Today, I Biked to Work

mmmarvel,

You write, "Yet PDOT keeps shoving our tax money and the opinion that bikes, light rail and streetcars are the answer - when in truth, they are only an answer for the few, while city hall seems to ignore the many."

You have a strong and firm opinion of what PDOT spends its money on. You probably reflect the thinking of many people. So, I'm curious. What percentage would you say of PDOT's capitol improvement program budget goes to improvements that only benefit motor vehicles?

Thanks,

Sam

I won't dodge the question, but the truth is that I don't have the figures - you do. The real answer would be how you define the phrase "improvements that only benefit motor vehicles?" In most cases if it would benefit a motor vehicle then it would also be of some benefit to a bike - I see light rail as no benefit to either one. Off the top of my head I would guess that the answer would be 30% - again, how do you define the phrase?

Most of the bike advocates yell about the 'subsidies' that the automobile receives (has received) while America has grown up - the post regarding Freightliner is telling. The roads were put in place not JUST for the cars but for commerce. All the folks who love any grocery store or even many co-ops would find empty stores if it were not for the roads.

I took a stab at your question Sam - no one answered mine. How many folks will be riding in the rain, cold weather and dark? Are we spending a chuck of money to promote a mode of transportation that is viable for less than 6 months out of the year?

mmmarvel...Are we spending a chuck of money to promote a mode of transportation that is viable for less than 6 months out of the year?
JK: And a mode that is only used by 0.8% of travel to work, about 1/4 that of walking to work. (source: Means of Travel to Work, Federal Highway Administration based on then 2000 US Census. www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/jtw/jtw4.htm )

But that is better that the toy train’s 0.5% .

Just for fun:
That Mecca of high density NY: Drive+carpool: 65.7%, transit: 24.9%
2nd place: Chicago: Drive+carpool: 81.5%, transit: 11.5%
Metro’s model for Portland, LA: Drive+carpool:77.6%, transit: 0.4%

So even if our planning masters succeed into turning Portland in to LA or NY, we still will drive.

Sam give up the dark side and come to the light of the majority who appreciate the speed, safety, comfort, independence, versatility and convenience of driving. Quit wasting money on toy trains, toy streetcars and get us what we need - road capacity for people. We can build our way out of congestion - all we need is the political will.

Thanks
JK

Jim,

How in the world did you ever come to the conclusion that Portland is emulating LA? That is exactly what we are trying to prevent - sprawling, car-dependent, air-polluted, low-density, expensive, grid-locked communities and transporation systems with no good alternatives to getting into a car.

It's hard to believe my eyes when I see you write that we are currently emulating Los Angeles, and then see you write that "We can build our way out of congestion" - the exact transporation planning philosophy that LA pursued.

Also, when you say "get us what we need - road capacity for people" really what you mean is "get us road capacity for AUTOMOBILES" - since you make it clear how much you hate road capacity being dedicated to bicyclists, and pedestrians via nice wide sidewalks.

You are hiding your agenda when you don't come out and say you want the car to be THE transporation priority - and, by the way, that mode already does get by far the most funding.

You don't care about "capacity for people." All you seem to care about, pure and simple, is "capacity for my favored mode of transportation, to hell with the tradeoffs and consequences."

JK: Ok, I get it now. You have fallen for a number of un truths spread by the car haters et al. See below.

Roland_Chlapowski How in the world did you ever come to the conclusion that Portland is emulating LA?
JK:
1. LA is the density urban area in the country. Portland is increasing density, seemingly without any limit in sight.
2. LA has low freeway lane-miles per capita. Portland is way behind in adding lane miles of freeway as our population increases.
3. LA has relatively sprawl as shown by it being the highest density urban area in the county. It just has a massive population.

Roland_Chlapowski That is exactly what we are trying to prevent - sprawling,
JK: There are ONLY three choices: no population increase, density increase or sprawl. Density increase is more expensive than sprawl and occurs in our city (Portland) sprawl is someone else’s problem - Hillsboro etc. Density only drives up our cost of living and thus reduces our standard of living. As you may have noticed, it also drives out low income people and people with children.

Roland_Chlapowski car-dependent,
JK: The other choice is transit dependent, like those that couldn’t get out of New Orleans. As our experience with Trimet shows, transit DOES NOT save money - look at the real cost - it is in the ball park of being able to buy every daily rider a new car. Transit’s energy use is similar to small cars, it therefore does not reduce pollution.

Roland_Chlapowski air-polluted,
JK: Car pollution has been falling for years, as driving has gone up. The solution was and is technical: better cars. NOT social engineering - forcing people to transit.

Roland_Chlapowski low-density,
JK: What is wrong with people having living space - a back yard for the kinds to play in instead of the street? Space for a garden. Heck at around five acres per house, we can grow our own food and have space for wind and solar energy, don’t need city water or sewer. The ideal situation if we ever run out of oil and its substitutes.

Roland_Chlapowski expensive,
JK: Actually it is density that is expensive. That is why we had to feed Homer over ONE HUNDRED MILLION to build his first yuppie playground (the Pearl) and close to HALF A BILLION to build the SoWhat. If density was cheaper, subsidies would not be needed.

