Bragdon to Congress: Land Use Policy Mitigates Congestion


Via the OTRAN list:

TESTIMONY OF
METRO COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAVID BRAGDON
PORTLAND, OREGON REGION

BEFORE THE US SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2009
2:30 P.M.

“ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION POLICY IN THE PORTLAND, OREGON REGION”

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, I am David Bragdon, President of the Metro Council, the popularly-elected metropolitan planning organization in the Portland, Oregon region.

Our 1.4 million residents are typical Americans. We get a few more inches of rain, our consumption of beer is in the upper quartile, and we recycle more of our garbage than most Americans do, but we’re roughly average in most other statistical respects. Like most Americans, most Oregonians get around by car.

Yet, there is evidence that our greenhouse gas emissions are stable or
being reduced. If in many ways we are typical Americans, how is it
that in this one important way we are trending in a different direction than the rest of the country?

We think there are two key reasons: First, although most people get around the Portland area by car, we are not forced to do so, and many of us can take advantage of other choices: a good transit network and the ability to bike or walk.

Because of those choices, transit ridership grew at twice the rate of population growth between 1990 and 2000 and by more than 13 percent last year. And, people in the Portland region are seven times more likely to commute by bike.

The second difference is that although we drive, we simply drive less.
There’s a reason why: we don’t have to drive as much. We take care of more of our needs – work, shopping, entertainment – closer to home than people can do in regions where jobs and housing are dispersed farther apart.

Our regional strategy originally was developed to save money, revitalize existing neighborhoods, reduce air pollution, and preserve agricultural lands. Fortunately, it has become a strategy against climate change as well.

There are three simple elements to the strategy:

* One: An Urban Growth Boundary prevents wasteful urban sprawl. Rather than spending tax dollars extending new roads, water, sewers and other services farther out, we make more efficient use of existing development and infrastructure.

* Two: We use a variety of tools to concentrate development, particularly around transit lines, and to encourage neighborhoods which have a mixture of uses.

* Three: While continuing to invest in and maintain roads, we used a combination of state, local and federal funds to construct more than 60 miles of light rail and to operate an extensive bus network. We also invested in lanes and trails to accommodate thousands of commuters on bikes, who otherwise would be in cars at far greater expense to the taxpayer and themselves.

The results of this strategy are starting to show:

* We are growing more compact: Nationally the land consumed for suburbanization outstrips the growth in population by a factor of two or three. The Portland area is consuming new land at a rate equal to or less than the rate of population growth.

* We are the 24th most populous metro area in the nation, but rank 8th in transit ridership per capita. Bike usage has grown three-fold across our major downtown bridges in a decade, and the Brookings Institute ranked us the 5th most walkable region in the nation.

* The Portland region’s per capita vehicle miles traveled has been trending downward for more than a decade. Also, our average trip length is shrinking. As a result, according to the Texas Transportation Institute’s Urban Mobility Report, the impact of congestion per motorist is far less than in other metro areas and less than our size would suggest.

* Our population drives 20 percent less per day than people in other large metro areas, which means, according to CEOs for Cities, about $1.1 Billion a year in savings on fuel, auto maintenance, insurance and other costs.

Our experience offers two lessons for our fellow Americans:

First, our nation cannot successfully address climate change without reforming our transportation system. And second, we cannot successfully reform our transportation system without improving the way our communities are designed, and reducing the need for people to drive. We can’t simply reform the “supply” of transportation; we have to reduce “demand” – and the way our communities are laid out is a major determinant of demand.

Changing fuels and reducing emissions from vehicles are good efforts as far as they go, but they will not get us the change we need unless we also reduce miles traveled.

Which brings me to how this committee can help.

Since Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton proposed construction of canals, the federal role in transportation has been hotly debated.
One thing not debatable is that whether it was President Lincoln signing the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862 or President Eisenhower signing the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, the federal influence on transportation is far-reaching.

Even though zoning is a local matter, mid-Twentieth Century federal policy to fund new road 4 and sewer and water infrastructure and facilitate home mortgages shaped the auto-oriented land use pattern now prevalent in localities throughout the country. Those development patterns were not produced by a free market, but are the result of implicit and explicit federal, state and local expenditures and regulations. Your committee has the chance to reshape those influences for the next fifty years.

