WSJ: "Bike-friendly cities in Europe are launching a new attack on car culture. Can the U.S. catch up?"By Sam Adams
Building a Better Bike Lane COPENHAGEN -- No one wears bike helmets here. They're afraid they'll mess up their hair. "I have a big head and I would look silly," Mayor Klaus Bondam says. People bike while pregnant, carrying two cups of coffee, smoking, eating bananas. At the airport, there are parking spaces for bikes. In the emergency room at Frederiksberg Hospital on weekends, half the biking accidents are from people riding drunk. Doctors say the drunk riders tend to run into poles. Flat, compact and temperate, the Netherlands and Denmark have long been havens for bikers. In Amsterdam, 40% of commuters get to work by bike. In Copenhagen, more than a third of workers pedal to their offices. But as concern about global warming intensifies -- the European Union is already under emissions caps and tougher restrictions are expected -- the two cities are leading a fresh assault on car culture. A major thrust is a host of aggressive new measures designed to shift bike commuting into higher gear, including increased prison time for bike thieves and the construction of new parking facilities that can hold up to 10,000 bikes. The rest of Europe is paying close attention. Officials from London, Munich and Zurich (plus a handful from the U.S.) have visited Amsterdam's transportation department for advice on developing bicycle-friendly infrastructure and policies. Norway aims to raise bicycle traffic to at least 8% of all travel by 2015 -- double its current level -- while Sweden hopes to move from 12% to 16% by 2010. This summer, Paris will put thousands of low-cost rental bikes throughout the city to cut traffic, reduce pollution and improve parking. The city of Copenhagen plans to double its spending on biking infrastructure over the next three years, and Denmark is about to unveil a plan to increase spending on bike lanes on 2,000 kilometers, or 1,240 miles, of roads. Amsterdam is undertaking an ambitious capital-improvement program that includes building a 10,000-bike parking garage at the main train station -- construction is expected to start by the end of next year. The city is also trying to boost public transportation usage, and plans to soon enforce stricter car-parking fines and increase parking fees to discourage people from driving. Worried that immigrants might push car use up, both cities have started training programs to teach non-natives how to ride bikes and are stepping up bike training of children in schools. There are bike-only bridges under consideration and efforts to make intersections more rider-friendly by putting in special mirrors. The policy goal is to have bicycle trips replace many short car trips, which account for 6% of total emissions from cars, according to a document adopted last month by the European Economic and Social Committee, an organization of transportation ministers from EU member countries. Another report published this year by the Dutch Cyclists' Association found that if all trips shorter than 7.5 kilometers in the Netherlands currently made by car were by bicycle, the country would reduce its carbon-dioxide emissions by 2.4 million tons. That's about one-eighth of the amount of emissions it would need to reduce to meet the Kyoto Protocol. Officials from some American cities have made pilgrimages to Amsterdam. But in the U.S., bike commuters face more challenges, including strong opposition from some small businesses, car owners and parking-garage owners to any proposals to remove parking, shrink driving lanes or reduce speed limits. Some argue that limiting car usage would hurt business. "We haven't made the tough decisions yet," says Sam Adams, city commissioner of Portland, Ore., who visited Amsterdam in 2005. There has been some movement. Last month, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a proposal to add a congestion charge on cars and increase the number of bicycle paths in the city. It would also require commercial buildings to have indoor parking facilities for bikes. Even in Amsterdam, not everyone is pro-biking. Higher-end shops have already moved out of the city center because of measures to decrease car traffic, says Geert-Pieter Wagenmakers, an adviser to Amsterdam's Chamber of Commerce, and now shops in the outer ring of the city are vulnerable. Bikes parked all over the sidewalk are bad for business, he adds. Still, the new measures in Amsterdam and Copenhagen add to an infrastructure that has already made biking an integral part of life. People haul groceries in saddle bags or on handlebars and tote their children in multiple bike seats. Companies have indoor bike parking, changing rooms and on-site bikes for employees to take to meetings. Subways have bike cars and ramps next to the stairs. Riding a bike for some has more cachet than driving a Porsche. Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende sometimes rides to work, as do lawyers, CEOs (Lars Rebien Sorensen, chief executive of Danish pharmaceutical giant Novo Nordisk, is famous for his on-bike persona) and members of parliament, often with empty children's seats in back. Dutch Prince Maurits van Oranje is often seen riding around town. "It's a good way to keep in touch with people on the streets," says Tjeerd Herrema, deputy mayor of Amsterdam. Mr. Herrema's car and driver still make the trip sometimes -- to chauffeur his bag when he has too much work to carry. Jolanda Engelhamp let her husband keep her car when they split up a few years ago because it was becoming too expensive to park. Now the 47-year-old takes her second-grade son to school on the back of her bike. (It's a half-hour ride from home.) Outside the school in Amsterdam, harried moms drop off children, checking backpacks and coats; men in suits pull up, with children's seats in back, steering while talking on their cellphones. It's a typical drop-off scene, only without cars. For Khilma van der Klugt, a 38-year-old bookkeeper, biking is more about health and convenience than concern for the environment. Her two older children ride their own bikes on the 25-minute commute to school while she ferries the four-year-old twins in a big box attached to the front of her bike. Biking gives her children exercise and fresh air in the morning, which helps them concentrate, she says. "It gets all their energy out." She owns a car, but she only uses it when the weather is really bad or she's feeling especially lazy. Caroline Vonk, a 38-year-old government official, leaves home by bike at 8 a.m. and drops off her two children at a day-care center. By 8:15, she's on her way to work, stopping to drop clothes at the dry cleaner or to buy some rolls for lunch. On the way home, she makes a quick stop at a shop, picks up the children and is home by 5:55. "It is a pleasant way to clear my head," she says. The programs for non-natives target those who view biking as a lower form of transportation than cars. "If they don't start cycling it will hurt," says Marjolein de Lange, who heads Amsterdam's pro-bicycle union Fietsersbond and has worked with local councils to set up classes for immigrant women. On a recent Sunday afternoon, 23 women -- many in head-scarves -- gathered at a recreational center north of Amsterdam to follow seven Fietsersbond volunteers to learn to navigate through traffic. The three-hour event cost €3 (about $4) and included practice weaving in and out of orange cones and over blocks of wood. It ended with all of the women gathering in a park for cake and lemonade. Though she faltered at times, Rosie Soemer, a 36-year-old mother of two who came to the Netherlands from Suriname, was sold. "It is so much easier to go everywhere by bike," she says. Learning to ride was her husband's idea: He bought her a bicycle for her birthday a few months earlier and has been spending his lunch hour teaching her in a park. "It helps me if she can get around better," says her husband, Sam Soemer. "And it's safer than a car." Amsterdam and Copenhagen are generally safer for bikers than the U.S. because high car taxes and gasoline prices tend to keep sport-utility vehicles off the road. In Denmark, the tax for buying a new car is as high as 180%. Drivers must be over 18 to get a license, and the tests are so hard that most people fail the first few times. Both cities have worked to train truck drivers to look out for bikers when they turn right at intersections, and changed mirrors on vehicles and at traffic corners so they're positioned for viewing cyclists. As bike lanes become more crowded, new measures have been added to address bike safety. A recent survey found that people in Denmark felt less safe biking, though the risk of getting killed in a bike accident there has fallen by almost half. (The number of bicyclists killed fell to 31 in 2006 from 53 in 2004, and the number seriously injured dropped to 567 from 726 in that period.) According to one emergency room's statistics, the primary reason for accidents is people being hit by car doors opening; second is cars making right-hand turns and hitting bikers at intersections; third is bike-on-bike crashes. Bike-riding police officers now routinely fine cyclists in Amsterdam who don't have lights at night. Amsterdam is also working to improve the lack of parking. The city built five bike-parking garages over the past five years and plans a new one every year, including one with 10,000 spaces at the central railroad station. (While there's room for 2,000 bikes now, there are often close to 4,000 bikes there.) But even garages aren't enough. Bikers usually want to park right outside wherever they're going -- they don't like parking and walking. Combating theft is an important plank in developing a bike-friendly culture. In 2003, the city created the Amsterdam Bicycle Recovery Center, a large warehouse where illegally parked bikes are taken. (Its acronym in Dutch is AFAC.) Every bike that goes through AFAC is first checked against a list of