Planning for the future as if we were serious


Rob Zako posted the message below to the OTRAN list and with his permission I’m cross-posting it here.

— Chris

This afternoon, I attended a portion of the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) meeting, in particular, the agenda item dealing with progress on updating the Eugene-Springfield-Coburg regional transportation system plan.

I was reminded that when it was first adopted in 1991, the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) called for metropolitan areas such as Eugene-Springfield to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per capita by 10% over 20 years. Mind you the TPR uses the term "VMT" to refer only to automobiles and light trucks used for the movement of people, not goods and services, and only for trips that originate and end within the metropolitan boundary. And the objective was to reduce not the TOTAL number of vehicle miles traveled, which naturally increases when the population increases, but only vehicle miles traveled PER CAPITA. Thus one could achieve a 10% reduction, for example, by have some people trip chain, carpool, or use alternative modes some of the time. It hardly seems like that ambitious a target to meet. And yet the reality of modern urban development is that as a community grows larger geographically, and as destinations get farther away from each other on average, the typical person tends to drive more and farther, resulting in an increase in VMT per
capita.

Thus in the late 1990s, metropolitan areas protested that the VMT reduction standard was unrealistic. In 1998, LCDC amended the TPR to require only a 5% reduction in VMT per capita over 20 years, or to allow metropolitan areas to develop their own quot;alternative standards" to measure progress in reducing reliance on the automobile. LCDC amended the TPR again in 2006 (originally for a different reason related to "concurrency" and a hospital in Springfield) to completely do away with the requirement to reduce VMT, leaving only the "alternative standards." And at the LCDC meeting today, local governments were supposed to report on their progress in meeting their own standards for reducing reliance on the automobile.

I mention all of this ancient history from Oregon’s "old" planning system, because we are perhaps in the midst of creating a "new" planning system … or at least significantly revising the system we have. Among other things, Oregon House Bill 2186 (2009) creates a task force to look at how metropolitan areas can plan transportation and land use to begin to meet state targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in particular, as defined in Oregon House Bill 3543 (2007). As noted before, some subscribers to this email list are members of the task force, which has but two meetings left and is looking to finalize by December 4 its recommendations to the February 2010 special session of the Legislature.

While one can make the topic of reducing your carbon footprint from transportation complicated, it isn’t rocket science. As I have explained before to this email list, under reasonable assumptions, the expected increase in fuel efficiency over the next several decades can be expected to more or less offset the expect increase in population, resulting in no net change in TOTAL greenhouse gas emissions. In order to actually reduce TOTAL greenhouse gas emissions, in particular, to 75% below 1990 levels by the year 2050, we more or less need to reduce vehicles miles traveled PER CAPITA by 5% per year, year after year, from now until the middle of the century. To put it another way, over the next 14 years, people need to cut their driving in half. Then in following 14 years they need to cut their driving in half again. And then once more cut it in half so that by the time we reach the year 2050, people are driving but one-eighth as much as they do now.

The above is all review, and many of us are general familiar with these conclusions. So what?

So the challenge is to seriously consider what our communities would look like — will have to look like — if we take these numbers seriously and plan for people to drive significantly less and less over time, until by the year 2050 we are seeing people driving just one-eighth as much as they do now. You’d have to have a community where all streets have sidewalks that facilitate walking, and where businesses are built to the street to cater to pedestrians.You’d have to have a network of safe and fast bicycle routes that rival the network we have today for cars, and there would need to be secure places for locking bicycles and facilities for people to take showers. And you’d have to have buses running pretty much everywhere all the time so frequently that you would not have to worry about schedules but would just catch the next bus where you are to get where you had to go. Indeed, one could reasonable expect public transit to serve a big share of all trips, maybe even more than half of all trips. And you’d need to have fast and convenient options for intercity travel, such as frequent intercity bus service and high(er)-speed rail. What would such a transportation system realistically look like? How much would it cost to build it? How much would it cost to operate and maintain it?

And what about land use? The conventional wisdom is that public transit only becomes cost effective when you have densities of 12 units per acre or more. The idea is that at lower densities, not enough people live close enough to transit lines to fill up a bus and make running it economical. But such conventional wisdom is rooted in a world where most people own cars, gas is relatively cheap, and parking widely available and inexpensive. What if the primary options for getting around were pretty much limited to walking, bicycling and taking transit, with a private motor vehicle relegated to an
expensive and infrequent choice? Then maybe even lower density development could, in theory, support transit service. I don’t know for sure. But my point is that climate change is about … well, change, big change. And when we start talking big changes, we may need to change some of the things we think we already know.

Am I dreaming? Perhaps. But I don’t see how we ultimately will successfully be able to make the big changes we need to make unless we seriously plan for such a future. You don’t complete a cross-country trip looking at a map just one block at a time, do you? You need to begin looking at where you are starting and where you want to end up, and then plan a route to get you there.