This committee is uniquely situated to address climate change through transportation reform. Just as Senator Moynihan and this Committee used the 1990 update of the Clean Air Act to create aspirations for the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, you can use climate change legislation to set goals which can be addressed in the upcoming transportation authorization.

Take full advantage of this opportunity:

1. Link the planning requirements of the pending climate change bill to the planning requirements of the upcoming transportation bill. In our region, we are already undertaking to model the greenhouse gas impact of transportation projects.

2. Link your Highway Bill to the Transit Bill which will emerge from the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. Use the transit bill to essentially create carbon off-sets for the highway bill.

3. Reduce administrative obstacles that prevent localities from using Surface Transportation Program funds for non-highway uses, and overhaul the federally- mandated design standards which often require the most expensively engineered solutions.

4. Include an aggressive program to address metropolitan mobility in the transportation bill. Urban regions provide the nation’s biggest opportunity for reductions in transportation-related greenhouse gases – give them the tools to do so.

The Americans of the Portland region will do our part for our country, but we need the Senate’s leadership. Thank you for the opportunity to participate today.


31 responses to “Bragdon to Congress: Land Use Policy Mitigates Congestion”

  1. Hey, David,
    Why didn’t you tell them about Portland’s unaffordable housing because of your Portland wall?

    Why didn’t you tell them that Portland has wasted so much money bribing developers to build things that don’t pencil out that we are cutting back on police and fire services.

    Why didn’t you tell them about Portland’s very high sewer bills.

    Why didn’t you tell them about Oregon’s national, almost first, in —- unemployment!!

    Why didn’t you tell them about the cost of transit compared to those hated cars (transit 3 or mores times the cost of cars.)

    Why didn’t you tell them about your latest transit blunder – WES – huge costs, few riders.

    Why didn’t you brag about Portland’s transit riders going down between 2000 and 2007. (Cue Bob’s reply here.) See ti.org/antiplanner/?p=1604

    Then there is your brilliant plan to shove toy trains into Vancouver while they only have 1209 daily commuters at a construction cost of $604,000 each. (This compares to 81,000 car commuters at a cost of $26,641 each – a difference in cost of 23:1.)

    Yes David, Portland needs more brilliant thinkers like you to totally wreck the economy. (Have you ever given any thought to the thousands of people you have hurt by raising their cost of living and wasting their time on transit or in congestion?)

    Thanks
    JK

  2. What a load of BS.

    Bragdon is essentially saying MAX and Cascade Station, the Beaverton Round and SoWa are big successes, saving money, reducing emissions and a model for the country.
    There’s more evidence our greenhouse gas emissions are no different than any other metropolitan area and we are not trending in a different direction at all.
    The manipulation, and abuse of science by government agencies, such as Metro, for political reasons is unacceptable.
    Metro has no validated science supporting your claims at all.

    What you do have are the suggestions, theories, speculations and outright fabrications that Metro delivers on a regular basis over decades.

    While Metro claims to be saving money by stopping sprawl they’re directing billions to be spent on the infill, rail transit chaos making.

    The Bragdon points in his testimony to congress are a series of blatant misrepresentations. All the usual claims used to advance more light rail, streetcars and subsidized development that has brought about one boondoggle after another while spending billions and overcrowding neighborhoods across the region.

    Commonly called the status quo, based upon the planner’s theoretical objectives.

  3. To critique and respond to a few things Bragdon said:

    “Our 1.4 million residents are typical Americans”

    Except for some in government and a few outspoken individuals that want to control the lifestyle, housing and transportation choices the rest of us make – as evidenced by this speech.

    “First, although most people get around the Portland area by car, we are not forced to do so”

    But as bureaucrats, they sure do attempt to make the choices for people and attempt to force people out of their cars with excessive taxes, fees and policy decisions that reduce and/or restrict roadway capacity.

    “Our regional strategy originally was developed to save money”

    That’s a crock. With all the non-user taxpayer subsidies going to streetcars, bicycle infrastructure and well-to-do developers, taking into consideration income levels, Portland is one of the most expensive places to live – and why many people are fleeing to the suburbs and Clark County Washington.

