Another Opportunity to say NO to the CRC


From the Coalition for a Livable Future:

What: Contact the Oregon Transportation Commission and express your opposition to funding for the Columbia River Crossing Project.

Who to Contact: Email the Commissioners c/o Amy Merkling, ODOT Commission Assistant and Citizens’ Representative, Amy.MERCKLING@odot.state.or.us
Gail Achterman, Oregon Transportation Commission Chair
Michael Nelson, Oregon Transportation Commission Vice-Chair
Janice Wilson, Oregon Transportation Commission
Alan Brown, Oregon Transportation Commission
David Lohman, Oregon Transportation Commission

Background: The Oregon Transportation Commission will be discussing the allocation of state funding for the Columbia River Crossing at its August 19th meeting, even though the legislature did not fund the CRC in the last session, signaling a lack of statewide support for the project. This omission is particularly notable as an intentional choice of the legislature, as it earmarked almost $1 Billion for other projects in the Jobs and Transportation Act.

Coalition for a Livable Future is urging the Oregon Transportation Commission to not fund the CRC until the project is designed in a way that will help Oregon meet its global warming goals. As possibly the largest infrastructure project in the state’s history, this project should be the first major example of how to build infrastructure to help reduce VMT from today’s levels. The current project design allows an increase of greenhouse gases by over 30% by 2030, working in direct cross-purposes to the state’s goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. In order to reach this goal, the project needs to be dramatically modified and scaled appropriately to reduce future vehicle miles traveled at or below today’s level. Join CLF by discouraging OTC from supporting the allocation of funds for the Columbia River Crossing project as currently designed.


87 responses to “Another Opportunity to say NO to the CRC”

  1. OK…I agree…we should not fund the CRC, at least as it is.

    However, has anyone noticed the news that Washington County is inching closer to approving an “Urban Reserve” area close to the North Plains area? If this plan goes ahead eventually industries would be approved in the region, producing jobs that would attract commuters—and continuing to attract them from the Clark Co. area of Washington, as well. This is where the “port-to-port” bridge would be desirable in conjunction with a non-controlled access route from North Portland area to West Union, i.e the junction of Cornelius Pass Rd and Hwy 26.

    I said “non-controlled access”—there is already a series of roadways there and various other highways crossing the route—so I see no need for any sort of “freeway.” Mankind has had roadways for thousands of years—but controlled access routes for only the last fifty years—so the latter pattern is not yet firmly set. Furthermore if this route is planned with the appropriate clearances perhaps we could see C-Tran operating some hybrid, fuel cell, or electric buses–even double decker ones–connecting to a transit hub in the Cornell Rd and Hwy 26 area.

  2. Coalition for a Livable Future is urging the Oregon Transportation Commission to not fund the CRC until the project is designed in a way that will help Oregon meet its global warming goals.
    The easiest way to meet the stupid GW goals is to shut down all coal power plants and replace them with nukes.

    (I only say nukes because they are the only practical replacement. So called alternative energy sources simply have not been shown to be capable of supplying our needs.)

    As to the CRC project, it should be reduced to just what is required to solve today’s problem: congestion — one or two new bridges, the SR14 interchange (due to altitude difference) and Marine Drive & Victory on ramps add lanes. (If other things such as interchanges or transit become problems in the future, then they can be solved in the future.)

    This brings in the whole project at under 1 billion – a cost low enough to not require tolls.
    See NoBridgeTolls.com

    To add light rail (toy trains) to serve the 1650 people who currently (as of the DEIS report) use transit is a perverted joke on those who will have to pay the billion dollar cost our of money that would have been better spent on food for their family.

    Thanks
    JK

  3. to serve the 1650 people who currently (as of the DEIS report) use transit is a perverted joke

    It may be; however, a light rail line with its separated, reliable right-of-way would be expected to attract a far greater number of riders.

  4. In the words of Ronald Regan “Here we go again.” Same chorus second verse – strike that – the umpteenth verse of the same outdated worn out retrenched protest about the size of the bridge. If anything should NOT be funded it needs to be the bicycle infrastructure and light rail – that is unless the users (deadbeat bicyclists and transit passengers) are willing to pay 100 percent of the costs with NO subsidies from motorist paid, tolls, taxes and/or fees, the ax needs to fall on the alternative modes.

  5. Terry Parker Says:

    In the words of Ronald Regan “Here we go again.” Same chorus second verse – strike that – the umpteenth verse of the same outdated worn out retrenched protest about the size of the bridge. If anything should NOT be funded it needs to be the bicycle infrastructure and light rail – that is unless the users (deadbeat bicyclists and transit passengers) are willing to pay 100 percent of the costs with NO subsidies from motorist paid, tolls, taxes and/or fees, the ax needs to fall on the alternative modes.

    TERRY PARKER SONG

  6. Jason McHuff Says: to serve the 1650 people who currently (as of the DEIS report) use transit is a perverted joke
    It may be; however, a light rail line with its separated, reliable right-of-way would be expected to attract a far greater number of riders.
    JK: We have a PROVEN congestion problem TODAY, so lets solve it today.

    If transit ridership should swamp the current system in the future, then solve that problem in the future. Not by spending a billion dollars on the hope that it would attract more riders than the WES.

    Further, without the toy train the, probable, real reason for rebuilding several Vancouver interchanges disappears (or is greatly reduced), further reducing the spending required.

    That lower spending will allow families to stay solvent, instead of draining their family budget to pay for a mega project, whose probably real purpose is to hide the real cost of the toy train.

    Thanks
    JK

  7. JK, we went over this the other day… please change your quoting style.

    By saying “Jason McHuff Says:”, immediately followed in italics with something he _didn’t_ say is confusing to readers just arriving to the conversation.

    Try to use the blockquote method, or some other means.

    Thanks,
    Bob R.

  8. JK wrote: “I only say nukes because they are the only practical replacement.”

    They are a practical replacement in part because the government provides massive subsidies, including the management of limitations and regulations on liability.

    It’s not by chance that most insurance policies (check your home-owner’s policy or office lease liability policy) exclude damages from radiological events.

    Although safe most of the time, there is a minuscule but finite chance of a very, very, very expensive incident which would bankrupt a typical insurance company at every commercial nuclear power installation.

    It takes a network of international treaties and government organizations to provide the regulatory climate in which nuclear plant operators can exist with a predictable and manageable liability exposure.

    Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I’m not sure, but it seems to me that a big one-world international government organization would normally be frowned upon by Libertarian philosophy.

    So to the free-market uber alles types who are pro-nuke: Which insurance company would step up to the plate and say all this big government stuff is nonsense, and they can handle the burden of nuclear liability?

  9. Repetitive Song of the BLOG

    Go shout it to the people,
    Over the bridge and everywhere,
    Go shout it to the people.
    That bridge is just too big.

    Max should cross the river,
    Compel people to ride it
    Cars and Trucks restricted,
    Lanes of plenty ignites a fit.

    Go shout it to the people,
    Over the bridge and everywhere,
    Go shout it to the people.
    That bridge is just too big.

    Bikes should have priority,
    Pathways expansive and wide
    Charge high tolls to drivers,
    For bicyclists free ride

    Go shout it to the people,
    Over the bridge and everywhere,
    Go shout it to the people.
    That bridge is just too big.

    That’s all folks
    And to use one of Bob’s favorite words:
    That’s “hyperbole”

  10. Bob R. Says: JK wrote: “I only say nukes because they are the only practical replacement.”

    They are a practical replacement in part because the government provides massive subsidies, including the management of limitations and regulations on liability.
    JK: Now talk about the reason I included the word ONLY.

    Thanks
    JK

  11. PROVEN congestion problem TODAY, so lets solve it today

    And one way is to replace buses on the highway with parallel off-highway transit that, moreover, attracts people away from the highway who won’t use the buses. Likewise with better bicycle/pedestrian paths.

    swamp the current system in the future

    But what about people who aren’t willing to use the current system, but would use an improved one? And what about the people who do use the current transit, but must put up with unreliable service, extra transfers, and longer routes (since a majority of transit trips get off the freeway, serve Hayden Island and then get back on)?

    attract more riders than the WES

    How about comparing the number of people traveling in the two corridors, the transit-friendliness of the areas around them, the span of the transit service (MAX would run all day, every day), the transit connections to them, etc?

    without the toy train the, probable, real reason for rebuilding several Vancouver interchanges disappears

    Where do you get that from, especially since most of the rail line would be away from interchanges? And the phrase “toy trains” does not belong in civil discussions.

  12. Jason McHuff Says:
    And one way is to replace buses on the highway with parallel off-highway transit that, moreover, attracts people away from the highway who won’t use the buses. Likewise with better bicycle/pedestrian paths.
    JK: Better bike/ped. Laughable. There are only 150 bikers and 30 peds daily. Multiply that by 10 and you still get nothing meaningful.

    Jason McHuff Says: But what about people who aren’t willing to use the current system, but would use an improved one?
    JK: And what about the 81,000 daily auto commuters people who will have to choose between tolls to get to work and buying food or paying the rent?

    And why would anyone want to increase transit ridership since it uses more energy than small cars, puts out more CO2 than small cars and costs more. Every new rider to transit increases the transit agencies’ loss.

    Jason McHuff Says: And what about the people who do use the current transit, but must put up with unreliable service, extra transfers, and longer routes (since a majority of transit trips get off the freeway, serve Hayden Island and then get back on)?
    JK: Why don’t we help them get cars? That $750 million would shed $52 million per year (7%):

    Proposed LRT cost: …….$750,000,000
    At 7% this would yield: ……$52,500,000

    Number of current transit users:……1650
    Yield per user:…………………………$31,818

    Cost of KIA……………………………..$11,495 (MSRP)
    Cost of Prias…………………………..$23,375 (MSRP)
    Cost of Jaguar………………………..$78,650 (MSRP)
    (Oh, darn, we can only buy one of these every second year)
    Conclusion:
    We could buy every single transit user a brand new Prias every year and pay most o f the other costs too, in perpetuity for the cost of the toy train.
    Or we could buy every user a Jaguar every second year forever.