And such planning need not be rocket science. One can go far doing what scientists
call order-of-magnitude calculations. For example, imagine half of all motor vehicle trips being replaced by bus trips. How many buses would you then need? How much would it cost to operate such a system in total, or per passenger? How much narrower could your streets be with the reduced traffic? If someone has not yet written a white paper spelling out such a scenario, it would not be so hard to do so, at least in general terms. The point is to in a realistic, if rough, way begin to look to the future and hence begin to talk realistically about what needs to be done to get there.

We need to do no less for our communities now. Let’s get started.

Rob


31 responses to “Planning for the future as if we were serious”

  1. And this is why we should not bother worrying too much about trying to reduce vmt by 7/8 – because it’s not going to happen. how silly. Sorry – we could go to a repressive type system like maybe old skool ussr – then maybe. people want to drive, and most of them don’t give a rat’s ass about climate change, at least not enough to do anything substantial about it.

  2. A lot of these answer’s can be found in the recently published Carfree Design Manual by J.H. Crawford and his previous work Carfree Cities. In particular he outlines the tools and models necessary to determine the density required to support transit and freight systems.

  3. Portland will likely see a catastrophic Cascadia subduction zone earthquake in my generation’s lifetime. If we were serious, we’d realize how little of our new and existing infrastructure might survive this quake. We’d be spending much more time and money preparing for it with education, disaster planning, and seismic retrofitting.

  4. In particular he outlines the tools and models necessary to determine the density required to support transit and freight systems.

    JK: Who pays for all that density, which COSTS MORE THAN SPRAWL.

    Who pays for that transit which costs 2-5 times what driving costs?

    Who pays for all the time wasted on transit compared to cars?

    Who forces people to accept a lower standard of living in order to serve the green religion? (It is now officially an religion by court decision!)

    What is the advantage of higher density, except all the subsidies to make developers rich?

    [Moderator: Attempt to troll another global warming debate removed. This is not a global-warming-existence debate site. You know that. Knock it off.]

    Thanks
    JK

  5. Uh, JK…

    no court has ruled that environmentalism constitutes a “religion”.

    A court in the United Kingdom (i.e. not the United States, and thus a ruling with no legal affect here), that environmentalist leanings deserve the same civil rights protection as religious faith, and that an employee may not be sacked by his/her boss simply for holding pro-environment beliefs.

    Criticism of the ruling here.

    US law generally has long prohibited discrimination against employees for political views and activities outside the workplace.

    But no, you aren’t entitled to First Amendment protection against greenies, and Earth Day is not going to join Easter among the list of things that public school kids don’t get to observe. Sorry.

  6. tvhwy Says:

    Portland will likely see a catastrophic Cascadia subduction zone earthquake in my generation’s lifetime. If we were serious, we’d realize how little of our new and existing infrastructure might survive this quake. We’d be spending much more time and money preparing for it with education, disaster planning, and seismic retrofitting.

    The Cascadian subduction zone starts in the Coast Range and extends westward to about 100 miles off the shoreline. It also begins near the California Redwoods and extends north to Vancouver Island. I don’t see Portland in that zone. The biggest recorded earthquake we have ever had has been a 6.7. We do have some sizable faults running under Portland…but it would also take a nearby event to trigger activity in those fault zones. Not saying it is impossible…but as far as I understand we are not actually in the Subduction zone.

  7. A major earthquake in the zone (8 or above, for instance) would certainly impact Portland, even if the epicenter is out at sea.

    The 1700 Cascadia earthquake, the last major quake of the Cascadia subduction zone, is estimated to be 8.7 – 9.2 on the Richter scale. As there were no seismographs at the time, scientists can only estimate its magnitude. (There was no written record of the quake either–only oral tradition from native Americans, damage to trees, and an otherwise-unexplained tsunami that struck Japan).

  8. [Moderator: Attempted justification via a near-complete reposting of the original text of this post removed. This is not a debate over existence of global warming site. This site discusses transportation and land-use policy and accepts the general conclusions of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. If you want to question those assumptions, there are plenty of places to do that. Similarly, as I’ve told you a dozen times before, a blog which discusses frameworks for the instruction of biology should not have to delve into a tiresome debate about Intelligent Design every time someone makes a post which assumes, at a general level, that Evolution is the general operating macro theory of modern biology. Your valiant attempts at distraction and dissent are noteworthy, but nonetheless you ought to have a memory of past warnings and you ought not try these tactics anymore.]

  9. Agreed..a Richter 9 quake would impact Portland. Just as we felt and experienced some of the 1964 Alaska Quake. However, what the seisimic reading in Portland would be could be substantially debated. With about 90,000 sqaure miles for which the epicenter to be in, it could be several hundred miles from here. The greatest activity in this zone seems to be off the coast of Brookings..where I believe the Pacific Plate has a fracture zone.

    The 2001 Nisqually quake, Richter 7.1, was a mere 150 miles from here, and felt locally, but it did no damage here.