stolen bikes. After three months, unclaimed models are registered, engraved with a serial number and sold to a second-hand shop. At any one time, the center has about 6,000 bikes neatly arranged by day of confiscation, out of an estimated total of 600,000 bikes in the city. How AFAC will encourage bike riding in Amsterdam is a somewhat perverse logic, because it means some 200 bikes are confiscated by city officials a day compared to a handful before it existed. The thinking is that the more bikes that are confiscated, the more bikes can be registered and the better the government can trace stolen bikes. The less nervous people are that their bikes will be stolen, the more likely they are to ride. "Is your bike gone? Check AFAC first," is the center's slogan. Remco Keyzer did just that on a recent Monday morning. The music teacher had parked his bike outside the central station before heading to a class and returned to find it gone. "I can be mad, but that really wouldn't help me," he says. Sometimes people ride away without paying the required fee. Bruno Brand, who helps people find their bikes at AFAC, says people get mad, but he explains it is the local police, not him, who confiscated the bike. Within the past four years, the city increased the fine for buying or selling a bike in the street. Punishment for stealing a bike is now up to three months in jail. Danish and Dutch officials say their countries might have been more congested if protests in the 1970s and 1980s had not sparked the impetus for building bicycle-lane networks. The arguments for more biking were mostly about health and congestion -- only in the past year has the environment started to be a factor. Proponents of better infrastructure point to China as an example: In Beijing, where the economy has boomed, 30.3% of people commuted to work on bikes in 2005, down 8.2% from 2000, according to a survey by the Beijing Transportation Development Research Center and Beijing Municipal Committee of Communication. Now, the Dansk Cyklist Forbund, the Danish Cyclist's Federation, says that to make progress it can't be too confrontational and must recognize that many bikers also have cars. "Our goal is the right means of transportation for the right trips," says director Jens Loft Rasmussen. In comparison, the rules of the American road can take some adjustment, as Cheryl AndristPlourde has found when she visits her parents in Columbus, Ohio. Last summer, the Amsterdam resident enrolled her 8-year-old daughter in a camp close to her parents' house. The plan was for her daughter, who biked to school every day back home, to walk to camp. But her daughter whined about the 10-minute walk -- all the other kids drove, she said -- and the streets were too busy for her to bike. By the third day, Ms. AndristPlourde was driving her daughter to the camp. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bike-Friendly Cities in the U.S. CITY % OF ARTERIAL ROADS WITH BIKE LANES % OF COMMUTERS WHO BIKE COMMENTS Boulder, Colo. 97% 21% Boulder has spent an average 15% of its transportation budget on building and maintaining bicycle traffic over the past five years. The goal is to create a system that's "equitable for all users," with no hierarchy among pedestrians, cars and bikes, says Marni Ratzel, who runs the city's program. Chicago 11% 1-2% Mayor Richard Michael Daley bikes to work, setting the example for this city, which released an ambitious new bike plan last year. The goal: making all of Chicago's streets safe and convenient for cycling. Davis, Calif. 95% 17% Mostly flat and temperate, this town's logo is a bicycle; it has more bikes than cars and is the only place to earn platinum status on Bicycle Friendly Community's list of top cities. The city is about to build a $1.7 million bike-only tunnel under a major road. Madison, Wisc. About 37% 3.2% There are 32 miles of bike lanes, 35 miles of bike paths and more than 100 miles of signed bike routes. On University Avenue, the major street in the downtown and University of Wisconsin campus area, there can be over 10,000 bicyclists a day -- plus 30,000 cars. Palo Alto, Calif. 13% 5.7% Along with the bike lanes on roads, the city also has nine miles of bike paths. In 2004 it spent about $5 million on a rail line under-crossing and $1.5 million on a 0.8-mile bike path. Portland, Ore. 28% 5.4% Though there are lots of hills and rain, this city has 163 miles of bike lanes. All but two bridges accommodate bicyclists. There's still a long way to go: The city still has 38 miles of bike lanes left in order to achieve its master plan. But in some neighborhoods bike commuters are as high as 9%. San Francisco About 4% 2.1% In November 2003, San Francisco voters approved a half-cent sales tax measure, estimated to total $2.6 billion over 30 years. Of that, $56 million (a little more than 2%) will go to bike-related projects. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Write to Nancy Keates at nancy.keates@wsj.com2
Posted Fri, 05/04/2007 - 9:05am.