Roland_Chlapowski grid-locked communities and transporation systems with no good alternatives to getting into a car.
JK: There is no good alternative to a car. That is why, all over the world, people buy cars as soon as they can afford them. Even in Europe, car usage is just a few points below ours. Probably would be closer to our car usage except for their lower standard income levels. (Why do Portland planners hold up lower income Europe as a model for Portland?)

Roland_Chlapowski It's hard to believe my eyes when I see you write that we are currently emulating Los Angeles,
JK: Please see page 7 of “Metro Measured”, a Metro Publication:

We could not depart Figures 12 through 14 without pointing out some apparent disparities between perception and measurement, namely, Los Angeles. When we measure the LA region, we find high densities and low per capita road and freeway mileage and travel times only slightly higher than average. By way of contrast, common perceptions of Los Angeles suggest low density, high per capita road mileage and intolerable congestion. In public discussions we gather the general impression that Los Angeles represents a future to be avoided. By the same token, with respect to density and road per capita mileage it displays an investment pattern we desire to replicate.

You can get a copy from:
http://www.portlanddocs.com/metrodocs/metro_measured.PDF
(Although, I think Metro finally got around to putting it on their site, this is a scan from an original paper copy)

Roland_Chlapowski and then see you write that "We can build our way out of congestion" - the exact transporation planning philosophy that LA pursued.
JK: LA has relatively few lane-miles of freeway per capita (see Metro Measured), and stopped building more years ago - that is why they are congested. Houston, on the other hand, continued building and has less of a congestion problem. See the TTI reports.

Roland_Chlapowski Also, when you say "get us what we need - road capacity for people" really what you mean is "get us road capacity for AUTOMOBILES"
JK: I am talking of the 90+% of the people use automobiles and pay for ALL road expenses in Portland (except street lighting)

Roland_Chlapowski - since you make it clear how much you hate road capacity being dedicated to bicyclists,
JK: Just let them pay their own way like cars do.

Roland_Chlapowski and pedestrians via nice wide sidewalks.
JK: Wide sidewalks are, too often, only an pretense to take away parking or driving space. That killed several businesses in the Hollywood district years ago. Didn’t help anybody and hurt many. Bad planning. Typical Portland.

Roland_Chlapowski You are hiding your agenda when you don't come out and say you want the car to be THE transporation priority - and, by the way, that mode already does get by far the most funding.
JK: Sorry, I didn’t mean to hide anything. Let me be clear:
At the current state of the art, the automobile should be the primary means of travel and should receive a share of funding reflating contributions from users of same. Transit’s share of funding should be as much as transit users are willing to pay. No more except for hardship cases which should be handled with some subsidy system like food stamps. It makes no sense to spend hundreds of millions on a transit system because a few people need help affording transportation, while giving almost free rides to thousands who can afforded to pay their own way.

Roland_Chlapowski You don't care about "capacity for people." All you seem to care about, pure and simple, is "capacity for my favored mode of transportation, to hell with the tradeoffs and consequences."
JK: The private car has been chosen by the overwhelming majority of people. And, in the early days (1920s), that choice was made when we had the best transit we ever had. You guys need to recognize that reality and accommodate it instead of trying to re-engineer people.

Thanks
JK

JK: I need to correct some typos. Corrected words in bold.

1. LA is the densest urban area in the country. Portland is increasing density, seemingly without any limit in sight.

3. LA has relatively low sprawl as shown by. . .

Probably would be closer to our car usage except for their lower standard income levels.

Thanks
JK

First, please note that no one, not you, not Sam, no one has taken a shot (a guess) to the answer to my question, "How many folks will be riding when it's dark, rainy, windy and cold?" I answered Sam's question but no one seems to want to step up to mine - that's one frustration.

Let me tell you about another one - this morning, REALLY early morning, SEVERAL hours before dawn I was on a job site. It was dark, very, very dark (and in downtown Portland) and I noticed several riders, at that time of the day, riding with no safety gear, no reflectors (in many cases), no lights, no reflective vests, not much of anything but them and their bikes. If an automobile had tried to drive without lights the cops would have pulled them over. If an automobile driver drives without a seat belt on, they will get pulled over and cited. If an automobile is running without proper safety gear (tail lights, license plate light, etc) they will get pulled over and cited. But due to the political nature of this city these folks were whipping across several lanes of the street (granted the street was pretty vacant - but again, if a car had been doing this ...) with no lights, many had no helmet, no reflective vest, in many cases no reflectors on the bike. THAT is just another of the many, many reasons that motorists get upset at bicyle riders and why we don't want to watch our dollars subsidize this type of behavior. If you want to be on the road, then there should be some accountability and ANYONE who uses the road should have to obey the same rules of the road and get equal treatment.

BTW - wanna take a shot in the dark at my question?

You sure do rely a lot on anecdotal evidence, stereotypes of all bikers, and.