    Jason McHuff Says: How about comparing the number of people traveling in the two corridors, the transit-friendliness of the areas around them, the span of the transit service (MAX would run all day, every day), the transit connections to them, etc?
    JK: Why? Transit still costs more and uses more energy than small cars. If you really want to help people, use the money to buy every transit user, and 25,000 more needy people, a new car every 5 years?

    Jason McHuff Says: Where do you get that from, especially since most of the rail line would be away from interchanges?
    JK: I should have been more specific: Interchanges North of SR14. See the project map.

    Jason McHuff Says: And the phrase “toy trains” does not belong in civil discussions.
    JK: It is a truly descriptive term for something that costs too much and does too little. It is literally a toy. It has no legitimate transportation use. Even its hawkers, in public meetings, say that it is a development tool. As did former city council person Hales and a former metro boss.

    Thanks
    JK

  13. choose between tolls to get to work and buying food or paying the rent

    Having a reliable transit option would allow them to choose the latter. A better option would be to move closer to work, e.g. on the other side of the river. When you include subsidies like money going to the highway portion of the project but not coming from road user fees (such as from the billions of dollars transferred from the Federal general fund to the highway fund), along with ones like “free” parking, oil defense and pollution cleanup, it really isn’t affordable for people to live long distances from their regular destinations.

    uses more energy than small cars, puts out more CO2 than small cars and costs more.

    What about people who only have bigger vehicles because they need their capabilities at other times? And are you talking about true mass (well-used) transit, or are you including trips that function mainly as a social service, for those who might have no other way to get around?

    Every new rider to transit increases the transit agencies’ loss.

    How so, assuming a rider can be accommodated on a trip that already runs? Does it really take more than a couple bucks to carry an extra 200 pounds or so? In fact, how about we compare the real-world situation of the cost of somebody choosing to drive and adding a vehicle trip to the roads, vs. the cost of that same trip being taken on existing transit routes? Each should include all external subsidies, environmental harm, etc which can be specifically linked to that added trip.

    $52 million per year

    Over how many years does that spread the costs? Keep in mind many bridges have lasted for decades.

    most o f the other costs too

    Including more lanes on the bridge, something for the extra traffic and pollution that people in the surrounding region are forced to endure, and all the other subsidies that auto users get?

    Interchanges North of SR14

    Okay. But how does adding a rail line necessitate them?

    It has no legitimate transportation use

    Then why do 1000’s of people use existing lines every work day?

    is a development tool

    Hey, if I had it my way, we’d fix the real problem by not encouraging suburban development and auto use in the first place.

  14. choose between tolls to get to work and buying food or paying the rent
    Jason McHuff Says: Having a reliable transit option would allow them to choose the latter.
    JK: Why is that good public policy. It costs more than driving. It uses more energy than driving a driving a small car. If you want to try to change people’s habits, it would be easier to get them into a small car. Cheaper too.

    Jason McHuff Says: A better option would be to move closer to work, e.g. on the other side of the river.
    JK: Who are you to tell others where to live? Who are you to tell others to spend a few hundred thousand more living in smart Portland, instead of where the schools are better, the crime is lower and housing more affordable?

    Jason McHuff Says: When you include subsidies like money going to the highway portion of the project but not coming from road user fees (such as from the billions of dollars transferred from the Federal general fund to the highway fund),
    JK: How does that net out with the billions stolen from the highway fund for transit?

    Jason McHuff Says: along with ones like “free” parking
    JK: Free parking is a very cheap way that most businesses vchoose to use to attract customers – like advertising, coupons etc.

    Jason McHuff Says: , oil defense and pollution cleanup,
    JK: Both of which are made worse by buses which will not go away with rail.

    Jason McHuff Says: it really isn’t affordable for people to live long distances from their regular destinations.
    JK: Proof please. Saving a quarter million on a house is a pretty good trade for a few dollars in fuel. And please don’t try to tell me it is cheaper in high density, because high density costs more – that is why Vancouver BC’s famous towers cost a million dollars for a crummy little unit.

    Jason McHuff Says: What about people who only have bigger vehicles because they need their capabilities at other times?
    JK: What about them? Most newer vehicles beat transit. The average big city bus is only equal to a24.6 mpg car (or SUV.)

    Jason McHuff Says: And are you talking about true mass (well-used) transit,
    JK: Portland will never be big enough to justify true mass transit. Event he big, dense cities are losing density as people choose to avoid their crime, high costs and lousy schools.

    Jason McHuff Says: or are you including trips that function mainly as a social service, for those who might have no other way to get around?
    JK: How is that relevent. I am talking of averages. If you really want to help the poor, get them cars.

    Every new rider to transit increases the transit agencies’ loss.

    Jason McHuff Says: ….Does it really take more than a couple bucks to carry an extra 200 pounds or so?
    JK: It doesn’t. However you are not talking about ONE person, you are dreaming of a shift in a 80 year old trend away from transit. If that were to occur, and transit ridership were to have a meaningful increase the agency would have to buy a lot of new equipment and run a lot more service. To see this how this DOES NOT improve things much, you only have to look at the nations 10 biggest bus agencies and see that the cost is still many times that of a car and the energy use is equal to a24.6 MPG car (1.3 passengers).

    Jason McHuff Says: In fact, how about we compare the real-world situation of the cost of somebody choosing to drive and adding a vehicle trip to the roads, vs. the cost of that same trip being taken on existing transit routes?
    JK: Transit is hugely more expensive than driving. And buses get free right of way.

    Jason McHuff Says: Over how many years does that [$52 million per year] spread the costs? Keep in mind many bridges have lasted for decades.
    JK: As clearly stated that is the amount that $750 million will provide at 7% interest forever. Just to repeat: the proposed light rail is so expensive that it can buy a new care every year for every transit user forever.

    Jason McHuff Says:
    JK: Interchanges North of SR14
    Okay. But how does adding a rail line necessitate them?
    JK: The line has to cross those intersecting roads, so there must be an underpass for the toy train. If you just happen to find an excuse to rebuild the whole intersection, you can hide most or all of the cost in the highway expense.

    Jason McHuff Says: Then why do 1000’s of people use existing lines every work day?
    JK: So what? Hundreds of thousands drive everyday. Light rail ridership is a tiny fraction of driving and therefore irrelevant. And light rail costs many times what adding a similar capacity in added lanes to road costs.

    Jason McHuff Says:
    Hey, if I had it my way, we’d fix the real problem by not encouraging suburban development and auto use in the first place.
    JK: Who gave you the right to dictate where others live and how they travel? Do you think GWB should tell you how to live?

    Thanks
    JK

  15. It uses more energy than driving a driving a small car

    Even when you are comparing a full train to 100’s of small cars? And regarding cost, I believe one of the arguments against adding many highway lanes to the bridge is that, for them to be effective, many other highway sections would also have to be widened, at likewise great expense. And it would take a lot of widening, since cars of any size take up a lot more room than the same amount of people on a train. Lastly, does the car cost include the cost of a chauffeur?

    Who are you to tell others where to live?

    I was providing a solution to a potential person who finds tolls too expensive. In that case, it would be the economy telling the person where to live. But if we are talking about doing that instead of building the light rail line to Vancouver, how about giving people who commute from Washington a subsidy to move to Oregon, much like you propose subsidizing small cars?

    Regarding crime, if it really was that bad, why would people be able to sell property for so much? And regarding schools, how much of the problems in Portland are because families can move to suburban districts without having to pay for the increased capacity they take up?

    the billions stolen from the highway fund for transit

    First of all, no money was stolen since Congress had to approve it. And I don’t know how it compares, but oil defense and other things the Federal government has done to encourage driving should also be considered.

    most businesses vchoose to use to attract customers

    No, zoning regulations require that a business provide parking. And parking can easily require as much land as the building itself.

    buses which will not go away with rail

    When Westside MAX opened, most bus lines that previously traversed the Sunset Hwy were in fact discontinued. Which also, BTW, freed up space on the highway.

    a pretty good trade for a few dollars in fuel

    But its not just fuel. Its also added pollution, a need for more oil and therefore oil defense, increased road capacity such as a wider Interstate Bridge, possibly more crashes, etc.

    because high density costs more

    Even when you consider that it is cheaper to provide and maintain infrastructure for it, especially if density is done in a place that already has infrastructure? Higher density needs less street mileage per person, less water pipes, less sewer pipes, electricity lines, less telephone lines, less cable television lines,… And garbage trucks, recycling trucks, postal vehicles, UPS/FedEx/DHL/other package delivery vehicles, pizza/other food delivery vehicles, police vehicles, fire vehicles, etc all have to travel less to reach the same amount of people.

    And transit takes much less subsidy to provide because there’s a lot more riders along a given length of route and therefore more ridership per service level. Just compare the subsidies per passenger of urban and suburban routes.

    If you really want to help the poor, get them cars.

    Well, you’d also have to give them fuel, insurance, repairs, etc and offset the increased pollution caused, maybe more/wider roads… Oh, and I believe transit around here does better than the national average. And then there’s people who shouldn’t or can’t drive.

    Every new rider to transit increases the transit agencies’ loss.

    would have to buy a lot of new equipment and run a lot more service

    Again, how so? Most transit trips have enough existing, unused room to accommodate an extra rider and ones that are completely full don’t loose huge amounts of money.

    Light rail ridership is a tiny fraction of driving and therefore irrelevant

    Not when you only consider travel within the corridor the lines serve.

    Do you think GWB should tell you how to live?

    No, but guess what? Governments have at least partially done that by providing subsidies and favorable policies.

    Lastly I still don’t get about how a light rail line causes the need to rebuild interchanges. Rebuilding them has been talked about irregardless of the rail line and the rail line might not even cross I-5.