From the article: Now, theSubmitted by David Dean on Tue, 05/08/2007 - 9:41am.
From the article: Now, the Dansk Cyklist Forbund, the Danish Cyclist's Federation, says that to make progress it can't be too confrontational and must recognize that many bikers also have cars. "Our goal is the right means of transportation for the right trips," says director Jens Loft Rasmussen. » reply
Native Portlander How doesSubmitted by jim karlock on Sat, 05/05/2007 - 1:16pm.
Native Portlander How does your food get to the grocery store ... by bike? How do you travel to Seattle or San Francisco ... by bike? Heck, how do you travel from Clackamas Town Center to Vancouver ... by bike? It will be a beautiful life without cars, without electricity and without harmful chemicals like plastics and penicillin. Of course the average life span will be around 30 years, but we will be living gently on the earth. After 200 years, the Luddites won. Thanks » reply
WSJ Sings Portland's Bike Culture: Jim Karlock is Livid!Submitted by Gregg Fedique on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 2:41pm.
Jim Karlock's daily bible of right-wing libertarianism the Wall Street Journal is singing praises for Portland's bike efforts! Jim, you are running out of friends for your pro-car-at-any-cost point-of-view! Ha! Jim, you still have not told us who pays you to spout all this stuff? » reply
Oh, I see I am right on theSubmitted by jim karlock on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 1:02pm.
Oh, I see I am right on the mark with my comments when all I get is personal attacks. Thanks » reply
Personal attacks is yourSubmitted by David Dean on Tue, 05/08/2007 - 9:49am.
Personal attacks is your measure of success? » reply
JK, What do you have againstSubmitted by Local on Sat, 05/05/2007 - 7:59pm.
JK, What do you have against patronizing locally owned shops and stores? Why do you think that people should drive to go give their money to out of state owned corporations that don't keep their money or quality jobs in the local economy? » reply
I didn't say any of that.Submitted by jim karlock on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 1:05pm.
I didn't say any of that. Please quit your dis-information campaign against me. Thanks » reply
Hey LocalSubmitted by Native Portlander on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 8:06am.
Neither JK nor I have (although I'm speaking for JK without knowing him) nothing against shopping local. What irks me is the 'holier-than-thou' attitude taken by those who think that local is superior to big-box. Is it? Sometimes it is and sometimes it's not. For decades upon decades it's been okay to patronize either store, neither the store nor their employees nor the customers were 'judged'. Now there is a large group of people who essentially condemn big-box stores, they condemn the people who work in them and they condemn people who shop there. Would I rather go to starbucks or to the local coffee shop. Well based on the last time that I stopped in at a 'local' coffee shop and got slow service and coffee that I was less than impressed with I choose starbucks. JK's sarcasm is a bit on the mark but the flaws that are showing up in this master plan continue to be ignored by the master planners. You can build multi-use buildings but do the folks that live above really work in the businesses below? If we are at 10% that do I'd be surprised. Rather, we have folks living in the suburbs who commute to jobs in downtown and folks downtown who commute to jobs in the suburbs. When you combine that with how unfriendly Portland is to business (take the fur store as an example or the huge city business taxes that drive businesses out as another example), it becomes a situation that won't go away no matter what a master planner's dream. Oh and note, we still haven't seen the numbers for bike riders in Dec, Jan, Feb and March. Wanna bet as the weather gets better we start seeing all kinds of numbers about the bike riders? » reply
Duh, of course ridership is down in the rainy months...Submitted by Steve on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 2:37pm.
