 2000, but that shouldn’t take away from the fact that the city is huge already. Not much percentage wise compared to Clark County, but misleading to compare the two.

    Assuming Vancouver were in a remote location near nothing, people would not be choosing Vancouver. Not to bash Vancouver too much, but it’s just the reality.

    JK:“Hope you know the voters SOUNDLY rejected high density back in 2002.”

    ws:Prohibiting density is a prescriptive land-use. Most low density is only so because of municipal zoning.

    JK:Hope you like wasting half of your monthly house payment on planners’ screwed up land policies. Hope you like having a lower average income because of the planners’ screwed up policies.

    ws:Unfortunately, what has not reached people’s minds is the costs of transportation, especially for those enduring long commutes. People are willing to spend 25%+ of their incomes on car transportation, but only 10% of their incomes on food.

    Coincidentally (not really) health care costs have risen drastically from poor personal behavior. What can I say, people are not factoring in the costs of their behavior long term, this is not saying much about us as people.

    So, pay a bit more for housing and less on transportation (and ultimately health care), or less on housing and more on transportation…?

    Why not be preventative and make rational lifestyle choices instead?

  108. And the apartments over the downtown Safeway are income-restricted, just like a lot of “planned” housing in places like the Belmont Dairy and some other very nice new housing.

    The apartments over the downtown Safeway are not income restricted. They are full price units. You must be thinking of the ones across the street.

    http://www.museum-place.com/main3.html

    I’m amused by this discussion. Both the city and the state need an economic development plan that leverages our strengths. One of the reasons our economy is much worse than the rest of the nation is because we have taken economic development for granted. Our governor and mayor just assume that we can just sit back on our laurels and business will flock here. Yes, we are very attractive to a lot of people and that’s why they move here. But our regulations and lack of significant tax breaks makes it harder to recruit business. As much as some folks dislike Neil Goldschmidt and Vic Atiyeh, they understood that the state needs to aggressive recruit business. Our current leadership has failed us in this area.

  109. JK:Average wage per job (dollars) [CA34 – Wage and salary summary]
    Portland: $43,826
    Houston: $52,924

    ws:You never do average income. You use median income. Same with housing prices. You know this, but you’re just trying to mislead people and want attention.

    If people want to move to Houston and sit in traffic, that’s fine. Afterall, their Travel Time Index is much higher than Portland’s with BILLIONS invested in their highways just over the last few years.

    http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_64.html

    I’m not going to sit here and make fun of Houston, but I will defend Portland. The anti-Portland crowd does that with Portland, however. The Portland v. Houston argument was started by O’Toole and his ilk, and Karlock is just propagating more hate.

    Comparing cities is fine, but some of the arguments are just so baseless and not even factual.

    Sure, Houston has cheap housing, there is no bubble because people are not vying to live there; it’s not a unique place or in a very scenic area. Those two qualities push prices upward. It’s called demand.

  110. No, the need is confined to areas with restrictive land use policies

    No, its not. Go to any number of cities and you’ll probably find many people and families who can’t afford decent housing at market prices. And if there is some decent housing somewhere in the region that they can afford, they might not have the time or money (even when they don’t have to pay for things like the pollution that causes) to commute between there and their jobs/daycare/etc.

    Also, I’ve heard that one reason housing can be expensive here is because developers choose to build more expensive homes (partly because people from California and elsewhere can afford them).

    That ugly tower next to PGE park used to be affordable apartments.

    Are you talking about the current tower and not the previous building (on which there is an agreement about it being bad)? I believe that there’s still affordable housing there.

    Regarding Museum Place the 2005 Central City Housing Inventory says that “20% of its units [are] restricted at 50% MFI”. That document also notes that the city has a “no net loss” policy for affordable housing and I’m pretty sure some other housing was rehabbed as part of the Museum Place project.

    And while we’re on the subjects of Huston and planning, I’d like to point out that its not a “free-for-all” down there as some may believe. Yes, they may not say that industry has to go here and residential has to go there, but they can still say that development has to be designed a certain way, that historic buildings have to be preserved, etc. In fact, I’ve read that a pedestrian-oriented development had to get an exception to not have the parking be in front.

Leave a Reply to Jeff F Cancel reply

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