  16. Jason McHuff Says: Even when you are comparing a full train to 100’s of small cars?
    JK: Since when are trains full? The average MAX train has 28.4 people. The average big city train has 25.1 people. The average bus could carry all these people and more.

    Jason McHuff Says: And regarding cost, I believe one of the arguments against adding many highway lanes to the bridge is that, for them to be effective, many other highway sections would also have to be widened, at likewise great expense.
    JK: Not if you look at the data. The only widening required is around the bridge. See NoBridgeTolls.com

    Jason McHuff Says: And it would take a lot of widening, since cars of any size take up a lot more room than the same amount of people on a train.
    JK: Actually a train takes up more space than a road for the same capacity. See portlandfacts.com/Transit/RailAttractsDrivers2.htm

    Jason McHuff Says: Lastly, does the car cost include the cost of a chauffeur?
    JK: Unlike transit a car does NOT require a $70+/hr chauffeur with a $1900+ monthly health plan.

    Jason McHuff Says: JK:Who are you to tell others where to live?

    I was providing a solution to a potential person who finds tolls too expensive. In that case, it would be the economy telling the person where to live. But if we are talking about doing that instead of building the light rail line to Vancouver, how about giving people who commute from Washington a subsidy to move to Oregon, much like you propose subsidizing small cars?
    JK: Why bother? Just build a cheap bridge without wasteful rail, interchanges and tolls.

    Jason McHuff Says: And I don’t know how it compares, but oil defense and other things the Federal government has done to encourage driving should also be considered.
    JK: Simple. Buses use more energy per passenger-mile than cars. That means that if we all gave up our cars and wasted our time and money on buses, we would INCREASE oil consumption. Further if you really cared about foreign oil consumption, you would argue for domestic production increases, nuclear and coal to liquid.

    Jason McHuff Says: When Westside MAX opened, most bus lines that previously traversed the Sunset Hwy were in fact discontinued. Which also, BTW, freed up space on the highway.
    JK: Had the BILLION dollars been spent on highway capacity, there would be no congestion problem in that corridor today. And people would be getting to their destination faster – even on transit because the bus was faster then MAX.

    Jason McHuff Says: JK:because high density costs more

    Even when you consider that it is cheaper to provide and maintain infrastructure for it, especially if density is done in a place that already has infrastructure? Higher density needs less street mileage per person, less water pipes, less sewer pipes, electricity lines, less telephone lines, less cable television lines,… And garbage trucks, recycling trucks, postal vehicles, UPS/FedEx/DHL/other package delivery vehicles, pizza/other food delivery vehicles, police vehicles, fire vehicles, etc all have to travel less to reach the same amount of people.
    JK: Nice collection of planner’s lies. Now tell us why big cities (IE: dense cities) cost more to live in?

    Jason McHuff Says: And transit takes much less subsidy to provide because there’s a lot more riders along a given length of route and therefore more ridership per service level. Just compare the subsidies per passenger of urban and suburban routes.
    JK: Nice theory. Now tell us why the average big city transit still cost more than a car?
    LRT: $1.38 per passenger-mile with capital, $0.52 without.
    BUS: $1.01 per passenger-mile with capital, $0.85 without.
    CAR: $0.20-0.25 per passenger-mile with capital & all other costs.
    (Do not use this to claim rail is cheaper – rail gets the best routes)

    Jason McHuff Says: JK: If you really want to help the poor, get them cars.

    Well, you’d also have to give them fuel, insurance, repairs, etc and offset the increased pollution caused, maybe more/wider roads… Oh, and I believe transit around here does better than the national average. And then there’s people who shouldn’t or can’t drive.
    JK: The average bus costs $1.01 per passenger-mile; the average car costs of $0.25. The car includes ALL costs: fuel, insurance, repairs, etc.

    Jason McHuff Says: JK:Every new rider to transit increases the transit agencies’ loss.
    JK: would have to buy a lot of new equipment and run a lot more service

    Again, how so? Most transit trips have enough existing, unused room to accommodate an extra rider and ones that are completely full don’t loose huge amounts of money.
    JK: just answered this: yes you can add one new rider at no cost. But you cannot add a meaningful number at no cost. The big city data proves this: huge ridership, little cost reduction.

    Jason McHuff Says: JK:Do you think GWB should tell you how to live?
    No, but guess what? Governments have at least partially done that by providing subsidies and favorable policies.
    JK: What subsides? (Other than the crap calms of the sierra club and their fellow travelers.)

    Thanks
    JK

  17. JK: Nice collection of planner’s lies. Now tell us why big cities (IE: dense cities) cost more to live in?

    This has been answered for you repeatedly, yet you ignore something as basic as the market. They cost more to live in because they are more desirable, and therefore people are willing to pay more to live there. Because this doesn’t fit your agenda, you ignore it and label the information “planner’s lies”. Or dismiss information entirely because the claims are “crap” when they issue from organizations you disagree with.

    JK: Since when are trains full? The average MAX train has 28.4 people. The average big city train has 25.1 people. The average bus could carry all these people and more

    Averages are meaningless in this discussion, because loads vary throughout the day. To suggest that MAX trains are not “full” is to ignore reality completely. During peak hours, trains are at or over capacity; fewer people ride at night, but your “28.4” number is dishonest and absurd.

  18. JeffF Says: Averages are meaningless in this discussion, because loads vary throughout the day. To suggest that MAX trains are not “full” is to ignore reality completely. During peak hours, trains are at or over capacity; fewer people ride at night, but your “28.4” number is dishonest and absurd.
    JK: Average, not peak loads, are what gives us the cost and energy consumption of transit. Further MAX trains are only full until the first or second stop outside of the core area where a few people get off. That is transit’s capacity problem – even during rush hour a vehicle averages far less than full because it cannot be more than full in the city core and has to be empty at the end of the line.

    The fact that big city transit is still not better than cars, shows us that USA transit will likely NEVER be cost or energy competitive with cars.

    This raises the question of what is the highest and best goal of transit?

    * Get more people to use transit which uses more energy and costs more than driving?
    * Spend a lot of money on a transit system in hopes of encouraging high density development which likely will only slightly improve the transit system’s efficiency and WILL cause the transit system to lose more money by attracting more riders?
    OR
    * Serve the truly needy in the best way possible?

  19. JeffF Says: Averages are meaningless in this discussion, because loads vary throughout the day. To suggest that MAX trains are not “full” is to ignore reality completely. During peak hours, trains are at or over capacity; fewer people ride at night, but your “28.4” number is dishonest and absurd.
    JK: Average, not peak loads, are what gives us the cost and energy consumption of transit. Further MAX trains are only full until the first or second stop outside of the core area where a few people get off. That is transit’s capacity problem – even during rush hour a vehicle averages far less than full because it cannot be more than full in the city core and has to be empty at the end of the line.

    The fact that big city transit is still not better than cars, shows us that USA transit will likely NEVER be cost or energy competitive with cars.

    This raises the question of what is the highest and best goal of transit?

    * Get more people to use transit which uses more energy and costs more than driving?
    * Spend a lot of money on a transit system in hopes of encouraging high density development which likely will only slightly improve the transit system’s efficiency and WILL cause the transit system to lose more money by attracting more riders?
    OR
    * Serve the truly needy in the best way possible?

  20. JeffF Says: JK: Nice collection of planner’s lies. Now tell us why big cities (IE: dense cities) cost more to live in?

    This has been answered for you repeatedly, yet you ignore something as basic as the market. They cost more to live in because they are more desirable, and therefore people are willing to pay more to live there. Because this doesn’t fit your agenda, you ignore it and label the information “planner’s lies”. Or dismiss information entirely because the claims are “crap” when they issue from organizations you disagree with.
    JK: The planner lie is that density saves money. That they lied is shown by your saying “They cost more to live in because . . .”

    End of discussion we both acknowledge that high density costs more. That was my point and one that planners deny.

    Thanks
    JK

  21. JK:“The average bus costs $1.01 per passenger-mile; the average car costs of $0.25. The car includes ALL costs: fuel, insurance, repairs, etc.”

    ws:Care to cover the actual cost of purchasing the vehicle in this equation?

    This AAA study shows costs of auto accidents a bit higher than your numbers:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120468598041712629.html

    “Automobile crashes cost the U.S. $164.2 billion annually, or $1,051 per person, according to a report AAA plans to release today.”

    JK:“Since when are trains full? The average MAX train has 28.4 people. The average big city train has 25.1 people. The average bus could carry all these people and more.”

    ws:The average city bus could carry this many people assuming the passenger loads were level at all hours of the day. Clearly – even roads – do not have a static demand.

    JK:“What subsides?”

    ws:We’ll talk when car owners pay for their accidents:

    426 fatal accidents only (2008) in Oregon have huge economic costs:

    “The estimated economic cost of the state’s fatal crashes was $700 million, ODOT said.”

    http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/speed_kills_more_drivers_in_or.html

    Who is paying for the cleanup, court proceedings, and medical emergency response for these accidents?

  22. JK: The planner lie is that density saves money. That they lied is shown by your saying “They cost more to live in because . . .”

    End of discussion we both acknowledge that high density costs more. That was my point and one that planners deny.

    Yours is a binary world. High-density cities cost more for individuals to live in, because the demand to live there is higher — hence, the market drives up the price.

    This in no way connects to whether or not the cost of delivering services is lower — in fact, the cost of living in Manhattan would be considerably higher if not for the efficiency of delivering service in high densities. Yours is a flawed construction.