...so what!? The more people we get on bikes in the sunny months the better off we will all be: less congestion on the sunny months, healthier people, lower health insurance premiums, less pollution... Read the WSJ story: Amsterdam's central business district gets 40% biker rifershipand has bad weather just like ours. There is a lot more Portland can do to promoiite bike ridership and I am glad that Sam and his team are fighting for it. 1.5% expenditures on bikes and we get a 5% bike ridership! » reply
Patronizing local businessesSubmitted by Brian Hamm on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 12:00pm.
Patronizing local businesses helps our local economy. That's why I prefer hitting the local coffee shop, rather than Starbucks, a company with intentionally predatory business practices, who actively seek out local stores and set up next to them. And bikes are viable year-round, but we just need to get there. I also commend Sam's team for working toward this end. And even if ridership is higher in the spring and summer, then that is one step closer. And JK, 30 year life expectancy? How do you figure? When we are all breathing in astronomical amounts of carbon monoxide, living car-based sedentary lifestyles, and buying cheap, processed food from big-boxes? I would think that buying fresh, local produce, biking around, and clearing the air would very obviously lengthen our lives. I'm doing my part to lengthen your life, anyway. You're welcome for the reduced emissions and traffic congestion. » reply
Brian Hamm When we are allSubmitted by jim karlock on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 1:14pm.
Brian Hamm When we are all breathing in astronomical amounts of carbon monoxide, living car-based sedentary lifestyles, and buying cheap, processed food from big-boxes? Let me add a few comments from things I remember from credible sources (as opposed to the facts that I can readily prove): * CO levels are hardly astronomical and, like all emissions from cars, are steadily declining over the years because of cleaner cars. Cars are now cleaner than buses PER PERSON. * Sedentary lifestyles are not the primary cause of obesity - eating too much is. Just look up how much excise is needed to work off one jelly donut. * Canned and frozen food is frequently more nutricous than fresh because they are picked ripe instead of early to allow time for shipping and sitting on store shelves. Thanks » reply
JK: Sedentary lifestyles areSubmitted by Brian Hamm on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 5:23pm.
JK: Sedentary lifestyles are not the primary cause of obesity - eating too much is. Just look up how much excise is needed to work off one jelly donut. Yes, portion size is a big part of the obesity problem. The reality is, though, that without exercise to keep the cardiovascular and respiratory systems healthy, heart attacks/strokes/disease are much more common. You're just arguing against science. And regarding lifespans, I think it is really too soon to make that call. Our society has changed drastically since about fifty years ago in terms of auto use, types of food consumed and dietary habits, and a number of other factors. I'd give it a few years for the baby boomers to prove you right or wrong. And no matter how much cleaner we can get cars to burn carbon monoxide and other harmful toxins, they are still HARMFUL TOXINS. The discussion wasn't about improvements in cars, but a comparison of cars to bikes. And bikes still win. Try to stay on topic. » reply
Assertions lie on misleading dataSubmitted by Roland_Chlapowski on Tue, 05/08/2007 - 4:16pm.
Jim, FOOD: So, a large part of your claim on fresh vs. canned food depends on how fresh your "fresh" food is. "Fresh" produce from safeway vs. fresh from the farmer's market is very different. Fresh produce from safeway has often been packaged over two weeks earlier for the thousands of miles it takes to ship it, often from Mexico or another continent. Over that time, there is indeed a significant a loss of nutrients. I should also note that studies also show that there is a difference in nutrients of organic vs. industrial agriculture which also plays into the equation. When you compare the nutrient content of industrially-grown, two-and-a-half-week-old "fresh" produce to that of canned food, they can be comparable. I would be interested to see what the data show regarding canned vs. fresh local produce. I have a guess as to what that data would show. While that is an educated guess on my part, there is no debate that the heating process during canning destroys from one-third to one-half of vitamins A and C, riboflavin, and thiamin in food. And for every year the food is stored, canned food loses an additional 5 to 20% of these vitamins. LONGEVITY: Right now, up to a third of US children are at high risk of diabetes. This, along with other factors, has led to the predicition that today's children could be the first generation our country has produced who have lower life expentancies than their parents. CAR EMISSIONS: "All" emissions from cars are hardly going down. CO2, the pollutant of greatest concern today, keeps going up and up with no end in sight. And while other emissions per car are declining, the increase in Vehicle Miles Travelled and car ownership rate of the growing population have made overall emissions continue on their upward trajectory. Throw in the fact that more people are living by highways than before and that there are more people with sensitive respiratory conditions (particularly the elderly), and you can see the the threat of pollution is not going away anytime soon. » reply
Roland_Chlapowski I shouldSubmitted by jim karlock on Wed, 05/09/2007 - 12:03pm.