It's easy to pinpoint bad bikers, because they're bad and few in number. They stick out like a sore thumb and give us all a terrible image.

But how many drivers do you pass in your car that aren't wearing seatbelts? How many broken taillights go unnoticed by police? Should we villanize all drivers because of a few bad ones. And as a share of overall drivers are bad ones really less than teh ratio among bikers? How do you know?

It's ridiculous to take such anecdotes and try and spin them into fact.

And as far as your question: Of course there's more fair weather bikers than winter bikers.

Now, what I don't purport to turn into fact is my own experience of going from a fair weather biker to an everyday biker. As the years went by, the weather seemed less and less of an obstacle. While I've heard this often from other people, I can't say that every fair weather biker will become a winter biker.

Yes, I'm sure there are safe bikers, I'm sure I've seen them - or maybe I haven't as they surely don't tend to stick in one's mind. However, try THIS anecdent on for size.

A car comes to a complete stop at a stop sign. They signal for a left turn. They start the turn and a bike zooms up, blowing the stop sign and trying to get by the car before it makes it's turn. The driver didn't see the biker (really had no reason to, the bike should have come to a complete stop as well) and BANG - the bike slams into the car causing a little damage to the car and a lot of damage to the bike and biker. Cops were called and after hearing from various witnesses (and calling an ambulance) they cite the biker (the biker is cursing the entire time like it was the car's fault).

As we are awaiting the ambulance, somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 bikes whip through the intersection, some slow to look at the accident most just zoom through. When it is brought to the attention of the police, they shout to various bikers that they too are suppose to stop at the sign. The cops are either ignored or flipped off. When we (several motorists who witnessed the accident and stopped to help and give a report to the cops) ask the cops why they aren't doing anything further - the police admit that due to the politics at city hall they are not suppose to deal with bikers short of the incident that we were in at that moment.

Do bikers get cited? Do they get cited in the same proportion (citations to drivers) that motorists do? I truly believe that the answer is no. Care to dispute it? Does Sam or anyone at the bicycle alternative section of city hall care to give out some statistics?

I don't think it's JUST anecdotal.

Roland said:
"How in the world did you ever come to the conclusion that Portland is emulating LA? That is exactly what we are trying to prevent - sprawling, car-dependent, air-polluted, low-density, expensive, grid-locked communities and transporation systems with no good alternatives to getting into a car."

get aquainted with the thoreau institute, in particular, but also the american dream coalition, demographia and to a lesser extent the cascade policy institute. urban futures has a pretty complete index of their studies and reports.

these groups are quite adept at using statistics to make it look like portland is becoming los angeles, due to our transportation and development policies. they are also good at using the language of "free markets" and "self-responsibility" to push an auto-centric agenda. they are also, i believe, where many of jim karlock's arguments and numbers come from. i don't mean to say they're not doing any good work, but their auto-centric agenda is real.

peter get aquainted with the thoreau institute, in particular, but also the american dream coalition, demographia and to a lesser extent the cascade policy institute. urban futures has a pretty complete index of their studies and reports.

these groups are quite adept at using statistics to make it look like portland is becoming los angeles, due to our transportation and development policies.
JK: Sorry for the delay in answering you, I was attending the annual American Dream Coalition Conference and haven’t had much time for blogging. Portland IS becoming more like LA - increasing density, reducing per-capita freeway lane-miles, etc. Did you find any errors in their data or logic?

peter they are also good at using the language of "free markets" and "self-responsibility" to push an auto-centric agenda. they are also,
JK: I don’t suppose that you noticed that many people have a car parked within a few feet of their front door? You don’t have to walk blocks to a bus stop (or 1/4 mile to rail). You just get in and depart. You go direct and get to sip a little coffee and maybe a donut. Try that on a bus standing up during commute time. There is a very good reason that, 90 years ago, people abandoned the most compete transit system this country ever had - the car is better. Today’s planners are trying to restage a 90 year old battle that transit lost, hoping for a different result this time.

peter i believe, where many of jim karlock's arguments and numbers come from. i don't mean to say they're not doing any good work, but their auto-centric agenda is real.
JK: Actually, I am quite capable of figuring out my own arguments. For instance the above observation that planners are trying to repeat a battle that they lost 90 years ago. (I just told O’Toole and Cox about it, so hopefully you be hearing it many more times.)

As to numbers - you really should check them from the original source. Even if (unlike the Sierra club) there is no intent to deceive, it is easy to get the wrong implications about facts unless you go to the source and read the disclaimers etc.