  23. ws Says:
    JK:”The average bus costs $1.01 per passenger-mile; the average car costs of $0.25. The car includes ALL costs: fuel, insurance, repairs, etc.”
    ws:Care to cover the actual cost of purchasing the vehicle in this equation?
    JK: Are you having trouble reading? I said:
    “The car includes ALL costs:”

    As to AAA, we have been through this many times an you keep forgetting. AAA is not the average American. See:
    http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/AAA_method.htm

  24. JeffF Says: High-density cities cost more for individuals to live in, because the demand to live there is higher — hence, the market drives up the price.
    JK: How many times do I have to repeat:
    High density costs more. PERIOD

    I made no statement as to cause.

    It does not matter what the cause is. High density costs more but the planners say we will save money. Not for the people who have to pay those costs.

  25. JK:As to AAA, we have been through this many times an you keep forgetting. AAA is not the average American. See:

    ws:This report is brand new, it has nothing to do with the operation of automobiles, but has to do with the cost of accidents alone.

    Do you have a web-page that breaks down your methodology for calculating .25 per passenger mile?

  26. It does not matter what the cause is.

    It absolutely DOES matter JK. Sheesh.

    Why?

    Because *if* (I know _you_ don’t believe this, but just play a long for a second), *if* the reason that high-density areas cost a lot is due to demand issues, local zoning issues, other issues, etc., then high-density living can be made more affordable by facilitating the construction of more of it.

    “It does not matter what the cause is.”

    That’s right up there with trees facilitating crime, and “they can live beyond Beaverton”.

    I personally wouldn’t trust any politician promoting a policy position while simultaneously declaring that “it doesn’t matter what the cause is” regarding a particular facet of that issue.

  27. Bob R. Says: (quoting JK)It does not matter what the cause is.

    It absolutely DOES matter JK. Sheesh.
    JK:Planner says high density saves money.
    We all agree high density costs more.

    End of discussion. The cause does not matter. The planner was wrong.

  28. JK: How many times do I have to repeat:
    High density costs more. PERIOD

    I could simply repeat the opposite argument: High density costs less. PERIOD

    If you can’t define how it costs more and you can’t define why it costs more, all you’re doing is repeating an unsubstantiated claim.

  29. The average big city train has 25.1 people

    Others have questioned that number, but even if it is true, its no different than extra highway lanes being empty most of the time and only used during rush hours. And at rush hour across the Interstate Bridge, which is what the real issue is in this discussion, I’d expect them to be well-used.

    portlandfacts.com/Transit/RailAttractsDrivers2.htm

    That does not consider all the people that have switched to MAX since then (many developments have been built along the line, and many people aren’t going to decide to move in one month), does not consider all the buses that were removed from the highway and does not consider the fact that TriMet was able to use those buses to instead provide more service and on more days (e.g. weekends). A faster bus is useless if it doesn’t go when you want it to.

    Cost wise, it doesn’t consider that providing more traffic lanes through the West Hills would cost well above average, and doesn’t appear to compare adding lanes all the way to Hillsboro. Also, if the money was spent on highways, there would be more pollution in the area and other problems that more traffic bring, such as the probably of increased crashes. And then there’s the need to accommodate the extra vehicles once they get into Portland.

    $70+/hr chauffeur

    Show me a transit operator who makes that much, especially not including health benefits which you separated out (and not that most operators get that expensive of health benefits).

    We all agree high density costs more

    That’s odd, because that’s not what I’m seeing here. And prove to me that when a person in a vehicle can service X number of people in half hour (in a higher density area), it is MORE expensive than when it takes 45 minutes or an hour to serve the same amount of people (in a lower density area).

    Also prove that it is more expensive when people have destinations (such as shopping) close enough that they can feasibly walk, bike or take a short transit trip on a well used line?

    But you cannot add a meaningful number at no cost

    Well, its certainly going to be well below the supposed “average” cost per rider, since that average is dragged down by trips that have tons of room to add riders.

    The average bus costs $1.01 per passenger-mile; the average car costs of $0.25. The car includes ALL costs: fuel, insurance, repairs, etc.

    Where do you get those numbers? Because I showed in this comment that the fair cost of a half-hour TriMet bus ride to be $1.27 (and buses go a lot faster than 2-3 MPH). And does the car cost include costs pushed on to society, like crashes, pollution, oil defense, etc?

    What subsides?

    As I’ve said before, things like brand-new school capacity, widened roads in Washington County (check out their MSTIP), sewer plant expansion in Clackamas County (see the 9/5/2007 Oregonian), Federal loans that are not available in inner cities, not taxing money spent on buying homes,…

  30. And does the car cost include costs pushed on to society, like crashes, pollution, oil defense, etc?

    No, JK said just this week, in another thread, that he does not consider oil defense costs to be an externalized cost of automobile ownership.

    It would be nice, however, if JK would include on his oft-referenced web site a categorized list of all the cost categories he rejects, so we wouldn’t have to go over them every time he includes his very, very low cost estimates.

    (And it would be even nicer if he would eliminate other oft-discussed flaws from those numbers.)

  31. JK:“Planner says high density saves money.
    We all agree high density costs more.

    End of discussion. The cause does not matter. The planner was wrong.”

    ws:I’ve never heard a planner say housing prices cost less in density, though I’ve heard them say infrastructure costs are less.

    You’re conflating private costs with public costs and it mostly pertains to public services. With the exception of living off the grid, denser living costs less for infrastructure.

    Hello, the government’s programs of Rural Electrification and Rural Broadband are VERY expensive. There’s a reason why broadband companies can’t reach these areas w/o losing money. Spread things out and generally they cost more.

    I think it’s fair if people want to live in less density (defining density is the issue) as long as they are willing to pay for the extra infrastructure costs.

  32. ws:I’ve never heard a planner say housing prices cost less in density, though I’ve heard them say infrastructure costs are less.
    JK: No, they just say HD costs less. Neglecting to tell people that HD will increase their living cost.

    Thanks
    Jk

  33. JK:No, they just say HD costs less. Neglecting to tell people that HD will increase their living cost.

    ws:Yeah, you’re probably right – it’s better to keep spending 25% of income on transportation costs like Americans have been over the last years.

  34. “Because *if* (I know _you_ don’t believe this, but just play a long for a second), *if* the reason that high-density areas cost a lot is due to demand issues, local zoning issues, other issues, etc., then high-density living can be made more affordable by facilitating the construction of more of it.”

    Bob…you are drifting into socio-economic theory. Fortunately for society most of that pertaining to urban development has already been arrived at. Unfortunately for you that doesn’t open up any realistic career opportunities. Unless you are trying to build up some greater political base and anticipating some job security by making your statements.

    Fact is, you have also raised non-transportation related issues in the past—and then you try to censor people when they disagree with your conclusions. I am going to state for the record that I am squarely opposed to any induced “growth agenda” (that is calling it what it is) as advocated in the name of “human rights” by the present so called “liberal” leadership in this country. The people that want that the most are the labor union hacks and associated political activists. I wish they would admit that these policies do nothing to promote any sort of international human rights. We get that international rights crap shoved on us quite frequently now in the union I belong to. Sorry….social conservatives have already “been there and done that” and are much more astute than this recent crop of starry eyed “Hopers”

  35. The people that want that the most are the labor union hacks and associated political activists

    I resemble that remark! yuk yuk yuk!

  36. ws Says: Yeah, you’re probably right – it’s better to keep spending 25% of income on transportation costs like Americans have been over the last years.
    JK: Is that at the real cost of $0.202 per passenger-mile or some inflated number like the AAA?
    See:
    portlandfacts.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit-Details%282005%29.htm and portlandfacts.com/Transit/AAA_method.htm

    Does that 25% save people enough money on housing and other costs to make it cheaper to live in the burbs?

    The real bottom line is total cost of living. Not some arbitrarily chosen component like transportation.

    As we have agreed, total cost of living is cheaper in the burbs, so any additional transportation cost must be justified.

    Also people in the burbs may not travel a lot more because most of the jobs are also in the burbs.

    Bottom line: How is your 25% of income claim relevent to the discussion?

    Thanks
    JK

  37. JK: Also people in the burbs may not travel a lot more because most of the jobs are also in the burbs

    Yes, of course. That would explain why most commutes are from the suburbs into the city in the morning. You don’t advance your argument when it’s based on ridiculous claims like this.

  38. JK:Does that 25% save people enough money on housing and other costs to make it cheaper to live in the burbs?

    As we have agreed, total cost of living is cheaper in the burbs, so any additional transportation cost must be justified.

    Also people in the burbs may not travel a lot more because most of the jobs are also in the burbs.”

    ws:We have not agreed that all housing in the city of Portland is unaffordable. These are blanket statements without analysis. In fact, all housing, with the exception of West Portland, is more affordable than the entire Portland Metro area average home price sale:

    http://www.movingtoportland.net/homes_price.htm

    You can also see here the housing cost and housing cost + transportation costs in a nice, colored map:

    http://htaindex.cnt.org/mapping_tool.php?region=Portland–Salem,%20OR–WA

    As shown by their analysis, Portland (city) is more affordable after including housing and transportation, as noted by so many areas outside of the city that are above 45% H+T.

    Even so, much of Portland has affordable housing based off housing costs not exceeding 30% of income based on the maps.

    JK:“Bottom line: How is your 25% of income claim relevent to the discussion?”

    ws:You kiddin’ me?

    1) Americans spend a large portion of their incomes on transportation

    2) Transportation costs are increasing

    3) Most of America is automobile based

    The question is, is how we build our cities and towns helping reduce cost burdens to people? Higher prices in sections of cities and older neighborhoods reveal market forces at work – they’re in demand more. Location, location, location.

    JK:“Also people in the burbs may not travel a lot more because most of the jobs are also in the burbs.”

    ws:This cannot be proven or disproved, and transportation goes beyond work commute. Furthermore, on average, suburban people drive more miles than city drivers.