    “While continuing to invest in and maintain roads”

    Kicking and screaming all the way like a little kid that wants to play a different game with a ball that he considers his own.

    “Link your Highway Bill to the Transit Bill”

    And link the funding resources to a user model whereby taxes paid by the users of one transport mode can not be raided to pay for or subsidize the infrastructure and operations for a different transport mode.

    “Reduce administrative obstacles that prevent localities from using Surface Transportation Program funds for non-highway uses”

    If and only if those non-highway uses are tied to taxes that provide funding into the program from the non-highway uses thereby generating the revenue for the non-highway-uses and not siphoning off revenue generated from highway users.

  4. The “Three Amigos” seem to be angry at this piece!

    Terry Parker:“And link the funding resources to a user model whereby taxes paid by the users of one transport mode can not be raided to pay for or subsidize the infrastructure and operations for a different transport mode.”

    ws:You have iterated this statement a thousand times, but you have never substantiated it…ever.

    How about some numbers, eh?

  5. Portland’s recent past speaks for itself…growing transit ridership, declining VMT, most affordable housing of all west coast cities, and still attracting folks from all over despite the job market. David spoke the obvious except for those who think the world is flat.

  6. Except for some in government and a few outspoken individuals that want to control the lifestyle, housing and transportation choices the rest of us make – as evidenced by this speech.

    Then run some candidates and vote the current batch out. It’s not unpossible, just unlikely since it never seems to work.

  7. Lenny Anderson Says: Portland’s recent past speaks for itself…
    JK: High unemployment, unaffordable housing, reducing baisic services and wasing the money on toy trains and condo bunkers.

    Lenny Anderson Says: growing transit ridership,
    JK: Not according to the US census: Transit trips to work decreased between 200 and 2007.
    Compare 2000 to 2007:

    2000: Public transportation – 58,931 — 7.4%
    See: factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-state=qt&-context=qt&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_QTP23&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-tree_id=403&-all_geo_types=N&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=40000US71317&-search_results=40000US71317&-format=&-_lang=en

    2007: Public transportation (excluding taxicab) 6.5% (of 884,041 = 57,063 )
    See: factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-state=st&-context=st&-qr_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_S0801&-ds_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_&-tree_id=307&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=40000US71317&-format=&-_lang=en

    There you have it: transit has less commuter market share and less commuters than in 2000.

    Lenny Anderson Says: declining VMT,
    JK: Not according to Bragdon’s Metro:
    driving per person went from 18.8 miles per person in 1990 to 20.9 by 2005
    Even Vancouver residents drove less!
    see: portlandfacts.com/Driving/DrivingIncreased.htm

    Lenny Anderson Says: most affordable housing of all west coast cities,
    JK: What a laugh!! More affordable: Vancouver WA – that is part of why they are the fastest growing Portland area city. Note that California is less affordable because they have even more insane land use restrictions than we do.

    Lenny Anderson Says: David spoke the obvious except for those who think the world is flat.
    JK: David wouldn’t know accurate data if it bit him on the butt.

    Thanks
    JK

  8. unaffordable housing because of your Portland wall

    I don’t know of a “Portland wall”, but if you’re talking about the Urban Growth Boundary, how does it make housing unaffordable? Specifically, how is it cheaper when people are spread out all over the place and require more pipes/wires/roads/other infrastructure in order to be served?

    very high sewer bills

    And don’t those partly go to subsidize cleaning of road runoff that motorists cause?

    transit 3 or mores times the cost of cars

    Even true mass transit–transit that is actually well utilized and not run as a social service through inefficient and transit-hostile development for those who may have no other way to get around? Even when things like oil defense and the aforementioned pollution cleaning are included?

    latest transit blunder – WES

    How much of that is because the FRA requires things like two crew members per train, and doesn’t allow lightweight trains which are commonly available?