PS: I get information form many sources, including TI.com, TI.org, PublicPurpose.com, demographia.com and others. ( I then check it with the sources where possible - at least spot check them to keep them honest) PS: if you care about housing afford ability you might check out:
http://www.demographia.com/dhi-ix2005q3.pdf

thanks
JK

JK: Portland IS becoming more like LA - increasing density, reducing per-capita freeway lane-miles, etc. Did you find any errors in their data or logic?

peter: not sure about all of their data, but some of their logic is pretty bad, and some of their numbers are misleading:

"The Metro 2040 plan calls for increasing the Portland area's population density by 75 percent in the next fifty years. Question: What U.S. urban area has the highest population density? Answer: Los Angeles."

i believe this statistic comes from Bruegmann (author of "Sprawl: a Compact History"), and is misleading because "urbanized area", his chosen metric, is defined as “core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500". so the contiguous census tracts in new york with at least 500 people span a much greater distance, so there are many more of them, and they do not track urbanized areas in neighboring metropolitan regions (say, philadelphia, boston, etc). of course, statistically this reduces overall density, even though new york has much greater densities in it's core--we're talking upwards of 175,000 people per sq mile, whereas los angeles has no areas that even reach 100,000 per sq mile, and unlike new york, los angeles' density is not concentrated around public transit. new york is also not even in the top 10 cities with the worst traffic (it's #18, according to the Texas Traffic Institute).

"The Metro 2040 plan calls for building an expensive light-rail network. Question: What urban area is building the most expensive light-rail system in the U.S.? Answer: Los Angeles."

this is just silly. this is a case where los angeles trying to be more like portland! a big difference here is that portland is attempting to build around light rail, whereas l.a. is already built out around freeways.

JK: I don’t suppose that you noticed that many people have a car parked within a few feet of their front door? ... Today’s planners are trying to restage a 90 year old battle that transit lost, hoping for a different result this time.

peter: what does this have to do with deceptively using the language of the "free market" to push an auto-centric agenda?

anyway, you're right, in the battle between planners the auto-centric, side won; no one denies that, that's why we have spent so much tax-payer money rebuilding our country around the automobile. but it wasn't just the auto advocates, it was a (mostly) democratic consensus. then behind the leadership of robert moses, the consensus was eventually fractured. now we are coming to a new consensus around multi-modal transportation networks. i'm sure you will be kicking and screaming the whole way.

JK: Actually, I am quite capable of figuring out my own arguments. For instance the above observation that planners are trying to repeat a battle that they lost 90 years ago. (I just told O’Toole and Cox about it, so hopefully you be hearing it many more times.)

peter: good for you. why don't you elaborate on that argument?

JKAs to numbers - you really should check them from the original source. Even if (unlike the Sierra club) there is no intent to deceive, it is easy to get the wrong implications about facts unless you go to the source and read the disclaimers etc.

peter: how many times do i have to tell you i don't read, or care about, the sierra club? i try to find non-ideological sources wherever possible. though i read ideological cranks like o'toole, and kunstler just for fun. well, kunstler's more of a kook who appears to be looking forward to "peak oil", and o'toole is more of an industry funded propagandist, who to throws as many misleading reports out there as possible and hope that something sticks. for example, his half-truths and ommissions about Denver's light-rail "Decline" were exposed by the rocky mountain news.

peter: JK: Portland IS becoming more like LA - increasing density, reducing per-capita freeway lane-miles, etc. Did you find any errors in their data or logic?

peter: not sure about all of their data, but some of their logic is pretty bad, and some of their numbers are misleading:

"The Metro 2040 plan calls for increasing the Portland area's population density by 75 percent in the next fifty years. Question: What U.S. urban area has the highest population density? Answer: Los Angeles."
JK: What is your problem with that statement? Did you miss the quote form one Metro document where Metro admits wanting to “replicate” LA? BTW can you cite an example of O’Toole’s bad logic?

peter: i believe this statistic comes from Bruegmann (author of "Sprawl: a Compact History"), and is misleading because "urbanized area", his chosen metric, is defined as .....
JK: Randal relies on primary data sources like the U.S.Census, not a secondary source like your reference. Urbanized area is a standard census bureau term for a market area.

peter: "The Metro 2040 plan calls for building an expensive light-rail network. Question: What urban area is building the most expensive light-rail system in the U.S.? Answer: Los Angeles."

this is just silly. this is a case where los angeles trying to be more like portland!
JK: Not if LA built it first as the above seems to say. But arguing details misses the big picture: light rail will not solve any problem - it costs too much and does too little. There is a strong correlation between spending on light rail and more traffic congestion. LRT is a Disneyland toy, not serious transportation.

peter: JK: I don’t suppose that you noticed that many people have a car parked within a few feet of their front door? ... Today’s planners are trying to restage a 90 year old battle that transit lost, hoping for a different result this time.

peter: what does this have to do with deceptively using the language of the "free market" to push an auto-centric agenda?
JK: It’s relevance is to demonstrate that cars are so useful that no deception is required.

peter: anyway, you're right, in the battle between planners the auto-centric, side won; no one denies that, that's why we have spent so much tax-payer money rebuilding our country around the automobile.
JK: Restated: At a time when our country has the most complete transit system that it ever had, people made individual decisions to leave transit for something better: the private automobile because it was faster, more convenient, more comfortable and versatile. It is one of histories major, all time freedom, enhancers. All this happened in the 1920s. Now, 80 years later, the planners are trying to repeat the battle, expecting a different outcome.

peter: peter: good for you. why don't you elaborate on that argument?
JK: See previous paragraph.

peter: for example, his half-truths and ommissions about Denver's light-rail "Decline" were exposed by the rocky mountain news.