  39. we:ws:We have not agreed that all housing in the city of Portland is unaffordable. These are blanket statements without analysis. In fact, all housing, with the exception of West Portland, is more affordable than the entire Portland Metro area average home price sale:
    movingtoportland.net/homes_price.htm

    JK: Good catch ws! Apparently you missed this in your reference:
    Affordability in Portland

    In March, 2008, Bizjournals compared median home payments and household income levels in the nation’s 50 largest metros. The study was based on statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2006 American Community Survey. Bizjournal said this was “the most up-to-date source of federal data on housing costs.”

    Portland ranked as the 37th most affordable market, with median monthly household income at $4,373. The median monthly mortgage payment is $1,449. Bold added, from: movingtoportland.net/homes_price.htm

    Good Job Metro, your have put us near the bottom of the heap for housing affordability!
    For the math impaired, that is 33% of income. Average.

    ws 2) Transportation costs are increasing
    3) Most of America is automobile based

    The question is, is how we build our cities and towns helping reduce cost burdens to people?
    JK: Good question. First lets get our facts straight: even in big dense cities, mass transit costs several times what driving a car costs, so building for mass transit won’t save money. The more people you ,move to transit, the more taxes will be required. If we all move to transit our transport cost will double, triple or more in the form of taxes to pay for all that transit.

    ws ws:This cannot be proven or disproved, and transportation goes beyond work commute.
    JK: Census collects the data.

    ws Furthermore, on average, suburban people drive more miles than city drivers.
    JK: prove it.

    Thanks
    JK

  40. even in big dense cities, mass transit costs several times what driving a car costs, so building for mass transit won’t save money.

    I’d love a citation that mass transit costs more than a car, counting parking fees and such, if you live in a dense center-city area where parking runs $20-$50 per day.

    You also know that each parking spot in a dense area can end up costing about $200,000 in total costs? That’s due to supply and demand also, not due to density in and of itself.

    It’s not cheap to build extra floors on a building to store cars, not to mention the space needed to move them to those spots. I doubt your costs for driving a car include the average of five parking spots that are built for each car on the road as well? (From the book Lots of Parking, a great read if you think free parking is really free.)

  41. al m says:
    I resemble that remark! yuk yuk yuk!

    I don’t mind having a growth policy that enables our local union members to work. That is why I supported the OHSU expansion, the So. Waterfront District and the Pearl District. Yet we have no need to create employment for millions or tens of millions of foreign citizens who want to leave their own homes for the US—which is what big labor bosses seem to want. We are already helping them with $100 billion of private assistance every year, all of which eventually will go into employment for someone. The money we would save on building any major new piece of transportation infrastructure, or similar public works, would easily build several manufacturing facilities for construction materials in developing countries—lifting any one who wants it out of poverty. That would be a very strategic investment—as opposed to the US taxpayer funded “come one, come all” policy that now welcomes mainly “minorities” into the US—and instructs them on how to claim their special privileges as “minorities.”

    So, union jobs, Yes—Uncontrolled Growth and labor bosses skyrocketing salaries–No!

  42. Uh, Ron–even though you’re bordering towards the off-topic again, I’ll address an obvious flaw in the above: You allege that “big labor bosses” want to create employment for immigrant workers–which is the most ridiculous thing I have heard today. Domestic labor benefits most when immigration is restricted, and when trade barriers raise the price of imported goods. You see, bringing in lots of extra workers (whether immigrants, legal or otherwise, or people moving here from California) into the local market drives wages DOWN, not up. Supply and demand and all that.

    And as I’ve pointed out before–if you think “union bosses” are simply trying to inflate union rolls to collect more dues; I will remind you that unemployed workers don’t pay dues. (At least this is true for industrial unions). A union boss who was trying to add to union rolls by recruiting out-of-area workers when there are no jobs for them to fill–would be doing the workers he represents a disservice, and probably find himself becoming unelected.

    Your remarks concerning “minorities” are contemptible nonsense which merit no further comment.

  43. ES,
    Your thinking may pertain to the AFL-CIO; several other unions broke away to form Change to Win, which is a different animal, and among them is SEIU which now apparently has on-call status in the White House. CTW is much mor aggressive in seking out immigrant workers, legal or illegal.

    As to your last comment—yes, a majority of immigrants, if you count illegals, and maybe otherwise, too, are within the defined “protected classes.” Do the math, bub.

  44. JK:“Good catch ws! Apparently you missed this in your reference:”

    ws:The issue we were addressing was suburb to city cost difference – NOT Portland’s affordability to the rest of the US. You made a blanket statement and I was correcting you on it. Regarding Portland, most of the neighborhoods are more affordable than the Portland metro area’s average home sale price. It seems you’re so quick to make a point or link to your website you forget to read the other person’s post or you forget the entire context of the argument completely.

    JK“prove it.”

    ws:Um Okay:

    http://www.newgeography.com/content/00950-reducing-vehicle-miles-traveled-produces-meager-greenhouse-gas-emission-reduction-retu

    Quote:

    “On average, vehicle travel in New York City is approximately 8 miles per capita daily. In the average large urban area outside New York City (such as the Phoenix urban area, or for that matter the suburbs of New York City), vehicle travel is approximately 24 miles per day per capita. Thus, per capita driving in New York City is 67 percent less than in Phoenix.”

    Cities in general have less VMT per capita. New York is a great example.

  45. ES,
    FYI, construction unions collect dues even when members are unemployed—because they might be employed for two weeks out of the month. The work is often very sporadic…they may have a two-tiered system but they still collect something, and those workers who are employed on a string of short jobs will probably pay the full bore. Construction is typically feast or famine—most union members will ride out the famine part as dues paying members.

    I wouldn’t say that “union bosses’ seek members when there is no work for them…but they will support high government spending that makes for jobs, even if the economy doesn’t really need the jobs. They do this virtually instinctively—ever yammering on about how we need this or that. Much like many posters on PortlandTransport do! The same is true of their political operatives in their favored party. Why do you think Kulongoski was quick to point out that the CRC project would “make 20,000 jobs?”

    So, are unions targeting illegal immigrants for members? Some of them are, and some of them such as the Machinists and similar metal trades and highly skilled unionists vigorously oppose that. But a trend did start in So. California (where else) of targeting illegal aliens for union membership. You might read “Organizing Immigrants” by former commie UCLA prof. Ruth Milkman. I would have likely thought the idea was good myself, at one time, but now think our efforts at assisting Third World development are pretty fairly established… so I have no guilt.

    So I hope that explains it. I usually don’t shoot off at the keyboard…..

    “The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses”

    Vladimir Lenin

  46. Ron is anti union, end of story end of discussion.

    Nothing any of us pro union people will sway him.

    If we are a majority then he can go f**k himself.

    If he is a majority the we will lose our unions.

    And that is what makes democracy such a wonderful institution.

    If the majority wants to bring back slavery and abolish rights for women, then so be it.

  47. ws: JK”prove it.”
    ws:Um Okay:
    Quote:
    “On average, vehicle travel in New York City is approximately 8 miles per capita daily. In the average large urban area outside New York City (such as the Phoenix urban area, or for that matter the suburbs of New York City), vehicle travel is approximately 24 miles per day per capita. Thus, per capita driving in New York City is 67 percent less than in Phoenix.”

    Cities in general have less VMT per capita. New York is a great example.
    JK: You said: “ Furthermore, on average, suburban people drive more miles than city drivers.” and I asked for proof. Instead you gave me one outlier (NYC) and an unsubstantiated claim based some whacked out greenie site. Then you follow it with your claim of less driving without telling us that, like many planner statements, it is literally true, but irrelevant because the effect is tiny in most real world situations. And yes, a 20% reduction is tiny because that is less than the difference in energy consumption between comparable cars. Even that 67% reduction between Pheonix and NYC is more cheaply achieved with a more efficient car than by wasting BILLIONS densifying our cities.(another thing a planner won’t tell you.)

    Apparently you don’t know this: NYC is NOT a typical city.

    If you took the time to look at the actual data, instead of greenie garbage, you would see that driving (VMT/capita) is mostly independent of density until you get to very high densities (and there are few census tracts that dense.)

    Here is the some real data (peer reviewed even):
    Density……..VMT/Capita….Example of that density
    50…………….21.3……………….(farmland – 25-50 acre farms)
    825…………..20.99
    2000………..16.01………………(Indianapolis)
    3500………..16.89………………(Portland)
    6250………..16.28…………….. (Seattle)
    Source Dunphy and Fisher FIG 4 and table 4, see: portlandfacts.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm

    Look at the slight reduction in driving miles between Portland’s density and DOUBLE that:
    A doubling of density from Portland (3500-6250) shows a 3.6% decrease. Are you seriously suggesting that we should double Portland’s density to save a paltry 3.6% driving?

    To say that density reduces driving is yet another planner statement that is both literally true and a lie because it gives a false impression.

    BTW, notice the congestion line on the chart on my web page (it skyrockets with density!): I suspect that driving is so low in NYC is because of un-ending gridlock. That may also be why journey to work times are so high in high density cities.

    Thanks
    JK

  48. “JK: Now talk about the reason I included the word ONLY.”

    Because government chooses to provide giant subsidies to nuclear plants, and chooses not to provide comparable giant subsidies to solar, or more relevantly, geothermal.

    Now, on to your more silly claims. For the peanut gallery, since you show no sign of listening to the many, many intelligent and well-sourced explanations of why you’re wrong about most things related to economics.

    First note that mass transit is the only efficient way to move vast numbers of people across a bottleneck. (Buses are subject to gridlock and don’t qualify, unless they have exclusive ROW, in which case trains are cheaper.) Bottlenecks generate localized traffic jams and eventually an extending range of gridlock. NYC has some serious bottlenecks, such as the East River and the Hudson River. Hmm…. see any bottlenecks in the Portland area? Perhaps the Columbia River? The Willamette too, maybe?

    You are quite right that gridlock generates low driving rates. This doesn’t have to be systematic, it can be at a single bottleneck (the Hudson River tunnels? The Columbia River bridges?).