    Vancouver while they only have 1209 daily commuters

    Are you implying that if the transit option was vastly improved, only the same number of people would take it? If so, why should we build anything if no one is using it right now?

    attempt to force people out of their cars

    Where, exactly, is it hard enough to use a car that the vast majority can’t do it? On the other hand, I can think of many, many places where potential transit riders, bicyclists, walkers, etc face steep hurdles.

    why many people are fleeing to the suburbs and Clark County Washington

    Are you sure it’s not because they can get subsidies like brand-new schools and other infrastructure?

  9. Lenny Anderson Says: most affordable housing of all west coast cities,
    JK: What a laugh!! More affordable: Vancouver WA – that is part of why they are the fastest growing Portland area city. Note that California is less affordable because they have even more insane land use restrictions than we do.

    Vancouver isn’t even a real city, JK. And the only reason it exists at all is as a bedroom community for Portland — which is where people come for the jobs.

    You keep ignoring one simple, undeniable fact: housing prices in Portland were driven upward by demand, because people chose to move here. Housing costs are more expensive in west coast cities where people want to live! Seattle and San Francisco are expensive because people want to move there and because geography constrains housing. Portland prices are high because people want to move here and because demand exceeded supply. Basic economics, JK.

    One of the main reasons people desire to move to Portland is because of the benefits directly tied to the UGB.

  10. JK:There you have it: transit has less commuter market share and less commuters than in 2000.

    1)2007 ACS is not as official as the Census. If you look back at 2005 and 2006, you can see transit way higher than 2007:

    2006 ACS results

    2005 ACS results

    2006/2005 ACS shows 7.6% transit usage

    So, either there were issues with their samples or this was a one year thing, hardly a trend. Transit usage for arguments sake was higher in 2005 and 2006 than 2000 Census. If there were an actual “trend”, 2005 and 2006 would have lower transit usage than 2000, but that is not so – they are higher.

    2)The Tri-County market share for alternative transportation modes to work (transit, bike, walk) is about the same in 2000 as it was in 2007. In fact, while according to the ACS transit usage was down in 2007 (though not in 05 or 06), the transit drop only meant an increase in biking and walking.

    3)Tri-County Bike, Walk, Transit usage percentage was higher in 2007 than 2000.

    Clark County remained the same from 2000 to 2007.

  11. “How about some numbers”

    About one third of the approximate $3M of the Portland Streetcar operational costs comes from parking meter revenues, and about one third from other City of Portland coffers. All the operating expenses need to come from passenger fares, not subsidies from other sources. Additionally, the $75M in Federal Dollars for the Eastside Streetcar is being poached from the Federal Highway Trust Fund – a fund that only motorists contribute to.

    Moreover, the new bike infrastructure on the Morrison Bridge has a $1.9M price tag. The funding is coming from motorist paid taxes, both Federal and local, not from taxes assessed on the bicycling mode of transport or the bicycling community as it should be.

    And then there is the Columbia River Crossing, of which the 12-lane configuration is complained about by some here over and over again. Yet transit fares and/or transit tolls have yet to be approved to help pay for the approximate one-third price tag for the transit component of the approximate $4B project – nor have bicycle taxes and/or bicycle tolls been approved to help pay for the approximate three percent of the total project costs that will be paid out for bicycle infrastructure. So far only motorists are expected to pay for crossing the Columbia. That is a total inequity.

    “I don’t know of a “Portland wall”, but if you’re talking about the Urban Growth Boundary, how does it make housing unaffordable?

    It is a simple matter of supply and demand. Less land to build on increases the price tag. Therefore, the UGB increases the cost of land inside the boundary. That is why there is less green, foliage and permeable areas at street level. Developers are covering more property with built up structures thereby creating more and more heat island style development – much of it tenement style dwellings. People get lass and pay more.

  12. “latest transit blunder – WES”

    Jason McHuff – “How much of that is because the FRA requires things like two crew members per train, and doesn’t allow lightweight trains which are commonly available?”

    We all knew that going into this thing but we-through our Gordon Smith led congressional delegation-did it anyway. The FTA said it didn’t make sense but we did it anyway. TriMet was predicting initial ridership of 2400, but WES is getting less than 1200.