    The Cascadian quakes have an average interval of 500 years, There is some consensus, though, that these do occur in clusters, so with one three hundred years ago perhaps we could have another one soon. But I’m not losing sleep. The USGS maps show Portland as a generally quieter zone than Seattle, Brookings, Klamath Falls, Mt St Helens and the SF Bay area. Since the likelihood of a damaging quake in the Portland area is low, that should buy us some time to await improved seismic strengthening techniques—especially for bridges. Buildings that are being renovated are required to have a sesimic updating strategy. However, having worked on some of them in the past, I would suggest that some of those are poorly conceived. One time we anchored the floor joists in a historic building to the interior brick walls. But, unknown to the engineer, the mortar between the interior and exterior bricks had already turned to mush.

  10. I think Rob makes an extremely important point, namely that the potential role of transit service in combatting global warming has been dismissed or ignored. The recently adopted Climate Action Plan for Portland and Multnomah County gives the barest lip service to any role for transit beyond additional streetcar construction.

    Jim Howell and Ray Polani have been asking Metro, for years, to develop a “transit intensive” scenario as part of each successive RTP update. They have been ignored. When the 2040 Plan was being developed, a “transit intensive” alternative should have been costed out.

    I applaud Rob for being skeptical that transit only works when densities are a lot higher than they are in Portland. The fact is, in a crunch, we can provide lots of transit faster than we can provide a lot of density, but we need to get going.

    The first step is to do what they did in Toronto in the 1950’s and 1960’s, namely build transit to carry people, then follow up with supportive land use planning. The idea that better transit service can only be paid for by new development will not get us very far very fast.

    We also need to consider that the pot of money is limited, and will shrink even more in the future. We must plan for the most cost-effective transit service, but at a level that is an attractive alternative to the automobile. I think Jim Karlock and John Charles are right about our current transit service being inadequate for the needs of most people. But I agree with Rob that the solution is better transit, and not waiting until someone builds a TOD to do it.

    We will need more light rail and a downtown subway, but not at the cost of no improvements to our bus system. Bus ridership has stagnated for the past decade, and service levels have declined. The challenge is to figure out how to do better, and do it soon.

  11. Rob Zako:
    So the challenge is to seriously consider what our communities would look like — will have to look like — if we take these numbers seriously and plan for people to drive significantly less and less over time, until by the year 2050 we are seeing people driving just one-eighth as much as they do now.
    JK:
    Simple. Our communities will look like Appalachia as your suggestions will destroy our standard of living.

    Rob Zako:
    You’d have to have a community where all streets have sidewalks that facilitate walking, and where businesses are built to the street to cater to pedestrians.
    JK: No need for sidewalks if driving is cut to 1/8.

    Rob Zako:
    You’d have to have a network of safe and fast bicycle routes that rival the network we have today for cars, and there would need to be secure places for locking bicycles and facilities for people to take showers.
    JK: As if everyone can ride a bike. In the rain. On ice. During our coming colder winters.

    Rob Zako:
    And you’d have to have buses running pretty much everywhere all the time so frequently that you would not have to worry about schedules but would just catch the next bus where you are to get where you had to go. Indeed, one could reasonable expect public transit to serve a big share of all trips, maybe even more than half of all trips.
    JK: This is pure garbage. Running buses use more energy than cars!! Especially when you run them mostly empty to have frequent service.

    Rob Zako:
    And what about land use? The conventional wisdom is that public transit only becomes cost effective when you have densities of 12 units per acre or more. The idea is that at lower densities, not enough people live close enough to transit lines to fill up a bus and make running it economical.
    JK: The conventional wisdom is wrong (as is usual in the planning field). High density transit is actually worse than Trimet. The 10 largest transit agencies in the USA use more energy than average cars and cost several times as much. See portlandfacts.com/top10bus.html.

    Rob Zako:
    But such conventional wisdom is rooted in a world where most people own cars, gas is relatively cheap, and parking widely available and inexpensive. What if the primary options for getting around were pretty much limited to walking, bicycling and taking transit, with a private motor vehicle relegated to an expensive and infrequent choice?
    JK:
    Lets look to Europe where gas costs about 4x what it does here, there are high taxes on cars and driver licensing is more rigid. Over the 20 year period from 1980-2000, transit lost massive market share while aircraft and, the already dominate, car increased:
    Air = +132%
    Passenger Car = +2.5%
    Rail = -23%
    Bus&Coach = -27%
    Tram & Metro = -21.4%
    Mass transit is down over 20%, while passenger cars continue their domination by going up from 76% to 78% of passenger miles.

    Rob Zako:
    But my point is that climate change is about … well, change, big change. And when we start talking big changes, we may need to change some of the things we think we already know.

    Am I dreaming? Perhaps. But I don’t see how we ultimately will successfully be able to make the big changes we need to make unless we seriously plan for such a future.

    The point is to in a realistic, if rough, way begin to look to the future and hence begin to talk realistically about what needs to be done to get there.