    A light rail extension which just crossed the river and stopped at a parking lot and a taxi stand would be extremely successful, without a doubt. Likely, the most successful line yet built in Portland.

    By the way, for your garbagey “buy a new car” estimates, note that the new transit users would be able to ride the train — but new car buyers would simply have to leave their car on the north side of the Columbia River. There won’t be enough road bridge capacity for them to cross. Even with the multi-billion-dollar MEGABRIDGE. On the other hand, if we just transport the people across the bottleneck and leave the cars behind, we can do it quite reasonably….

    Most of your other errors are along similar lines. Stop buying toy bridges to run your toy trucks and toy cars across, and use rail where it’s appropriate.

  49. “JK: Actually a train takes up more space than a road for the same capacity.”

    That’s known as “making crap up”. Every legitimate transportation planner and student of any subject even vaguely related to transportation knows you have it absolutely ass-backwards. In fact, I’d love to see you even come up with an argument for this.

    (Hint: you didn’t even try. “Capacity” is a well-defined term, and refers to the maximum number of people movable per hour at rush hour. If you meant “same number of people moved”, you should have said so; even then you’d have turned out to be wrong in the long term, but at least it would have been possible to make an argument.)

  50. JK:“Instead you gave me one outlier (NYC) and an unsubstantiated claim based some whacked out greenie site.”

    ws:That is not a “greenie” site quite the opposite and the article I linked to was written by none other than your Libertarian buddy, Wendell Cox.

    [Moderator: Personally-directed remark removed.]

    JK:“To say that density reduces driving is yet another planner statement that is both literally true and a lie because it gives a false impression”.

    Your VMT numbers are based off of people driving on Portland’s roads irrespective of their dwelling location or even city they are from. Furthermore, are your statistics related to Portland metro area or Portland the city?

    Density does create the need for less driving as usually there are more options and driving is not convenient. It’s called a city; there’s not supposed to be enough room to park where you want.

    JK:“That may also be why journey to work times are so high in high density cities.”

    ws:Some micropolitan areas have work commute times comparable to NYC – in the 30 minute range. Your point?

  51. JK:“Even that 67% reduction between Pheonix and NYC is more cheaply achieved with a more efficient car than by wasting BILLIONS densifying our cities.(another thing a planner won’t tell you.)”

    ws:That’s a moot point because while congestion is higher in NYC, most people do not own or drive a car.

    Further reductions in congestion would be achieved by congestion tolling.

  52. Nathanael Says: Because government chooses to provide giant subsidies to nuclear plants, and chooses not to provide comparable giant subsidies to solar, or more relevantly, geothermal.
    JK: How about they subsidized that which has a chance of actually powering our country. Solar and geothermal are sad jokes on the un-informed.

    Nathanael Says: First note that mass transit is the only efficient way to move vast numbers of people across a bottleneck. (Buses are subject to gridlock and don’t qualify, unless they have exclusive ROW, in which case trains are cheaper.) Bottlenecks generate localized traffic jams and eventually an extending range of gridlock. NYC has some serious bottlenecks, such as the East River and the Hudson River.
    JK: I just love it when the uninformed compare Portland to the nation’s densest city as if it were relevant. It is not.

    Nathanael Says: A light rail extension which just crossed the river and stopped at a parking lot and a taxi stand would be extremely successful, without a doubt. Likely, the most successful line yet built in Portland.
    JK: Yeah, I’m sure all of theose 1650 people who currently use transit across the river would just love to have us spend 750 million for their pleasure. It would be cheaper to buy everyone of them a brand new Jaguar. Every second year. Forever.

    Nathanael Says: By the way, for your garbagey “buy a new car” estimates, note that the new transit users would be able to ride the train — but new car buyers would simply have to leave their car on the north side of the Columbia River. There won’t be enough road bridge capacity for them to cross. Even with the multi-billion-dollar MEGABRIDGE.
    JK: One more lane can carry almost double the number of people using transit IN ONE HOUR. And a heck of a lot cheaper.

    Nathanael Says: Most of your other errors are along similar lines. Stop buying toy bridges to run your toy trucks and toy cars across, and use rail where it’s appropriate.
    JK: Theya re not errors. They are reality.

    Nathanael Says: “JK: Actually a train takes up more space than a road for the same capacity.”
    That’s known as “making crap up”. Every legitimate transportation planner and student of any subject even vaguely related to transportation knows you have it absolutely ass-backwards. In fact, I’d love to see you even come up with an argument for this.
    JK: I let Trimet do it for me. See: portlandfacts.com/Transit/RailAttractsDrivers2.htm

    Thanks
    JK

  53. ws Says:
    [Moderator: Reference of original personally-directed remark removed.]

    JK: Hey Moderator, doesn’t that qualify as a “personally directed remark”?

    ws Says: Your VMT numbers are based off of people driving on Portland’s roads irrespective of their dwelling location or even city they are from. Furthermore, are your statistics related to Portland metro area or Portland the city?
    JK: They are US census data. I found a deceptive chart on the Sierra club web site and looked up the actual data in a well respected journal. I suggest you take another look at:
    http://www.portlandfacts.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm

    ws Says: It’s called a city; there’s not supposed to be enough room to park where you want.
    JK: Nice clear statement of what is wrong with the typical planner’s view of transportation

    ws Says: JK:”Even that 67% reduction between Pheonix and NYC is more cheaply achieved with a more efficient car than by wasting BILLIONS densifying our cities.(another thing a planner won’t tell you.)”

    ws:That’s a moot point because while congestion is higher in NYC, most people do not own or drive a car.
    JK: What is your point? This discussion is not about NYC. Most people in the rest of the country DO own a car. If you want to save energy and money, encourage people to get more efficient cars. It will be cheaper than transit and more likely to succeed.

    Thanks
    JK

  54. Hey Moderator, doesn’t that qualify as a “personally directed remark”?

    Hey, JK, yes it does.

    In case you hadn’t noticed, I haven’t responded to the last 73 comments, or during the last 74 hours.

    (Why is it that whenever I leave the blog alone for a few days (I was on a trip to Puget Sound), those who in the past have repeatedly cried “censorship” are so quick to demand moderator intervention?)

    There’s apparently been a lot of off-topic garbage on the blog, too, from people who should know better, but I don’t have time to retroactively clean up the mess. But the offending remark against JK will be removed.

    Behave, people.

  55. JK wrote: I just love it when the uninformed compare Portland to the nation’s densest city as if it were relevant. It is not.

    Well then, JK, why don’t you get the ball rolling and stop making the comparison on your own web site and in your own pamphlets, including trying to scare people about west nile virus. That’s just a few of many references. Thanks.

  56. Oh, and if you’re going to bitch about people getting personal against you, don’t lob incendiary remarks at people who are politely commenting, such as your “Why do you want to see more pedestrians killed?” canard you used against someone who said no such thing.

    It may be your opinion that the person is incorrect, but rather than stick to the facts, you accused that commenter of the WORST of possible motivations, without any justification.

    Just because you didn’t use cuss words or colorful metaphors doesn’t hide the fact that you’ve been a jackass toward others in this forum for years.

    Grow a thicker skin or be nicer to people, or just go away if you don’t like how things are run here.

    Better still, allow comments on your own web site. Why do you have a policy of censoring 100% of all criticism? Why do you hate freedom of discussion? (See, that’s what you do when you comment with such needless rhetorical tactics, it’s not funny and it accomplishes nothing.)

  57. JK: I just love it when the uninformed compare Portland to the nation’s densest city as if it were relevant. It is not.

    You have made a lot of very general claims about “high density”, but suddenly our “densest city” is off the table? If your general claims are true, they should be most obvious and mostly easily proven in New York City.

    Why is NYC irrelevant?

  58. JK:“Nice clear statement of what is wrong with the typical planner’s view of transportation”

    ws:Nope, it’s just the facts. Or do you propose the city of Portland remove the Armory Building so people can park @ Powell’s book store?

    How about a nice Wal-Mart sized parking lot in front of the Louvre in Paris. The Arc de Triomphe is overrated I hear, anyways.

    You cannot have a reasonably sized city that is vibrant with only automobile transportation. Period. This isn’t some crazy planner’s idea – it’s reality. It doesn’t mean you don’t provide parking, but many of the municipally mandated plans require

    Parking is needed and there are better ways of dealing with it, but if there was ample and easy parking Portland would look more like Beaverton. The simple fact is that surface parking lots and parking garage facades are dead spaces. They are voids in the city’s fabric and they suck the life out of spaces.

    JK:They are US census data. I found a deceptive chart on the Sierra club web site and looked up the actual data in a well respected journal.

    ws:The issue is not where you got the data, but what is the data saying. This VMT is miles traveled on Portland roads is regardless of their actual “home” city.

    A trucker with Oranges from Mexico could be traveling on the roads on I-5 through Portland, but that does not tell us much regarding an average Portlander’s travel or commute habits (maybe it tells us something about NAFTA instead)

    DVMT per capita is decreasing, anyways, even if this does not assess actual DVMT of Portland residents:

    http://oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=16340

    Chris Smith:“Everyone please remember the rules. Keep it pertinent and DON’T let it get personal.”

    ws:Relating this to the topic and my post, what is the relation between NAFTA and CRC, especially with keeping up with infrastructure investment?

  59. Hey, Bob Thanks. But that request of mine was just at throw out line after a few of my comments were modified a while back.

    As to you other comments, I think you are being a bit harsh on me, especially the west Nile find buried seven directories deep into an obscure corner of my web site. I do hope you realize that that is actually a government document found from a CRC web site and only accessible from an obscure link off of the main part of the main page. BTW, how did you find that – it is very unlikely you were just browsing many meg of text and html files seven directories deep.

    As a web savvy designer, you must have known this, so why the accusation that I was scaring people? (Of course any accusation of scaring people is more properly directed towards the CRC/Clark County)

    As to comparisons with NYC, it is a matter of context. If the densest 10 cities’ transit don’t save energy and still cost a lot more than driving, that is a good case that increasing Portland’s density won’t make transit work either.