    Yes, the big problem right now is the recession/panic, but the $5 million annual WES deficit will be with us indefinitely. And while the hard times were unforeseen, and the fuel futures contracts a good faith mistake, WES was preventable, remains stoppable, and is eating the heart of TriMet operations. The recession forced TriMet to cut the “least productive” lines; Every line that was cut because of WES provides more rides per dollar than WES without exception. This is one money pit we can stop trying to fill.

  13. Terry Parker:…$75M in Federal Dollars for the Eastside Streetcar is being poached from the Federal Highway Trust…

    ws: Right, and 16% of ODOT’s 4.6 Billion budget comes from non user-fee sources!

    http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/COMM/docs/0709budgetbooklet.pdf

    What’s truly appalling about highway funding are the billions of dollars that are pilfered not to mass transit, but the general fund and general taxes:

    Highways Stats

    I see 55.5 billion from non user fees going towards highways and 10.7 billion of funds going towards mass transit.

    Neither are good, but you are the biggest scapegoater on here. Yeah, let’s blame the pittance of funds that mass transit gets vs. what automobiles get.

    The automobile in the US is as red as Stalin’s underwear.

    Terry Parker:“It is a simple matter of supply and demand. Less land to build on increases the price tag. Therefore, the UGB increases the cost of land inside the boundary.”

    ws:In order to prove there is a supply issue, one would have to show there is a shortage of housing and land – which there is not. In fact the UGB has to have a 20 years supply of housing by state law.

    There’s too much housing on the market as it is. Portland is not Coastal California by any stretch of the imagination.

    Land is always cheaper on the outskirts of cities. Land price increases are inevitable over time, eventually even in current ex-urban areas. Probably has to do with speculation.

    A simple line is not going to drastically increase prices, remember the UGB has been in place since the 70s. Clearly housing prices were not high then from the “wall”.

  14. Therefore, the UGB increases the cost of land inside the boundary.

    Where is Damascus? If we’re that in demand of land, why isn’t Damascus starting to become seriously populated now?

  15. About one third of the approximate $3M of the Portland Streetcar operational costs comes from parking meter revenues

    People are free to park in the privately-owned garages and lots conveniently located all around downtown. Incidentally, the privately-owned lots all charge significantly higher rates for short-term parking than the city meters and city-managed garages.

    I’ve provided numerous examples to you in the past. Would you like them copied/pasted yet again?

  16. Bravo!!, David Bragdon, Bravo!!

    Cross that bridge and don’t worry about the annoyingly boistrous trolls beneath. The entire republican party is stewing in a meltdown of rotten apples, sour grapes and abandoned leftovers from the office fridge. They have too much pride to admit their diet of junk food has done them no good.

  17. “the Federal Highway Trust Fund – a fund that only motorists contribute to. ”

    Terry, that’s not true and you know it. For the last 2 years a significant chunk of general fund money (8 billion each year, I think) has been sent to the FHTF.

  18. I’m obviously late to the table on the road tax/user fee discussion, but maybe someone can help me out with this. My vehicle navigates local roads on its trip to park where I pick up mass transit. In addition to all the other taxes and fees I pay, I am paying a federal tax of 24.4 cents per gallon. Is all that money finding its way to my local roads or am I paying for highways I do not use? If that is the case would I not want some of that money to fund my mass transit trip? Thanks.

  19. Grant:“Terry, that’s not true and you know it. For the last 2 years a significant chunk of general fund money (8 billion each year, I think) has been sent to the FHTF.”

    ws: That’s just at the federal level. Much more from general funds have been given to highways at state and local levels.

  20. tir:“I’m obviously late to the table on the road tax/user fee discussion, but maybe someone can help me out with this. My vehicle navigates local roads on its trip to park where I pick up mass transit. In addition to all the other taxes and fees I pay, I am paying a federal tax of 24.4 cents per gallon. Is all that money finding its way to my local roads or am I paying for highways I do not use? If that is the case would I not want some of that money to fund my mass transit trip? Thanks.”

    ws:In addition to the federal gas tax, states levy their own state gas taxes:

    http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/245.html

    Oregon’s is about 25 cents. An average car rider is paying about 43 cents in gas taxes.