    We need to do no less for our communities now. Let’s get started.
    JK:
    Lets review the death tolls of past government mandated re-ordering of societies:
    * 20 million in the Soviet Union
    * 65 million in the People’s Republic of China
    * 1 million in Vietnam
    * 2 million in North Korea
    * 2 million in Cambodia
    * 1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
    * 150,000 in Latin America
    * 1.7 million in Africa
    * 1.5 million in Afghanistan
    * 10,000 deaths “resulting from actions of the international communist movement and communist parties not in power.”(p. 4)

    Of course the above does not include the deaths from that other planner’s paradise, WWII Germany. See http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/documents/UrbanRomanticsUS.pdf for a hint of this.
    How many people will die from your grand plan?

    Thanks
    JK

  12. Who pays for all that density, which COSTS MORE THAN SPRAWL.

    Even when you consider that people are more likely to be able to walk to their destination (especially for basic things like groceries)? And even when you consider all the additional driving done by the many services that go to an individual’s house or business to serve them?

    Who pays for that transit which costs 2-5 times what driving costs?

    Even if the costs could be spread across a lot of riders, which is being predicted here? And even when you consider the costs of pollution, dealing with which is the purpose of the message? And regardless of whether global warming is real or not, it’s doubtful that we can release so much pollution into the sky with no harmful effects.

    Who forces people to accept a lower standard of living

    First of all, living in a nice neighborhood and being able to walk to places isn’t a lower standard. Nor is having less pollution. Nor is not having to pay for new schools for distant developments, even though ones in a nearby district are closing due to lack of students. But if we’re talking standards, why don’t we help people get personal helicopters, since they can be even faster than driving?

  13. Jason McHuff Says:
    “Who pays for all that density, which COSTS MORE THAN SPRAWL.”

    Even when you consider that people are more likely to be able to walk to their destination (especially for basic things like groceries)?
    JK: YES. The walkable store will always be smaller, have less choices and higher costs that the mega store. Except, perhaps in ultra density full of 20 story condo bunkers that only millionaires can afford.

    Jason McHuff Says: And even when you consider all the additional driving done by the many services that go to an individual’s house or business to serve them?
    JK: Time is more important than miles and high density is associated with longer commute times, so I assume the same for non-commute trips.

    Jason McHuff Says:
    “Who pays for that transit which costs 2-5 times what driving costs?”

    Even if the costs could be spread across a lot of riders, which is being predicted here?
    JK: YES. Look at the cost of transit in the big, dense cities – it is higher than Trimet. And their energy usage is GREATER than trimet’s. See portlandfacts.com/top10bus.html

    Jason McHuff Says: And even when you consider the costs of pollution, dealing with which is the purpose of the message?
    JK: What pollution? There was no mention of pollution in that article.

    Jason McHuff Says:
    “Who forces people to accept a lower standard of living ”

    Jason McHuff Says: First of all, living in a nice neighborhood and being able to walk to places isn’t a lower standard.
    JK: It is if you have to pay higher prices at those walkable places because they have high costs, due to density, and a captive clientele – YOU.

    Jason McHuff Says: Nor is having less pollution.
    JK: Pollution has been decreasing for years in the USA. See: blip.tv/file/2751700

    Jason McHuff Says: Nor is not having to pay for new schools for distant developments, even though ones in a nearby district are closing due to lack of students.
    JK: One does not have to pay for a distant school, the distant school is paid for buy the residents of that district. They probably moved there because the school lacking for students is crappy. Or planner’s policies drove out all of the families.

    Jason McHuff Says: But if we’re talking standards, why don’t we help people get personal helicopters, since they can be even faster than driving?
    JK: Why do you say this? Since you bring up helping people pay for their transportation, lets quit paying more for public transit than driving a car costs.

    Thanks
    JK

  14. EngineerScotty Says:
    “JK, Comparing transit planning to genocide is offensive nonsense. Knock it off.”

    Well, we have posts here attributing mass catastrophe due to other causes (leading to death), why not planning?

  15. Sorry, I was not addressing transportation, I was responding to the proposal to force people into high density (like Ceausescu ), restrict their freedom to travel, force them to shop in high cost stores with restricted choices and generally increase their cost of living. These restrictions through government mandates are indeed reminiscent of despotic regimes that have lead to many deaths.

    Thanks
    JK

  16. Nobody is forcing you to live in high density, JK, especially not in the style of a certain now-dead Romanian dictator.

    Nobody is proposing that your freedom to travel be restricted, or that you can’t shop at Wal-Mart if you like.

    There’s a possibility that these particular lifestyle choices might not be subsidized as well as they have in the past, but there is no plan to bulldoze Bethany or demolish Damascus, and frog-march the residents there into a SoWa condo.

    And no–“restrictions through government mandates” are not reminiscent of despotic regimes that lead to many deaths–as the sort of land use planning we’re talking about does NOT lead to deaths, intentional or otherwise.

    If any bit of social engineering in the past century in the US can be considered “despotic”, the mass of freeway construction (subsidized completely by the Federal Government, no less) that occurred after WWII might qualify. Numerous people were forced out of their homes as entire neighborhoods were bulldozed to make way for freeways. Many of them were renters who received not a dime for their troubles. And those not in the path of the Interstates, but merely nearby, saw their neighborhoods destroyed, the air they breathe fouled–and in some cases the traffic and fumes DID kill a buncha people.