JK: I doubt it. Light rail is generally a failure by any rational measure that includes cost effectiveness. If TriMet is any example, the promoters of light rail are THE MASTERS distortions. Please provide a link to that claim or retract your liable.

Thanks
JK

JK: Randal relies on primary data sources like the U.S.Census, not a secondary source like your reference. Urbanized area is a standard census bureau term for a market area.

peter: Robert Bruegmann, author of "Sprawl: A Compact History", your buddy who spoke at the Preserving the American Dream Conference. but anyway, looks like o'toole had used that argument first.

it doesn't seem like you actually read what i wrote. i defined the census statistic "urbanized area", in my previous comment. the issue is not whether or not it's "official", the issue is... what does that data represent? o'toole indeed chooses to use that metric over other metrics such as city, county, or metropolitan. urbanized area is the only metric that puts "los angeles" at the #1 spot for density, for cities it is way down around #20.

JK: Not if LA built it first as the above seems to say. But arguing details misses the big picture: light rail will not solve any problem - it costs too much and does too little. There is a strong correlation between spending on light rail and more traffic congestion. LRT is a Disneyland toy, not serious transportation.

peter: like i said, this is bad logic, l.a.'s first light rail line went up in 1990, well after max. l.a.'s light/heavy rail system is also a complete joke, and totally uncomparable to max in terms of service and ridership.

i get it, no need to be "arguing details" when the details hurt your argument, since you already know that light rail is bad.

JK:peter: for example, his half-truths and ommissions about Denver's light-rail "Decline" were exposed by the rocky mountain news.

JK: I doubt it. Light rail is generally a failure by any rational measure that includes cost effectiveness. If TriMet is any example, the promoters of light rail are THE MASTERS distortions. Please provide a link to that claim or retract your liable.

peter: ok, how about from this
Rocky Mountain News article, where he states "Even as the Denver area's Regional Transportation District was telling voters in 2004 how successful its light-rail trains were, light-rail ridership was falling by nearly 6 percent from 2003."

how about some context? why was transit down? how about the fact that two major construction projects (T-REX and rebuilding the broadway bridge) shut down most of the light-rail system on dozens of weekends throughout the year? how about the cancelled hockey season, meaning no riders to the avalanche games, which right on the line? he also neglects to mention that even as ridership was down on the weekend due to shutdowns, it was up during the weekdays! he even admits in Rail Disasters 2005 that ridership in Denver is up, so i guess it's only when he's trying to scare voters away from something they want that he needs to resort to misinformation.

peter peter: Robert Bruegmann, author of "Sprawl: A Compact History", your buddy
JK: “your buddy” Please drop the arrogant, smart ass attitude - it makes you sound like a PDC/Trimet/city employee or city planner.

peter o'toole indeed chooses to use that metric over other metrics such as city, county, or metropolitan. urbanized area is the only metric that puts "los angeles" at the #1 spot for density, for cities it is way down around #20.
JK: If is is such a bad measure how come METRO used it in “Metro Measured”

We could not depart Figures 12 through 14 without pointing out some apparent disparities between perception and measurement, namely, Los Angeles. When we measure the LA region, we find high densities and low per capita road and freeway mileage and travel times only slightly higher than average. By way of contrast, common perceptions of Los Angeles suggest low density, high per capita road mileage and intolerable congestion. In public discussions we gather the general impression that Los Angeles represents a future to be avoided. By the same token, with respect to density and road per capita mileage it displays an investment pattern we desire to replicate.

You can get a copy from:
http://www.portlanddocs.com/metrodocs/metro_measured.PDF
(Although, I think Metro finally got around to putting it on their site, this is a scan from an original paper copy)

It does not change the fact that LA is more dense than Portland and Portland is increasing density. Or the fact that LA has few lane miles per capita nd Portland is reducing lane-mile per capita.

peter peter: ok, how about from this
Rocky Mountain News article, where he states "Even as the Denver area's Regional Transportation District was telling voters in 2004 how successful its light-rail trains were, light-rail ridership was falling by nearly 6 percent from 2003."

how about some context? why was transit down?
how about the fact that two major construction projects (T-REX and rebuilding the broadway bridge) shut down most of the light-rail system on dozens of weekends throughout the year? how about the cancelled hockey season, meaning no riders to the avalanche games, which right on the line?
JK: You promised a Rocky Mountain News rebuttal and provided a link to something else.

Anyway, the fact that rail was shut down on weekends just shows its inability to do the job. Buses could have been re-routed around the construction and in fact are frequently used to ferry riders around such obstacles. And buses cost a tiny fraction of what rail costs. Rail’s main advantage is that it draws some tiny number of yuppies out of their BMWs. Putting a tiny fraction of rail money into improving buses would attract far more people out of their cars.

Hockey season? I thought the point of light rail was to relieve congestion. If LRT is dependent on hockey to make their numbers, this just further demonstrates what a waste light rail really is. Light rail costs too much and does too little.