    Oregon does get money back from the federal gas tax, but they use a very complex model for determining how much we get back. IMO, the federal gas tax should be abolished as it often rewards very low growth areas (bridge to nowhere). It should be state only gas tax – that would be the most efficient.

    Yes, there are plenty of people who want their gas taxes to go towards mass transit, etc. It’s a reasonable argument, but it should be seen as a user fee to maintain and expand roadway systems.

    I get a laugh anytime someone says that gas “taxes” (user fees) are too high, though.

  21. Said by ws:

    Oregon does get money back from the federal gas tax, but they use a very complex model for determining how much we get back. IMO, the federal gas tax should be abolished as it often rewards very low growth areas (bridge to nowhere). It should be state only gas tax – that would be the most efficient.

    Yes, there are plenty of people who want their gas taxes to go towards mass transit, etc. It’s a reasonable argument, but it should be seen as a user fee to maintain and expand roadway systems.

    tir:

    Agreed. State only and if it truly is to be a user fee for road systems would have to reflect more accurately actual use. Something in a pure weight/mile system. I just do not see how the fund is “raided” by mass transit as other posters have put it. Until it is truly a user fee reflecting actual use, it seems more of a “transportation tax” and its best application is certainly open to debate. Best of course doesn’t necessarily mean most efficient. Thanks.

  22. Hey ws,

    You failed to mention that no dollars from transit fares go directly into the Federal Highway Trust Fund; and that no tax revenues assessed directly on bicyclists and/or the bicycling mode of transport go directly into the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Yet with the Federal Highway Trust Fund routinely raided and poached to pay for transit and bicycle infrastructure, any equity of who pays and who receives benefit is totally absent – to the point of those receiving benefit and not paying directly into the fund being crooks pickpocketing the motorists who are directly taxed.

  23. Its more cost effective to pay folks not to drive than to build more roads, especially if we factor in social and environmental costs. So minor investments in bike routes and major investments in transit pay for themselves by reducing demand on the roads…leaving more lane space for all the Terrys out there. They should be thanking us.

  24. Terry Parker‘You failed to mention that no dollars from transit fares go directly into the Federal Highway Trust Fund;”

    ws:I didn’t forget, it’s not that relevant.

    Terry Parker:and that no tax revenues assessed directly on bicyclists and/or the bicycling mode of transport go directly into the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Yet with the Federal Highway Trust Fund routinely raided and poached to pay for transit and bicycle infrastructure, any equity of who pays and who receives benefit is totally absent – to the point of those receiving benefit and not paying directly into the fund being crooks pickpocketing the motorists who are directly taxed.

    ws: Your rant vs. bicycles and anything that might not resemble someone driving an SUV is logically flawed.

    1) As tir has mentioned above, he or she does not mind for her tax dollars generated from gas taxes to go towards such improvements

    2) Automobiles detract from safe mobility of pedestrians and bicyclists. It is only fair that streets compensate for their bifurcating tendencies.

    3) Your rant against bikes and transit “stealing” money is just a smokes screen for the larger issue at hand. It’s easy to call them out, but your avoidance of the issue is irritating at best. In 2007 alone, highway subsidies alone were 5 times higher than transit subsidies. Care to acknowledge this or shall we keep dancing?

    If you were truly interested in forming a transparent, effective, and free enterprise based transportation system, you would be addressing these very relevant issues.

    Maybe it is a relevant point that bicyclists should have to pay a tax of sorts. Give us some numbers on what it would make you happy, knowing that bicycles have very little impact on roads.

    I have at times questioned out of control spending for transit and transit related projects as being too much and over-priced.

    Now, will you admit that automobiles are highly subsidized and that this means that if you do not want to support transit subsidies, that you would be more than willing to pay more for your automobile transportation?

  25. tir:Agreed. State only and if it truly is to be a user fee for road systems would have to reflect more accurately actual use. Something in a pure weight/mile system. I just do not see how the fund is “raided” by mass transit as other posters have put it. Until it is truly a user fee reflecting actual use, it seems more of a “transportation tax” and its best application is certainly open to debate. Best of course doesn’t necessarily mean most efficient. Thanks.

    ws:Raided is a hyperbole when you actually look at the numbers and realize it’s the general fund and general property taxes that’s really getting raided.