    But even that–to which anything Tri-Met or Metro is contemplating pales in comparison–doesn’t merit comparisons with Hitler or Mao or Stalin. The two things are simply not equivalent, and libertarians who compare public transit to pogroms, or development subsidies to death camps, just make themselves look silly and asinine.

    Besides–private enterprises has its share of blood on its hands–whether the Irish potato famine, or the poisoning of thousands at Bhopal. But I don’t go around comparing Wal-Mart to these things.

  17. Well, since JK has once again completely distracted the conversation with patently absurd hyperbole, I’m going to respond to something he said earlier which I previously let pass without comment, for fear of getting off-topic.

    Our communities will look like Appalachia as your suggestions will destroy our standard of living.

    Perhaps the real question is why does Appalachia resemble Appalachia today?

    After all, most of the states which encompass Appalachia are not known as socialist paradises.

    Relative to other US states, most of Appalachia (especially in the southeast) does not have the strongest environmental laws, does not have the strongest worker protections (“right to work” laws, etc.), does not have the highest minimum wage, does not have strong social/entitlement programs, and most communities have not adopted what we might call “smart growth” policies. People are more free in Appalachia to subdivide, build roads, etc.

    So why, in this (relatively speaking) libertarian paradise, do the conditions which you refer to so negatively exist in the present day?

    Really, it’s just sloppy use of hyperbole, failing to take into account the actual ramifications of what you’re asserting, or really, the ramifications of history.

    It would be just as pointlessly hyperbolic (not to mention rudely derisive) to accuse you, by implementing the policies you favor, of wanting to create a Dickensian dystopia.

  18. JK: Simple. Our communities will look like Appalachia as your suggestions will destroy our standard of living.

    That’s okay. My brother and I used to play a game we called Teeth or Fingers. If the contestant had more teeth or fingers, they won. Otherwise it became how well could they handle dealing with a Yankee kid.

  19. My apologies for not being clear. Lets try again:

    1. Severe restrictions on energy usage and travel will reduce everyone’s standard of living, potentially impoverishing tens (or hundreds) of millions of Americans. (“Restrictions” include major price increases.)

    2. Massive campaigns to shift people to high density and/or transit will suck up Billions of dollars out of people’s pockets to build the expensive high density and transit, also lowering our standard of living. (The money has to come from somewhere.)

    3. Building efficient transportation networks raised our standard of living. Replacing this with more costly, slower mass transit will lower our standard of living.

    4. There is no proven ability of mass transit to be lower cost than privately owned cars. The trend for decades has been towards cheaper automobile transport and more expensive mass transport.

    5. This (transit & density) is right at the heart of the suggestions made in the original article.

    6. The article was clearly talking of forcing people:
    ”…if we take these numbers seriously and plan for people to drive significantly less and less over time” Why would people drive less unless forced to?

    ”What if the primary options for getting around were pretty much limited to walking, bicycling and taking transit, with a private motor vehicle relegated to an expensive and infrequent choice?” Why would motor vehicles be “relegated” to an expensive choice? Clearly the writer is anticipating government action, because people will not make that choice voluntarily – cars are just too useful, being faster and cheaper than transit. Their very presence raises our standard of living buy enabling us to do more productive things in a shorter period of time.

    ”I don’t see how we ultimately will successfully be able to make the big changes we need to make unless we seriously plan for such a future.” Again what else could he mean, except by government coercion or outright force? People will not voluntarily lower their standard of living by moving into tiny, high density housing units and using slower, more expensive and less convenient transportation. Make no mistake, mass transit will remain costly (as it currently is in our densest cities) and each additional rider requires more tax money – more money than driving. Money which will be scarce as the economy slides into deep depression from the government measures.

    When governments seek to re-order society, as this proposal does, bad things have historically happened (see previous posting.) Part of the reason is that draconian loss of civil liberty MUST happen to force people to change their lives in ways they do not want to live. Complaints must be silenced with a loss of free press. (We are already seeing calls, in the press and blogs, for trials and concentration camps for political dissidents – even Jim Hanson has said these kinds of things (NYT, June 23, 2008).) Demonstrations must be forcefully suppressed to preserve order.

    7. There has been no demonstration that the costs of the proposed “cures” are cheaper than the alleged problem being cured. The probability is that the cures are much more expensive.

    Thanks
    JK

  20. Amazing how a suggestion can be taken in a completely different direction.

    To reiterate what I was trying to say in the first place, I was suggesting imagining—DESIGNING—in some detail what a community might look like if a substantial number of trips were made not with single-occupancy passenger vehicles but through other means, in particular, significantly increased public transit. I suggested transit running so frequently that one could typically just catch a ride from where you are to where you want to go. I presumed sufficient engineering and design that such a choice would be practical, fast and would contribute less greenhouse gas emissions than using a conventional single-occupancy vehicle. Suggestions that people’s movement would be severely limited are off base. And I specifically challenged the assumption that such a future would require significantly higher densities than what we have now.