Roland_Chlapowski I should also note that studies also show that there is a difference in nutrients of organic vs. industrial agriculture which also plays into the equation. Roland_Chlapowski LONGEVITY: Roland_Chlapowski CAR EMISSIONS: "All" emissions from cars are hardly going down. CO2, the pollutant of greatest concern today, 1) What percent of the total greenhouse effect is caused by CO2 and what percent by water vapor? 2) What percent of total CO2 emissions are due to man? 3) What percent of the total greenhouse effect is caused by man emitted CO2? Roland_Chlapowski And while other emissions per car are declining, the increase in Vehicle Miles Travelled and car ownership rate of the growing population have made overall emissions continue on their upward trajectory. Roland_Chlapowski Throw in the fact that more people are living by highways than before and that there are more people with sensitive respiratory conditions (particularly the elderly), and you can see the the threat of pollution is not going away anytime soon. But we shouldn’t forget the Uranium, Thorium and Mercury emitted by those coal fired plants that power MAX and the streetcar when the wind isn’t blowing. Thanks » reply
"JK: I was just relayingSubmitted by Karlock Denier on Wed, 05/09/2007 - 9:07pm.
"JK: I was just relaying information that I got from an MD who keeps up on current medical literature" You have just clarified the rigorous thought you give to your data and information before you pass it on. I can't wait to see your spider web of websites that you've put together with the same kind of quality information. » reply
Hi welcome to the growingSubmitted by jim karlock on Wed, 05/09/2007 - 10:02pm.
Hi welcome to the growing group of fans that cannot find fault with my website, so they engage in general insults instead of genuine criticism. Thanks » reply
In looking through yourSubmitted by Brian Hamm on Thu, 05/10/2007 - 6:47am.
In looking through your website, I have found actual criticism: Many of your charts and studies are nearly twenty years old; pretty much all of them are at least five years old. Anyone remember twenty years ago? Portland didn't have nearly the congestion problems we have now. Global warming was some crackpot theory that meant we should maybe think about taking a bus once in a while. Things have changed, Jim. Go find some updated data and then come back here. And the non-attributed, assumedly made-up stuff on those other pages doesn't count. » reply
Brian Hamm In lookingSubmitted by jim karlock on Thu, 05/10/2007 - 11:27am.
Brian Hamm In looking through your website, I have found actual criticism: Many of your charts and studies are nearly twenty years old; pretty much all of them are at least five years old. Brian Hamm Global warming was some crackpot theory that meant we should maybe think about taking a bus once in a while. Brian Hamm And the non-attributed, assumedly made-up stuff on those other pages doesn't count. Thanks » reply
JK, It would appear that youSubmitted by Al on Thu, 05/10/2007 - 11:30pm.
JK, It would appear that you make up stuff all the time to fit your pet theories. It's not a question of where to start, it's a question of where does it end? You always excuse it with "I heard from someone, etc." Lame, lame, lame. Except for the fact that it's incredibly boring, you have a future as a writer of fiction. Perhaps the car romance genre? I can hear the first lines, "I could smell the benzene wafting from across the room. Slowly, I slid near her...." I'm not sure if the ending, where our hero is in bed with your oil business buddies, huckster "consultants" and the sleazy out of state corporations would play well on family television, though. Perhaps you should take your show to Vegas or Houston? » reply
First off, re: lifespan, ISubmitted by Roland Chlapowski on Thu, 05/10/2007 - 6:18pm.
