Climate Change Battle of the PACs at Metro

Read this very carefully.

On Thursday, JPACT will consider conflicting Climate Change amendments to the Regional Transportation Plan from MPAC and TPAC.

The attached memo (PDF, 143K) makes this even more confusing, but fundamentally the folks on the Metro Policy Advisory Committee, which is focused on land use and community building have proposed a more aggressive stance toward labeling some projects as having worse impacts on greenhouse gases. The Transportation Policy Alternatives Committee adopted a watered-down version of the same.

In both cases the City of Portland proposed the amendments.

The Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation will sort this out Thursday at 7:15AM and send the whole bowl of alphabet soup to the Metro Council.

Bottom line: even though the RTP has some tough policy language about Climate Change, we won’t really be looking at significantly changing the project list until 2014.

Meanwhile the challenge will be to make sure none of the really ugly projects move into construction before then…

6 responses to “Climate Change Battle of the PACs at Metro”

  1. Chris, could you elaborate on what you mean by an ‘ugly project?’ Is that a strictly aesthetic judgment, or referring to quality of construction, or to potential for contributing to area CO2? Or something else?

  2. Wouldn’t you want to factor in the likelihood of local consumer demand for low CO2 emitting vehicles (just now hitting the market) as part of the equation ? I think this will especially be relevant in Portland. I believe any planning should also try to project trends that are just getting underway, whether it be bicycling, age demographics, family size, etc.

  3. Oh I’m sorry I thought this was a discussion about the Regional Transportation Plan.

    [Moderator: It is. More specifically, it’s about the RTP’s weakness thus far at addressing CO2 emissions in terms of the project list. This forum does, however, start with the underlying assumption that climate change is real and that CO2 emissions reductions is one of the main tools for addressing it. There is some wiggle room in there for discussion and disagreement, but repetitive comments along those lines will be removed. This is a moderated forum. But you know this, because you’ve been told this numerous times before. – Bob R.]

  4. Well Bob tht’s just swell.
    But no matter what you believe about either global warming or transportation, what you advocate will neither reduce CO2 emissions or reduce congestion.
    I suspect you know that to be the case.
    However in your advocacy is it appropriate to misrepresent or ignore public sentiment?

    As for using CO2 emission reduction to justify more of the same policies this lobby advocates that’s a convenience rapidly disappearing.

Leave a Reply

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