    In brief, my challenge was to first DESIGN such a future in some detail. Then one could EVALUATE it.

    But there is not much point in evaluating or critiquing a scenario that you have not yet designed in detail, or else have designed negatively, i.e., in putting up and knocking down a straw man.

    It would be great if this conversation could get back to the primary question of design.

  21. Thanks again, Rob.

    Your points that 1) increased density is not a precondition to improved transit service and 2) transit can help fight global warming (among other benefits) are extremely important, and Oregon decisionmakers do not seem to understand their implications.

    Transit ridership has been repeatedly shown to be quite eleastic relative to level of service. Portland saw huge increases during the years following 1969 when TriMet was increasing bus service. Bus ridership has stagnated over the past decade, when net bus service has decreased.

    One can argue correlation versus causation, but, having been co-owner of an intercity bus line that doubled the service that had been provided by Greyhound, the former operator, and ended up with four times the ridership, I can tell you that well designed, convenient, fast transit service will attract riders.

    I hope Rob’s message is heard.

  22. We are already seeing calls, in the press and blogs, for trials and concentration camps for political dissidents – even Jim Hanson [sic] has said these kinds of things (NYT, June 23, 2008).

    You didn’t provide a link for this, but I found two relevant posts on the NYT on June 23, 2008.

    First, the blog, which includes a 10-minute video interview with Hansen:
    NASA’s Hansen: Humans Still Loading Climate Dice

    Then, there’s the main newspaper article based on this interview:
    Years Later, Climatologist Renews His Call for Action

    At the NYT, there is zero mention of trials, camps, dissidents, or suppressing anyone’s freedom of expression.

    On a hunch that perhaps Hansen said something to somebody else that same week, I went searching and found this audio interview in the Guardian published on the same day:

    Climate change: ‘We had better get something done next year, or else’

    In this interview, Hansen is asked about the activities of CEOs of certain industries, including the spreading of climate misinformation. He talks about how these CEOs should know better, and what they are doing is “criminal” and later a crime against “humanity and nature”. He specifically says that he’s talking about CEOs of certain industries, and not other individuals in the general population who hold particular beliefs. He does not, himself, use the word trial. In a very edited segment (listen for the pops and changes in EQ in the audio), the reporter asks if Hansen intends to testify before Congress (the next day) that CEOs should be “put on trial for crimes against humanity” and you get a short “yep” out of Hansen. That’s it. No mention of camps or clamping down on the public’s rights. Just words from a _reporter_ in a heavily edited audio segment.

    Did he ever bring up this idea of trials in his _actual_ public, recorded testimony, like the reporter suggested? Did he?

    The Tobacco companies spread lies about the health risks of smoking for decades, even when they were aware of the true risks. There were many trials in civil court about this. It’s not a violation of rights to go after big players who obfuscate the true harm they are doing to others in order to prolong profits. Just as you cannot yell “Fire” in a crowded theater (that is not on fire), you’re in big trouble if you yell “There is no fire. Sit down” in a building which you know to be burning.

    So not only have you tried yet again to make this an argument about Climate Change (and this time by unfairly maligning Hansen in the process), you’ve completely wasted 60 minutes of my time.

    Every time I research one of your stunning assertions, I find your characterization or interpretation to be off-base.

    I do appreciate that you restated your argument with less (but some) hyperbole. That’s progress. And I appreciate that public policy advocates such as Hansen are grown-ups and can handle criticism. But I don’t appreciate all the time-wasting that goes on around here as a result of these distractions.

    This matter is closed. From now on we’re talking about Rob’s original post.

  23. Sorry Bob,
    Had I realized you would show such a high level of distrust, I would have included the exact quote and link:
    “In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.” ( dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/are-big-oil-and-big-coal-climate-criminals/ )
    Scroll down to Hanson’s full statement.

    Hi, Rob Zako,
    As a designer of electronic equipment, the first task is to look at the basic laws of physics, availability of components,, etc. Using that process, I conclude the following (I’ll include links for Bob R. to check my facts):

    1. There is no transit system in the USA that currently meets your criteria. Even in high density New York and Los Angeles. (portlandfacts.com/top10bus.html)

    2. To build new buildings is very expansive, especially high density. (portlandfacts.com/smart/DensityCost.htm)

    3. Transit costs much more than driving. For instance the average big city bus costs dour times the cost of driving ($1.01/pm vs $0.25) (portlandfacts.com/top10bus.html)

    4. Transit DOES NOT save energy in high density cities. (portlandfacts.com/top10bus.html)

    3. There is a reduction in driving in high density as the congestion becomes so high that driving is very difficult. (portlandfacts.com/smart/densitycongestion.htm) This also makes transit slow. Note that high density DOES NOT reduce commute times. (portlandfacts.com/commutetime.html)