First off, re: lifespan, I was just noting that you said "that things arent so bad" because if they were, life expectancy in America would not be getting higher and higher. I just pointed out that many medical scientists believe that we may have peaked in terms of life expectancy in this country and that this generation of children might have a lower life expectancy than their parents. As for the claim that diabetes isnt caused by the food we eat, that is just wrong. There is a lot of evidence that shows that the onset of diabetes and heart disease/hypertension (two of the top killers in the US) are not only brought on by a poor diet (mostly over-refined foods and too many animal products) - but can actually be reversed by a change in diet. Check out the DASH diet or Dean Ornish's program. Just by cutting out refined products and animal products, they can reverse heart disease in most cases. And yes, Jim, CO2 is a pollutant. While nobody has all of the answers to *any* scientific question, including all of the details of how global warming, that doesn't make it untrue. Your point of view on global warming is more endangered than the polar bear. That's saying something. I am going to believe the vast consensus of climatology scientists, not people who might be smart but who have no background in the said subject. » reply
You are involved in settingSubmitted by jim karlock on Fri, 05/11/2007 - 1:13am.
You are involved in setting Portland policy, so you should be able to answer, or look up the answers, to some of the most basic facts underlying policy such as: 1) What percent of the total greenhouse effect is caused by CO2 and what percent by water vapor? 2) What percent of total CO2 emissions are due to man? 3) What percent of the total greenhouse effect is caused by man emitted CO2? 4) According to Antarctic ice cores, which leads: CO2 or temperature? If you don't know such basic facts as these, then you are quite un-informed and are just relying on popular rumors, not facts. That can only lead to bad policy decisions that harms all of us. Do you care about facts? Thanks » reply
I really have an urge to be sarcastic...Submitted by Roland Chlapowski on Fri, 05/11/2007 - 1:06pm.
and say "no, of course I dont care about facts," because yours is an obviously rhetorical and perjorative question - it is sort of like me asking "why do you hate science, the scientific process, and scientific consensus?" This is another instance of an ideologically-driven search for facts that butress one's pre-existing and inflexible beliefs. Like Bush going to war with Iraq (they KNEW there were WMD), you already have your mind made up on climate change and CO2. You (like Bush) are simply trying to find information to support your pre-existing notions, even if the overwhelming majority of study and analysis out there suggests a differing conclusion or point of view. It's weird, but this seems to be a common strategy by the right in America today. It is an akward game that they play, though. Whether it is intelligent designers (closet creationists) who try to come up with "science-y" ways to prove the world is only 10,000 years old or punch holes in the theory of evolution, or whether it's climate change skeptics who try to discredit the years of research and analysis of thousands of highly educated and trained climatologists, it seems that a lot of right-wingers (whether social or economic) are in a weird spot: they are anti-science, anti-academic, and disagree (ideologically) with a particular scientific consensus, yet try to use "science" or "scientific" arguments to prove their case. It is very interesting to watch, and would perhaps be entertaining if it weren't so dangerous to the future of our society and planet. As for your questions, I will answer them, but in the correct scientific context and not with the spin that anti-science climate change skeptics use. Water vapor indeed accounts for 2/3 of the overall atmospheric capture of energy from the sun. that said, CO2 concentrations have roughly tripled since the last ice-age, and gone up over 35% since pre-industrial days (which were already near the high point in the overall CO2 concentration cycle). I am not sure of the exact share of overall global warming caused by CO2 vis-a-vis other climate factors (I dont know if there is a scientific consensus on that yet), but the basic laws of physics show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we have increased its concentration by at least 35%! The question is not whether this has an effect, but how much. And the important take-away here is that all of the other climate-affectors have not substantially changed over the past few centuries. Only CO2 has, and it has because of people. In fact, the ocean and other carbon sinks up to this point have absorbed about half of the carbon we've emitted. Even though this is the case, we've still raised CO2 concentrations significantly. Climatologists believe anthropogenic CO2 exerts a substantial effect on the climate, and I believe them. And it is true that natural emissions of CO2 are much bigger than those of man, but that doesn't change the fact that we have been severely disrupting the carbon cycle and throwing tons of what was once sequestered carbon into the atmosphere without taking any out. As for CO2-temperature connection... Ice core data show that warming often precedes CO2 accumulation. The reason for this has to do with the fact that entire warming cycles take (on average) about 5000 years to complete themselves. The lag between the rise in temperatures and atmospheric concentrations of CO2, in contrast, is only about 800 years. All that this the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming out of the 5000 year trend. But climatologists still know (thanks to the laws of physics) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and does play a role in warming the atmosphere. (I assume that you agree with this piont. If we need to argue the physics, then this "debate" is not worth having.) So what gives with the temperature-CO2 lag? Most climatologists believe that the sequence of events goes thus: some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties - (which, again, are known because of basic physics). This warming leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages is a sort of "feedback." ***In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier to the warmings once they are underway.*** From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases like CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming. Does this answer your questions, Jim? I hope that you learned something in the above post. » reply
Roland, Jim's questions wereSubmitted by Richard on Fri, 05/11/2007 - 6:52pm.