  26. blah, blah, blah….just wait until the impact of a 12 percent unemployment rate catches up with us. Portland home prices are already tumbling. Bragdon has lived in this area long enough to know that Portland’s economics don’t sync with that of the entire country.

    I agree with some of what he says, but if Bragdon actually thinks Portland’s policies should be adopted en banc by the rest of the country he should prove his point in the marketplace—not by a contrived offer to testify before Congress.

  27. ws “I didn’t forget, it’s not that relevant.”

    Oh but it is – totally relevant. It is time deadbeat bicyclists and highly subsidized transit riders pay the majority of their own way.

    ws “Automobiles detract from safe mobility of pedestrians and bicyclists.

    Not true, “deadbeat” bicyclists do not belong on heavy traffic volume streets funded by motorist paid taxes and fees. Additionally arrogant bicyclists are a danger to themselves – passing on the right when it is NOT safe to do so, ignoring traffic control devices such as STOP signs and traffic signals, taking the right-of-way when it is not theirs, etc. Bicyclists are their own worst enemy. Pedestrians just need to be more aware of their actions – such as not stepping out in front of cars and obeying crosswalk signals.

    ws “Your rant against bikes and transit “stealing” money is just a smokes screen for the larger issue at hand.”

    If anybody is irritating and ranting, it is the bicyclists wanting specialized world class bicycle infrastructure, but unwilling to open their own wallets to pay for it. Bicyclists are the ones holding the putting up the smoke screen.

    ws “In 2007 alone, highway subsidies alone were 5 times higher than transit subsidies.”

    This statement lacks total credibility. At least in Oregon, motorists pay for 90 something percent of roadway infrastructure while transit passengers pay only 20 something percent of transit operation costs, and little to nothing for transit infrastructure costs. Bicyclists simply freeload off the taxes and fees paid by others. As I have posed several times, transit fares need to be increased and adult bicyclists need to be charged a bi-annual registration fee at the same price it costs to register a car. The difference however is that only one fee would be charged to register multiple bicycles if the bicyclist was willing to place the registration sticker on his or her helmet and wear it at all times. Additionally, motor vehicles contribute to the economy 9including providing and creating a job base. Bicyclists only take from taxpayers, the economy and everybody else. It is about time they admit it!

  28. Again, it is high time the cuckold libertarians realize that they can’t have their cake and eat it too. Don’t tax me for the stuff I don’t use, but tax others for the stuff they use. I don’t use the public education system and shouldn’t pay for it. I don’t use the I-205 bridge and don’t want to pay for it. Taxes are used based on the decision of elected politicians. Too bad the cuckold libertarians can’t get elected.

  29. Aaron, the joke’s on you for attempting to find some logical consistency in Terry’s argument. The guy has made one comment on this blog, 4,000 times. The bottom line is he hates people who ride bicycles. That’s it, and nothing else matters. Just look at the comment above yours.

  30. I don’t think Terry hates bicycles. I think he is bothered that we heavily subsidize a very niche market while ignoring the majority of the rate payers.

    I have the same argument with tobacco taxes. I don’t mind paying a high tax on cigarettes if the money was pooled up into a large fund that helps pay for medical expenses related to smoking, but most of the taxes go to pay for things that have absolutely nothing with smoking. In essence, I am paying a “user fee” to smoke, but Ill never see a dime of that money (unless I foolishly decide to have kids without the means of taking care of them).

  31. TP sez: “Bicyclists only take from taxpayers, the economy and everybody else. It is about time they admit it!”

    Terry, read this report from the Brookings Institute.

    http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0717_transportation_puentes.aspx?emc=lm&m=228037&l=5&v=1161729

    In short, $8 billion was transferred last summer to the Highway Trust Fund to make it solvent. This year, they’re looking at $20 billion. $28 billion in less than two years.

    The source of these funds? Federal General Fund dollars (i.e.: income taxes and other taxes and fees paid by ALL of us.)

    Really, this argument of yours gets sillier by the day.

Leave a Reply to Jason McHuff Cancel reply

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