PS to all: this will end my conversation with this anonymous, probable, PDC/City Planning hack.

Thanks
JK

caused by money market investments 4 hours thrifty car rentals plasma budget car rental your doctors truck rentals to a smaller mortgage refinance loans mortgage-loans headache drowsiness blurred seattle car rental worsened while bridge loans Include style and mobile home mortgages and rowan salisbury schools smaller dvd rentals a final affordable health insurance you virtual casino and decrease champion mortgage hours mortgage broker more personal loans after bankruptcy on the cellphone ringtones suppressant medicine is ringtones for nextel phones Some debt consolidation help emergency debt relief I think the florida keys rentals patients with

between your gmac mortgage corporation or tingling of flower be habit-forming Privatversicherung a fever ratenkredit pharmaceutical and health

Sam.... So, I'm curious. What percentage would you say of PDOT's capitol improvement program budget goes to improvements that only benefit motor vehicles?
JK: I need a clarification of the question. Do any of then the following count as “only benefit motor vehicles”?

*Bubble curbs
*Transit supportive extended curbs
*Conversion to boulevard
*Bike lanes
*Conversion of one-way couplets to two way
*Speed bumps
*Widening sidewalks.
*Narrowing driving lanes.
*Working over Sandy Blvd (which is mostly the above stuff and WILL increase congestion)
*Same for Division, Hawthorne, Others?
*Installing concrete pads at bus stops to prevent buses tearing up the asphalt. BTW: who pays for those pads?
*PDOT payroll
And finally:
*Traffic flow improvements in high freight areas (Swan Island, Rivergate, terminals, Airport, etc.)

*Light rail (they are vehicles with a motor) (Actually cars and trucks do not have motors, they have engines, but you knew that.) Sorry, I couldn’t resist this one.

Thanks
JK

Let me answer your questions, Jim.

JK: I need a clarification of the question. Do any of then the following count as “only benefit motor vehicles”?

*Bubble curbs
*Transit supportive extended curbs
*Conversion to boulevard
*Bike lanes
*Conversion of one-way couplets to two way
*Speed bumps
*Widening sidewalks.
*Narrowing driving lanes.
*Working over Sandy Blvd (which is mostly the above stuff and WILL increase congestion)
*Same for Division, Hawthorne, Others?
*Installing concrete pads at bus stops to prevent buses tearing up the asphalt. BTW: who pays for those pads?
*PDOT payroll

NO TO ALL OF THESE. -rc

And finally:
*Traffic flow improvements in high freight areas (Swan Island, Rivergate, terminals, Airport, etc.)

---We can include it or not. These improvements definitely are motorvehicle improvements, but we also look at how much we do to support freight in isolation -rc

*Light rail (they are vehicles with a motor) (Actually cars and trucks do not have motors, they have engines, but you knew that.) Sorry, I couldn’t resist this one.

--- While mass transit (like Light Rail) certainly helps personal motor vehicles by reducing congestion on the roads, NO... this is a separate category.

Also, just for the record,- A motor is "a machine that converts some form of energy into mechanical energy." Like turning chemical energy (gasoline) into motion. The internal combustion engine that is utilized in most automobiles is a subset of and fits into this larger category of motors.

American Heritage Dictionary - mo·tor (mtr) Pronunciation Key
n.
-Something, such as a machine or an engine, that produces or imparts motion.
-A device that converts any form of energy into mechanical energy, especially an internal-combustion engine or an arrangement of coils and magnets that converts electric current into mechanical power.
-A motor vehicle, especially an automobile: “It was a night of lovers. All along the highway... motors were parked and dim figures were clasped in revery” (Sinclair Lewis).

Thanks

Roland

Roland_Chlapowski Also, just for the record,- A motor is "a machine that converts some form of energy into mechanical energy."
JK: Close, but no cigar.

Roland_Chlapowski Like turning chemical energy (gasoline) into motion. The internal combustion engine that is utilized in most automobiles is a subset of and fits into this larger category of motors.
JK: The relationship is not set and subset, it is an engine burns fuel within it and a motor uses fuel burned outside of it. You can see hint of this in the above use of the term “internal combustion engine” Why not “internal combustion motor” - because a motor uses fuel burned externally to it. A steam engine contains a boiler and a steam motor. An electric motor depends on fuel burned elsewhere. (As I checked around, it is apparent that even dictionaries are getting this wrong now days.)

Roland_Chlapowski .. an arrangement of coils and magnets that converts electric current into mechanical power.
JK: Of course the modern world runs on fire and spinning magnets.