    And the density vs driving comparison page lists cities that typify the densities mentioned in the Dunphy and Fisher paper. NYC just happened to be one that I chose, along with many others as example of the density numbers in the paper. debunkingportland.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm

    My web site does not allow comments because it is a web site, not a blog. It is a web site because it is a repository of information about the other side of the modern city planning movement. Blogs, like this, and the antiplanner, provide lots of discussion of these topics.

    Thanks
    JK

  60. Jim,

    The downside of your proposal is that anything which will ultimately bring more traffic on to I-5 will trigger more whining for a rebuild of Interstate 5 through Central Portland… aka Riverfront for People. This would be true of your proposal and would be true of the CRC—as from previous experience we have observed that light rail has not produced any LONG TERM reduction in traffic congestion on freeways. Just a short term one.

    Any more traffic on I-5 is like the critical piece removed from the Jenga stack.

    Trying to identify one sole source of a problem–in your case congestion south of the Interstate Bridge— and then proposing a piecemeal solution is disastrous. If you think that is a solution then you should have endorsed the 1990 Transportation Plan at some point—and enjoyed the dismemberment of our town with several freeways. Luck for you they probably would not have put one directly up Alameda Ridge. Maybe then you would have a different view.

  61. There’s apparently been a lot of off-topic garbage on the blog, too, from people who should know better, but I don’t have time to retroactively clean up the mess. But the offending remark against JK will be removed.

    hehe, what mess? I didn’t see any mess?

  62. Ron Swaren Says: The downside of your proposal is that anything which will ultimately bring more traffic on to I-5 will trigger more whining for a rebuild of Interstate 5 through Central Portland… aka Riverfront for People. This would be true of your proposal and would be true of the CRC—as from previous experience we have observed that light rail has not produced any LONG TERM reduction in traffic congestion on freeways. Just a short term one.
    JK: Did it even produce a short term reduction in traffic?
    As to “whining” to rebuild other parts of I5 – when you increase population density, you increase the need for services from water to roads. Those that expect mass transit to solve any problems (aside for downtown parking) are denying history. For instance, see: http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-porshare.pdf

    Ron Swaren Says: Trying to identify one sole source of a problem–in your case congestion south of the Interstate Bridge— and then proposing a piecemeal solution is disastrous.
    JK: You solve problems one at a time. Solve the bridge problem, then solve whatever comes next. If that solution is more road capacity – it is just a reflection on Metro’s decision to concentrate population in one small area and to not build any new roads, instead of letting it spread out naturally. It is also a reflection on Metro’s policies making housing unaffordable to the avenge Portlander, while Vancouver is further behind on that craziness.

    Thanks
    JK

  63. JK:“Did it even produce a short term reduction in traffic?
    As to “whining” to rebuild other parts of I5 – when you increase population density, you increase the need for services from water to roads. Those that expect mass transit to solve any problems (aside for downtown parking) are denying history. For instance, see: http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-porshare.pdf

    ws:Market share of passenger miles of road vs. transit – in the link you provided – is flawed.

    a)Transit is not running around the clock like it is for roads

    b)passenger miles of roads includes freight and automobiles that are not from Portland. Really it’s just a road that goes through Portland.

    c)It is another Wendell Cox lie to try and make Portland’s investment in mass transit look like a failure. A failure in that nobody uses it. See, look at the stats! Only 2%!!

    Despite the fact that Portland has the nation’s 7th highest transit usage per capita. Unfortunately, Cox’s statistics are meant to sway the idiots who don’t understand any better.

  64. “JK: You solve problems one at a time. Solve the bridge problem, then solve whatever comes next. ”

    And that is “the house that Jack built.”

  65. ws Says:
    a)Transit is not running around the clock like it is for roads
    JK: But people need to travel at various hours. Are you saying that the transit dependent should restrict their mobility to certain hours to accommodate the planners.

    ws Says:
    b)passenger miles of roads includes freight and automobiles that are not from Portland. Really it’s just a road that goes through Portland.
    JK:OK, take some small % off of the road numbers – you still have a drop in transit and a tiny share for transit. Even transit work trip share dropped from 1980 to 2007 and 2000 to 2007. Only if you use 1990 as the start (to 2007), do you get a tiny increase from 6.3 to 6.8. At that rate of 0.3% over 17 years, they will have half of us our of our cars during rush hour in only about 2000 years. Go buy Streetcar. Spend $10-20 billion and maybe they can shorted that to only 200 years. Face reality – transit is a failure at reducing driving except at exporting parking spaces from downtown.

    ws Says: c)It is another Wendell Cox lie to try and make Portland’s investment in mass transit look like a failure. A failure in that nobody uses it. See, look at the stats! Only 2%!!
    JK: Yep, look at the 2%. That is what we got for our multi BILLION waste on rail. I do hope you noticed that transit share went down since the waste on toy trains started with MAX in 1986 (three years late and 55% over budget, I might add)?

    ws Says: Despite the fact that Portland has the nation’s 7th highest transit usage per capita. Unfortunately, Cox’s statistics are meant to sway the idiots who don’t understand any better.
    JK: Just shows how few people use transit in spite of all the spending. That is because it is slow, doesn’t go where you need to go and costly if you had to pay the actual cost.

    Thanks
    JK

  66. JK:“OK, take some small % off of the road numbers – you still have a drop in transit and a tiny share for transit.”

    ws:Very scientific to take a few percentage points off.

    JK:“Just shows how few people use transit in spite of all the spending.”

    ws:So, Portland having the 7th highest transit usage shows people aren’t using it? Riiiight.

    JK:Yep, look at the 2%.

    ws:I’m not going to look at it because it rates passenger miles over trips and is a flawed methodology for determining “transit share”.

    Ever notice how the anti-transit contingent always uses passenger miles for their statistics? It’s useful normalizer – no doubt – but they use to smokescreen the actual issue and that is our land use policies are dictating massive auto dependency.

  67. “Ever notice how the anti-transit contingent always uses passenger miles for their statistics? It’s useful normalizer – no doubt – but they use to smokescreen the actual issue and that is our land use policies are dictating massive auto dependency.”

    ws,

    It is just not that easy. Houses in the burbs are built typically with inexpensive labor. The condos in the Pearl or SOWA have been built with expensive labor, and there is not a very easy way to change it. That is why many people opt to live in the burbs: they get a much bigger home.

  68. ws Says:
    JK:”OK, take some small % off of the road numbers – you still have a drop in transit and a tiny share for transit.”

    ws:Very scientific to take a few percentage points off.
    JK:
    The question is does it affect the ultimate conclusion – NO IT DOES NOT.

    ws Says:
    JK:”Just shows how few people use transit in spite of all the spending.”

    ws:So, Portland having the 7th highest transit usage shows people aren’t using it? Riiiight.
    JK:
    Yep. Very few people use transit. It doesn’t matter where we rank.

    ws Says:
    JK:Yep, look at the 2%.

    ws:I’m not going to look at it because it rates passenger miles over trips and is a flawed methodology for determining “transit share”.
    JK:
    Passenger-miles is a proper reflection of travel cost and energy usage.

    ws Says:
    Ever notice how the anti-transit contingent always uses passenger miles for their statistics? It’s useful normalizer – no doubt –
    JK:
    That is beause it is the best measure. So what if we reduce trips by 50% if the trips being reduced are only 100′ and the other 50% are 5 miles? But why is it anyone’ business how much someone else travels? Do you advocate reducing people’s right to travel?

    ws Says:
    but they use to smokescreen the actual issue and that is our land use policies are dictating massive auto dependency.
    JK:
    Wrong. Our land use policies dictate compact cities, building up, not out and other costly measure that are reducing our livability.

    BTW, there is really good news on the energy front:
    So you have probably missed one of the biggest pieces of good economic news to emerge recently: energy prices are coming down, in some cases to record lows. Furthermore, even if prices start to recover, they are not likely to return to the ridiculous levels of 2008 any day soon. (bold added) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/6100536/A-new-age-of-cheap-energy-approaches.html

    Thanks
    JK

  69. JK:“Wrong. Our land use policies dictate compact cities, building up, not out and other costly measure that are reducing our livability.”

    ws:Whoa, whoa, did you just say the “L” word? Who are you to define what is livable? I thought it was wrong to do that according to your values?

    JK“That is beause it is the best measure. So what if we reduce trips by 50% if the trips being reduced are only 100′ and the other 50% are 5 miles? But why is it anyone’ business how much someone else travels? Do you advocate reducing people’s right to travel?”

    ws:That’s actually a good point, but passenger miles statistics is not completely accurate, for one, and two it really distorts statistics because of the shear large number of passenger miles by vehicles.

    The question is, are those high numbers of passenger miles for vehicles really an indication of market forces? Can we and should we base public policy off of them?

    Urban travel is not meant to go far mile wise, and using passenger miles only will skew things a bit. So then basing public policy after this model, one would assume that since vehicle passenger miles are through the roof, we need to invest even more in it because that’s what people want.

    I can bring up the countering point that if one person drives to the store 2 miles for a piece of bread and another walks to the store (200′) for a piece of bread; the person who drove is going 96% further for the same item.

    I think both need to be looked at as far as “modal share”.

  70. ws Says:
    JK:”Wrong. Our land use policies dictate compact cities, building up, not out and other costly measure that are reducing our livability.”

    ws:Whoa, whoa, did you just say the “L” word? Who are you to define what is livable? I thought it was wrong to do that according to your values?
    JK: Again you distort. What is wrong is government to force others to live in any manner that they do not freely choose (assuming no excessive harm to others.). That is completely different than expressing my opinion as to what I think is livable.