    4. The question then becomes: since density does not make transit cost or energy efficient compared to a car, will high density reduce daily miles traveled? The answer appears to be that all travel is reduced (Dunphy and Fisher, Fig 4-portlandfacts.com/smart/images/DunphyTable4.gif ). One can speculate that people are virtually trapped by the congested streets. (portlandfacts.com/smart/densitycongestion.htm)

    5. But look at the details: personal vehicle travel is reduced from 22 miles/per person to , at best 4.48, in VERY high, Hong Kong style, density. This is a ratio of 4.91. (Dunphy and Fisher, Fig 4-portlandfacts.com/smart/images/DunphyTable4.gif) To achieve a similar reduction in energy usage by making cars more efficient would require raising our current 22 mpg average to 108 mpg. Since hybrids are already in the 50 mph area, and 74 mpg diesels are in use in Europe (“Today’s clean diesels, such as this engine from a Euro-spec 2007 VW Polo, can offer better fuel economy (74.3 mpg)” – popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4237945.html), such a goal seems technically doable and a whole lot LESS disruptive of people’s lives.

    5. To get a meaningful reduction in driving will require relocating, probably, ½ the population into high density.

    6. I maintain that such relocation will require high levels of coercion. (See previous postings for the result.) On the other hand getting 100 mpg cars for ½ the population would likely be cheaper and not require a police state to force people to live in ways they do not choose.

    Why do progressives keep thinking in terms or re-ordering society and changing people’s lives instead of looking to available technology?

    Thanks
    JK

  24. Too bad, JK, the link you provide mentions nothing about camps or curbing freedom of expression, which was your original assertion. The full Hansen quote regarding trials, which is clearly rhetorical, states:

    CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.

    There’s something to what Hansen said, it’s certainly debatable whether his position is practical, moral, or desirable. But your relentless use of over-the-top hyperbole, clashing against actual facts, has rendered your original assertion an incorrect and pointless distraction.

    Why do progressives keep thinking in terms or re-ordering society and changing people’s lives instead of looking to available technology?

    Another pointless statement. Can be applied to ANY political persuasion which seeks to change the status-quo. Don’t tell me that Libertarians wouldn’t like to see some changes made around here. Drastically altering our government (for better or for worse) in favor of a much more purely market-based system is quite simply “re-ordering society” and “changing people’s lives”.

    You just can’t seem to stick to the topic, you have to get a derisive remark in nearly every time you post.

    Do it one more time and you earn a nice holiday vacation from this site.

  25. The walkable store will always be smaller, have less choices and higher costs that the mega store.

    First of all, the central area Safeways (SW Jefferson, Lloyd District, Pearl District) aren’t that smaller than suburban ones. But, yes, I am one of the people who likes to shop at WinCo (for both price and selection). Which is fine since I only need to do a big shopping trip once in a while and, conversely, price and selection aren’t that big an issue if you just need a few things in between.

    high density is associated with longer commute times

    How so, since the higher density means having more destinations in a shorter distance? For instance, a business might find 10 people to serve in a neighborhood rather than 5, without substantially increasing the driving time. Or as the message puts it, “as destinations get farther away from each other on average, the typical person tends to drive more and farther”

    There was no mention of pollution in that article

    “carbon footprint”, “greenhouse gas emissions”.

    higher prices at those walkable places because they have high costs, due to density

    First of all, there are many other places that people go to besides stores that sell commodities which might have variation in price. Things like parks, coffee houses and specialty businesses. But what about costs that are lower because of not needing as much parking and the land it takes? In addition, the social, exercise, etc. value of the walk to buy something and not needing to spend on car use can offset the higher price.

    One does not have to pay for a distant school, the distant school is paid for buy the residents of that district

    But I was referring to new schools that are in the same district, but have nothing to do with the neighborhoods that the existing residents are in.

    Why do you say this?

    Because if people benefit from the time savings, etc, of car use, they would benefit even more from faster helicopter use. In other words, if we’re paying for better roads so people can drive faster, why aren’t we paying for helicopter use since that would be even better?

  26. Jason McHuff Says: But, yes, I am one of the people who likes to shop at WinCo (for both price and selection).
    JK: Thanks for making my point – we need big stores to keep prices low and selection broad.

    Jason McHuff Says:
    (JK: density is associated with longer commute times)
    How so, since the higher density means having more destinations in a shorter distance?
    JK:
    Averave USA commute time: 25.9 min
    Average NYC commute time: 37.6 min
    See http://www.portlandfacts.com/commutechart.html
    (Chart courtsy of Thomas A. Rubin, CPA, CMA, CMC, CIA, CGFM, CFM who has over thirty years of public transit experience as a senior executive in major transit agencies and as an auditor, consultant, and author)

    Jason McHuff Says: (JK: There was no mention of pollution in that article)
    “carbon footprint”, “greenhouse gas emissions”.
    JK: Sorry, we are not allowed to debate those subjects on this blog -I stand buy my original statement.