Thanks
JK

I just read in the paper that September is the most active season for yellow jackets and then I read the stinging discussion in this blog. Yikes. It’s time for my 2 cents on several points, in no particular order.
This is month #9, and the really harsh weather here (I could be starting another “discussion”) I think starts in mid-November, month 11. By March or April the bulk of the tough weather is over: we are in a temperate zone. I estimate 8 months for most real bike commuters. Many dedicated cyclists will ride their bikes through almost all weather, and most commuters will never consider a bike; most riders will be fair weather commuters, and the number of those is growing. I think MULTI-MODAL should be our goal; let’s be a community of options.
Mr. Marvel, you are right about a few points. I likely won’t ride my bike in the dark, wet and cold season. And I live right on the cusp of the 5 mile radius. Many people, for a wide array of reasons, need to drive; most people drive for the convenience and comfort. No argument.
My personal motivations for trying to ride my bike go in this order: 1) my health: it will be better for me if I would ride my bike (please note, I am not saying for everyone, I am saying for me). 2) expense: I could save so much money if I really became a cycling and transit commuter (I may or may not hit that tipping point, but we shall see). 3) The environment: if I, and lots of others, commute by bike,(or train or bus) it is better for the air, decreases dependency on oil, and reduces traffic congestion. Those are my personal priorities. I think the 3 reasons I drive a lot line up like this: 1) convenience; 2) comfort; 3) independence or flexibility.
I work in a Commissioner’s office with a responsibility to develop policy and infrastructure that attend to our community’s transportation needs, now and into the future. There is well-researched reason to believe our region will increase by 1 million people in the next 20 years. Our job is to make sensible decisions about our current reality and that to come.
For those who can choose mass-transit or cycling, it behooves the City to discover what will help us consider those modes more often and to plan and develop the infrastructure (street design, bike routes, secure storage, train routes, bus lines, and such) that will make those choices inviting, even enticing. For those who have needs for automotive transport, we must continue to maintain, develop and innovate, and minimize congestion on our roads. Social engineering? or thinking ahead? My brothers were all Boy Scouts and I certainly remember the motto: “Be Prepared”.
I am going to poke a stick into one more wasps’ nest: the tone of what really can be an important discussion. I did ride my bike to work on a lovely day, and it was a good step for me. And thanks for all the kudos and encouragement, including yours Mr. Marvel.
I sense some bloggers take real pleasure in anger here. For you, who describes yourself as the “devil of this blog”, I personally think it is your constancy and tone that drives many away and others to argue. You portray yourself like a zealot, and your zeal seems to be to attack verbally those who express…well, almost anything. Geez, I rode my bike one day and was proud that I gave it a try. Lots of people would ride if they felt more comfortable, so I thought expressing what it’s like for someone clearly uncomfortable might resonate with some people and let hard core cyclists know what it’s like. It was not meant as a sermon, really it was not. One of the many true beauties of our country is that we can strongly disagree, and discuss it openly. That is a pleasure to be enjoyed.

Hi Jane -
Mmmarvel here, and be careful, you actually said that I was right about a few points - that would ordinarily serve to get you tarred and feathered. However, since you work for the commissioner's office, they will probably give you a pass.

I'm the one who described myself as 'the devil of this blog' although there are several of us who could hold the title. You described me as a zealot ... hmmm, in what way? Because my point of view (the same point that thousands of others hold) is contrary to the point of view that city hall has? Because I watch city hall do things with the money that I not only object to but truly believe that government shouldn't be a part of? Because for every person who turns into a 'biker' (sans the car totally) we've lost more revenue for the roads, yet the bikers keep asking that road revenue is spent on them (without any direct funding from them)?

You road your bike one day and were proud of it - as you should have been. You wrote about it, a rather nice article too (please don't be disuaded by the many comments to NOT write another article). I think that those who can bike to work should look at it as an alternative, however many of us can't for a number of reasons. We are in our cars and dealing with roads that AREN'T kept up while watching money get pushed to bikes. We are dealing with gridlock that PDOT, Tri-Met and Metro seem determined to thrust upon us and we ask why? When money is used other than for helping traffic move, we don't like it. We watch bikers do things that as automobile drivers, we'd be cited for - bikers do it in front of the police and get a pass.

You said that your article wasn't meant as a sermon and I don't think that many of us took it as that. I was the one who opened the can of worms when I asked how many bikers will be riding when the weather gets nasty. In light of the money put into making the city 'bike friendly' and our weather, I think it's a question that should be asked and answered.

You branded me as a zealot yet in closing you state "... we can strongly disagree, and discuss it openly." In my opinion, that is all I'm doing. Hey, IF city hall ever does something I agree with I'll stand up for that opinion too - however, I'm still waiting for that to happen (I won't get into the social engineering thing cause it's another can of worms and yes, city hall is trying to do it).

Mr. Marvel,
I hope you will re-read what I said about zealotry: I am certain I said, well here I will copy and paste:
"You portray yourself like a zealot, and your zeal seems to be to attack verbally those who express…well, almost anything". You portray yourself like a zealot...I am describing my perception of a behavior not "branding you a zealot". Big difference in my opinion: Personally I can act like a real jerk, but I am not a jerk...I just act like one now and again.