    But since you made an issue of it, how many people do yo think would agree that:
    * More congestion increases livability.
    * Higher cost housing is more livable.
    * Higher cost of food & merchandise is more livable.
    * Longer commute times increase livability.
    * Increasing the cost of transportation increases livability.
    * Taking money from police, fire and schools and giving it to builders of condos for millionaires increase our livability.
    I would guess very few, outside of a few city planners, developers and transit employees.

    ws Says: Urban travel is not meant to go far mile wise, and using passenger miles only will skew things a bit. So then basing public policy after this model, one would assume that since vehicle passenger miles are through the roof, we need to invest even more in it because that’s what people want.
    JK: Lets be blunt: most city planning is directed at shoving people closer together on smaller lots and into apartments and condos. Surveys show that this is not what most people want., especially since it costs more.

    ws Says: I can bring up the countering point that if one person drives to the store 2 miles for a piece of bread and another walks to the store (200′) for a piece of bread; the person who drove is going 96% further for the same item.
    JK: So what? Chances are that person who drove 2 miles will save enough to pay for the gas, especially if he picks up a few other items at the same time.

    At 22mpg, that trip will use 0.2 gal. At $2.65/gal, that is a cost of $0.53. The total incremental cost is probably about $0.75, an amount easily saved on a loaf of bread at Winco compared to the little mixed-use store. At a total car cost (including depreciation) it would be close to $1. Quite a bargain to easily save $10 on a $20 purchase (that loaf of good bread, some quality meat and veggies to put on it and a good bottle of wine.)

    ws Says: I think both need to be looked at as far as “modal share”.
    JK: Why?
    (Usually you need to decide what purpose the data will serve as a starting point in deciding what and how data is to be gathered. Is it to indicate energy usage? Cost? Time? )

    Thanks
    JK

  71. JK:Lets be blunt: most city planning is directed at shoving people closer together on smaller lots and into apartments and condos. Surveys show that this is not what most people want., especially since it costs more.

    ws:Actually, most city living involves condos and apartments. I think there are some issues with how these units are designed and where they are often placed, but the natural course of growing cities is to densify and grow up substantially.

  72. JK:Lets be blunt: most city planning is directed at shoving people closer together on smaller lots and into apartments and condos. Surveys show that this is not what most people want., especially since it costs more.

    Could we see those surveys? Because it’s very strange that so many people choose to live in cities, and live in apartments and condos. The only American cities in which the population has gone down rather than up are Detroit, Baltimore and Washington DC.

  73. The only American cities in which the population has gone down rather than up are Detroit, Baltimore and Washington DC.

    I agree with your intent, but there are a lot more cities than that where population has been lost. Buffalo, NY was about 575000 people after WW2, and is currently closer to 275000 people. Their metro area has stayed flat, but the city proper has lost over half it’s population in 60 years. (That has little to do with density, it’s still 2.5x as dense as Portland, more of local politics that managed to pretty much bankrupt the city proper, as well as a climate that’s not luring people into the region.)

    St Louis also has dropped from over 850,000 to about 350,000 over the same time period, and there are others that have lost significant populations also. It would take too long to list them all.

  74. I have a real problem with any system that lets one person buy huge tracts of land and ocean front that only they and those they choose can enjoy.

    Who came up with the idea that individuals can “own” the land that has existed before man even walked the earth?

    It’s SICK!

  75. government to force others to live in any manner that they do not freely choose

    Where, exactly does the government force people to live? However, I do know that the government has long encouraged people to live in the suburbs.

    Higher cost housing is more livable

    What if that cost is offset by lower transportation costs because of living closer to work and maybe it being feasible to take transit, bike, etc as well as having more amenities nearby?

    Taking money from police, fire and schools and giving it to builders

    Money is never actually reduced for those services. Yes, they might not get the increased taxes from the redevelopment, but it’s possible that it doesn’t take that much more money to serve it, especially if the new development results in less crime, etc.

    However, they are planning to do the same thing for suburban North Bethany last time I checked, and it’s worse there since there will be a lot of new development to serve.

    especially since it costs more

    How does using less land cost more, especially not considering high-rises that require more extensive construction?

    it would be close to $1

    Does that include costs like oil defense, pollution cleanup/prevention, health problems given to nearby residents, taking care of crashes, manufacturer bailouts,…? Also, mention was only made of bread, and not the other stuff. But, if you wanted to get a lot of stuff that could result in significant savings, than driving might be reasonable.

  76. JK has previously stated that he does not believe oil defense, etc., are externalized costs of driving, so that would be a “no”.

  77. Bob R. Says:
    JK has previously stated that he does not believe oil defense, etc., are externalized costs of driving, so that would be a “no”.
    JK: Once again Bob distorts what I say.
    I said that any externalities claimed about automotive oil consumption (and air pollution) also apply to buses because buses use MORE energy per passenger-mile than cars.

    Even in the dense big cities!

    Thanks
    JK

  78. Once again Bob distorts what I say.

    Oh really? Well let’s let our readers decide:

    Over in this thread (Scroll down to August 12th, 2009, 2:47pm.), you were arguing with Jason McHuff, and indeed you brought up the point that externalities regarding oil consumption for cars also apply to buses.

    So then, at 2:57pm, I specifically asked:

    “By your statement you appear to implicitly acknowledge that oil defense is, in fact, a subsidy for oil-consuming vehicles, yes?”

    Later that day, at 4:34pm, you replied:

    No, it is just showing the illogic of your side.” [Emphasis Added]

    I took that “No” to mean “No, I do not acknowledge that oil defense is, in fact, a subsidy for oil-consuming vehicles” and that you were, as you were merely playing devil’s advocate in an effort to “show the illogic” of my “side”.

    So, setting aside completely buses vs. cars, and only looking at oil-consuming motor vehicles as a whole, I’ll ask you plainly (again):

    Yes or No, do you acknowledge that oil defense is, in fact, a subsidy for oil-consuming vehicles?

    Oh, and please don’t accuse me of distorting your comments again. Thanks.

    because buses use MORE energy per passenger-mile than cars.

    No, you’ve never proven that. The numbers you have supplied a bazillion times from the Transportation Energy Databook have NEVER been corrected for conflating urban and rural miles, and incorporating non-car modes. In other efforts, using other sources of data, you’ve further only been able to come close to this claim by defining “car” down to your own subset of “small car”, even though that’s not representative of the actual fleet. You wind up comparing theoretical numbers for cars, at that point, to actual nationwide numbers for buses. And even then, our own local numbers for buses (where we’ve invested a lot in transit, which you oppose), are better than the national averages you cite.

    The fact that the Portland metro area gets better results than the national averages is evidence that more investment in transit, and utilization of same, results in improved energy efficiency.

  79. Bob R. Says:
    So then, at 2:57pm, I specifically asked:

    “By your statement you appear to implicitly acknowledge that oil defense is, in fact, a subsidy for oil-consuming vehicles, yes?”
    Later that day, at 4:34pm, you replied:

    “No, it is just showing the illogic of your side.” [Emphasis Added]

    I took that “No” to mean “No, I do not acknowledge that oil defense is, in fact, a subsidy for oil-consuming vehicles” and that you were, as you were merely playing devil’s advocate in an effort to “show the illogic” of my “side”.
    JK: You took that to mean. As in you concluded, based on your interpretation of my off hand comment. Again, please quit over stretching what I said.

    As to defending oil. Even if the USA imported NO OIL, we would defend the supplies to keep the world economy from collapsing.

    Frankly, I find it a little sick to see people decrying oil based transportation because it is responsible for much of our high standard of living:

    IT permits us to have lower cost housing away from the congested, crime riddled central cities and their bad schools.

    It has increased the average person’s mobility from a few mile radius to world wide. (150 years ago, most people never traveled more than a few miles from their birth place.)

    Oil based transport cleaned up the big cities, reduced diseases and improved pedestrian safety and save vast amounts of farmland by retiring horses.

    Oil based transport reduces the cost of everything we buy. It permits economical international shipping.

    Bob R. Says: So, setting aside completely buses vs. cars, and only looking at oil-consuming motor vehicles as a whole, I’ll ask you plainly (again):

    Yes or No, do you acknowledge that oil defense is, in fact, a subsidy for oil-consuming vehicles?
    JK: That question is an attempt to avoid the big picture. See above.

    Bob R. Says: Oh, and please don’t accuse me of distorting your comments again. Thanks.
    JK: OK, you added your own interpretation. See above.

    Bob R. Says:” because buses use MORE energy per passenger-mile than cars.”

    No, you’ve never proven that. The numbers you have supplied a bazillion times from the Transportation Energy Databook have NEVER been corrected for conflating urban and rural miles, and incorporating non-car modes.
    JK: If you have better, credible, data please share it.

    Bob R. Says: In other efforts, using other sources of data, you’ve further only been able to come close to this claim by defining “car” down to your own subset of “small car”, even though that’s not representative of the actual fleet. You wind up comparing theoretical numbers for cars, at that point, to actual nationwide numbers for buses. And even then, our own local numbers for buses (where we’ve invested a lot in transit, which you oppose), are better than the national averages you cite.
    JK: None of which shows that herding people onto buses will reduce energy consumption. That is the bottom line here isn’t it?

    If we want a policy of reducing energy consumption, which will save the most energy:

    1. Force people into buses, when, even in the densest cities they cannot beat small cars for energy and they generally double people’s commute time and they cost many times what cars cost. As a corollary, we will also force people into more expensive housing in high density clusters.

    2. Convince people to get smaller, more efficient cars. Like Europeans do because of gas costing $8/gal there.

    If you answered #1, well, lets just say, it is my opinion that you are living in a different world than most of us.

    Bob R. Says: The fact that the Portland metro area gets better results than the national averages is evidence that more investment in transit, and utilization of same, results in improved energy efficiency
    JK: Since Vancouver people actually drive less than Portlanders (Metro data), one suspects that there are other factors at work.

    Thanks
    JK

Leave a Reply to Bob R. Cancel reply

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