    Jason McHuff Says: (JK: higher prices at those walkable places because they have high costs, due to density)
    But what about costs that are lower because of not needing as much parking and the land it takes?
    JK: Parking is real cheap in Wall Mart land. It is a very cheap way to attract customers. The real high costs are due to density.

    Jason McHuff Says: In addition, the social, exercise, etc. value of the walk to buy something and not needing to spend on car use can offset the higher price.
    JK: There is more social interaction in the burbs.
    See portlandfacts.com/smart/socialinteractionandurbansprawl.htm

    Jason McHuff Says: (JK: Why do you say this?)
    Because if people benefit from the time savings, etc, of car use, they would benefit even more from faster helicopter use. In other words, if we’re paying for better roads so people can drive faster, why aren’t we paying for helicopter use since that would be even better?
    JK: Fine with me. Just let them pay their own way — like car users DO pay their own way today. (It is transit that is well over 80% subsidized.) See: portlandfacts.com/roads/docs/delucchi_chart.htm
    .portlandfacts.com/roadsubsidy.htm

    Thanks
    JK

  27. we need big stores to keep prices low and selection broad

    First of all, we don’t need them, seeing how many, many people only shop at stores like Safeway. But the point was that people don’t need to go there everyday and it’s less of an issue when it’s only occasional.

    Averave USA commute time: 25.9 min / Average NYC commute time: 37.6 min

    But doesn’t that include people who commute from far beyond NYC? Moreover, the issue isn’t commute times, it’s the time spent by delivery drivers and other services that don’t need to cover the entire NYC metro area to serve the same amount of people that they would elsewhere. For instance, a mail carrier in NYC isn’t going to go to Connecticut or New Jersey.

    Sorry, we are not allowed to debate those subjects on this blog

    We are not allowed to debate the existence of global warming (and it’s good to see you’ve realized that). Things that can cause it don’t seem to be a problem. And “carbon footprint” and “greenhouse gas emissions” are terms very much related to pollution.

    Parking is real cheap in Wall Mart land

    First of all, the Walton’s didn’t have two l’s in their name–in other words, it’s Wal-Mart, and I guess now Walmart, and not Wall Mart (and it’s not like you can buy walls there). But parking is cheap because businesses aren’t required to control the polluted runoff from it, because the land it’s on is often taxed at a low rate and because it’s often required by zoning, etc anyways.

    There is more social interaction in the burbs.

    I was not referring to interactions. “Psychological” may have been a better word.

    like car users DO pay their own way today

    No, they don’t. And that’s the point. They don’t pay for things like “free” parking, pollution clean-up, oil defense, road projects funded by taxes other than on fuel (such as in Washington County),…

  28. Jason McHuff Says: (JK: we need big stores to keep prices low and selection broad)
    First of all, we don’t need them, seeing how many, many people only shop at stores like Safeway.
    JK: Absent the competition, Safeway could raise their high prices even higher.

    Jason McHuff Says: But the point was that people don’t need to go there everyday and it’s less of an issue when it’s only occasional.
    JK: But it is still an issue – overpriced because o f a small customer base and high land prices.

    Jason McHuff Says: (JK: Average USA commute time: 25.9 min / Average NYC commute time: 37.6 min)
    But doesn’t that include people who commute from far beyond NYC?
    JK: It is a national average. If you want to see individual cities and urban areas look at the details for each city: portlandfacts.com/commutechart.html

    Jason McHuff Says: Moreover, the issue isn’t commute times, it’s the time spent by delivery drivers and other services that don’t need to cover the entire NYC metro area to serve the same amount of people that they would elsewhere. For instance, a mail carrier in NYC isn’t going to go to Connecticut or New Jersey.
    JK: So, lets see some data, otherwise it looks like you are just guessing.

    Jason McHuff Says: And “carbon footprint” and “greenhouse gas emissions” are terms very much related to pollution.
    JK: No they aren’t. Please quit potentially angering the moderator.

    Jason McHuff Says: (JK: Parking is real cheap in Wall Mart land)
    But parking is cheap because businesses aren’t required to control the polluted runoff from it, because the land it’s on is often taxed at a low rate and because it’s often required by zoning, etc anyways.
    JK: You left out the real reason: they are generally built in low density areas where the land is cheap. Density tends to raise land values – that is why they pay more taxes and pay more per sq ft to build taller buildings.

    Jason McHuff Says: (JK: like car users DO pay their own way today)
    No, they don’t. And that’s the point. They don’t pay for things like “free” parking, pollution clean-up, oil defense, road projects funded by taxes other than on fuel (such as in Washington County),…
    JK:
    1. Yes, there is a lot of pollution cleanup from buses: seattleweekly.com/diversions/0322/diversions-bus.php
    2. Oil defense would be even higher if we all switched to buses because buses uses MORE energy than new cars, even in dense cities. See: portlandfacts.com/top10bus.html

    3. Road projects funded by general taxes – are you saying that those people don’t use the roads?

    How about the 80% of the cost of transit (5x that of driving) that is paid by NON USERS?

    Thanks
    JK

Leave a Reply to Jason McHuff Cancel reply

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