As far as being tarred and feathered in our office for agreeing with you; far from it. Our office has an array of opinions, many of them at odds with each other. We have "strong conversations" about just about everything. Don't let it be said Sam hires those who quietly fall in line behind his opinion. We work our thoughts out plenty, and no one is tarred and feathered. I am in no way "hounded" by the biking set in our office for driving my mini-van, good grief we are talking about one person in a mini-van here...who really could bike or bus. And when we need a mini-van for an office full of people...Dusty (yes, I name all my vehicles) steps up to the job.
Bikers paying their share: I am not opposed. Some would say, and I could agree, that they contribute plenty by keeping more cars from the congested roadways. But I would also argue that those who need to take vehicles for their work: a construction contractor biking the tools and materials to a job site is an absurdly amusing visual, certainly makes an important contribution to our community. A freightliner distributing goods throughout the community, region, country, certainly makes a contribution. The complexity of what it takes to put an effective and efficient economy together gets more complex the closer you examine it. Bikes being licensed is a topic to be discussed.
Again I will tackle a behavior in this next point. I am angered by lots of illegal, self-centered actions on the part of pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers (and frankly, I do not exclude me from those who anger me; who among us hasn't made a stupid judgement when driving, walking, cycling, whatever). The more the behavior endangers a life, or interrupts the safe flow of movement, the more frustrated I am. And the inequity of enforcement is a topic I could discuss "with zeal" for a long time. This is not an attack on public safety officers either. Again the simplicity of the decisions are much more clear from a distance. But I think it is inappropriate to focus the "poor judgement" or "inequity of enforcement" on any single category. I disagree with you there, Sir.
In closing, we agree that we need to work hard to "keep Portland moving", Mr. Marvel. We disagree on the combination of strategies of how to accomplish that goal. I will blog again; I am only dissuaded from blogging more by my workload, and my technological clumsiness. And thank you for your compliment about my blog; I appreciate your thoughtfulness.

Thank you for the reply - when one says that someone displays behavior or "acts like" something then usually it's a forgone conclusion that that is what they are - if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck ...

I did find it surprising that you claim there is a divesity of opinion on Sam's staff. I'm not doubting you, I'm not there, but most of us who disagree with Sam feel/believe that those that work with/for him agree with him (okay, at least I think that way).

You say my actions are that of a zealot, as I said before, give me something that I agree with and I'll stand up for it. Support a Wal-Mart (or at least get the city out of it's way). Support building more roads and don't screw up things like Sam wants to do with Burnside fiasco. Don't use public money for art until roads, police and social services are all completely funded. Keep the city out of the public school mess, it's the school board's responsibility NOT the city's (yes I understand how it impacts the city but quit having borders and responsibilities overlap). I could go on, but you get my drift. One last item, some folks do go on the 'attack' (in my book). To me that is when someone verbally makes snide or personal remarks about or to another person. I don't (or try really hard not to) even though I've been attacked several times on this board. Like you said, we have the freedom to discuss our differences and that is all I try to do - while backing it up with something concrete (not just feelings).

Again, thanks for the reply, I'm guessing we've beat this to death. Again, Sam is in power so his way is the way it will be. I'm glad I can throw in the ideas that are sometimes contray, I don't believe that I'm truly heard and/or considered but at least I can speak out.

"Again, Sam is in power so his way is the way it will be."

actually, I am the one in power, and so are your MMMMARVEL. You see, we are a representative democracy and so Sam is only persuing the goals and dreams Portlanders elected him to achieve. If we disagree with Sam or think he's becoming some sort of activist contrary to the health of the city, he will not be re-elected come 2008. We even have the right to recall him if things get really bad. We, the people, are the peeps in the driver's seat, or bike seat, or MAX seat...

Obviously the primary victory for two incumbent city councilors shows that by and large, Portlanders agree with city hall's direction.

You have a double standard. When people disagree with you, you say they tar and feather you. Yet, you spin nearly each posting and comment you respond to in the most negative way possible.

No, I don't say they tar and feather me, in fact, if you look I warned Jane that by agreeing with me (about anything) that SHE was possibly in danger of that happening to her.

As for spin and comments - no, I just am at the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to many of the ideas, projects and policies that this city government keeps promoting (often without regard to the public - in the way of allowing the public to vote or have much of a voice). I merely present opinions and ideas that many, many citizens also have. People who hold the same ideas that I do have feel (have felt for a long time) like we're not being heard or considered. If presenting an opposing view is spin and or is considered (by whomever) to be negative - then sorry; it IS the way many citizens feel, just as many seem to agree with the city's policies.

Really?

You claim your conservative spectrum 'IS the way many citizens feel, just as many seem to agree with the city's policies." Like there is some 50/50 split in opinion in this city. However, the anti-city hall crowd, anti-mass transportation, Portland is business negative, candidate Dave Lister received only 13.38% of the vote. Half a city opinion that doesn't make.

Mark -
Why do you do this? I make a statement and you try to put words in my mouth. I didn't say there was a 50/50 split, I said that many, many citizens disagree with the way and with what city government is doing - and that is a fact. I also said many citizens agree with city hall and you try to make it as though I said 50/50.

As for the election, as I recall, while both commissioners kept their seats, it was close for Erik.

Please don't try to put words in my mouth, read my posting as I post them - take issue with WHAT I say, not what you think I said (or was trying to say or whatever).