Roland, Jim's questions were not honest ones and I think that he's showed that he's not very interested/capable in learning. I'm not sure where he gets his right wing talking points from (or why)- but he has shown himself to be a name caller, to play loose with facts and do almost anything to try and get his point across. The only good from this is I think that at this point he is actually hurting his causes and doesn't seem to have a shred of credibility left. » reply
JK: Let me separate yourSubmitted by jim karlock on Sun, 05/13/2007 - 12:01am.
JK: Let me separate your facts from your rather lengthy response: 1) CO2 is responsible for, at most, 33% of the greenhouse effect. (Water vapor is 2/3 - that only leaves 1/3 - 33% for CO2) First of my conclusions: Man is responsible for, at most, a small fraction of 1/3 of the greenhouse gases. One NASA chart on the carbon cycle shows man’s CO2 at around 3% of the total emission. Three percent of 33 percent gives this: Only about ONE PERCENT of greenhouse gas emission is man caused. To believe that this is a earth threatening problem is, well, hard to believe. 3) some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm Overall conclusion: A comment: Does any of this cause you to think for yourself, instead of blindly following the scientifically illiterate popular press with their deluge of chicken little stories? For some history of the press coverage of this topic see: saveportland.com/Climate/index.html BTW, meteorologists tend to dismiss the climate panic, while the computer modelers are the primary source of the chicken little camp. Lets not forget this quote from the editor of one climate journal: Then there is AL Gore: Al Gore: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis. Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions. (bold added) Any comments? Thanks » reply
You miss the point, JimSubmitted by Roland Chlapowski. on Sun, 05/13/2007 - 1:45pm.
Okay- So your logic seems to be: 1. "Hey, of total greenhouse gas emissions, only a small part are anthropogenic. Nature produces more." 2. "Hey, water is is a greenhouse gas that plays a bigger role in trapping heat from the sun than CO2." 3. "Therefore, the measurable, human-induced change in the composition of the atmosphere is not a big deal." The problem with this logic is pretty basic. You are only looking at half of the equation- emissions. Sequestration plays as big a role as do emissions. Just because there are natural greenhouse gas emissions doesn't make the ones that man are emitting inconsequential. While nature emits greenhouse gases, it also sequesters a roughly equivalent amount. Answer this question: how much carbon does man sequester relative to the amount we release into the atmosphere? Nature has been pretty good about sequestering as much or more as it emits. Man, not so much. By only looking at emissions and not sequestration, you are missing a huge part of the issue at play in the carbon-cycle, which is a factor in global climate. That out of the way, you also have to acknowledge that life can only survive on earth within an incredibly narrow range of temperatures. Without any greenhouse gases at all, this would be a frigid planet that couldn't support life. With too much atmospheric heat-trapping, we would bake. The current flora and fauna of today have evolved over a relatively stable climactic period. By disrupting the carbon cycle and putting tons of formerly long-sequestered carbon into the air and bumping up the carbon concentration in the atmosphere by at least 35%, we are pushing ourselves out of that narrow range of temperatures that life has evolved within, because carbon dioxide physically captures energy in a measurable and indisputable way. Also, FYI, I am not basing my beliefs on the popular press. I studied this in college where we learned both the basics of the physics of carbon and climate, as well as the biological effects likely to be produced by climate change, with an emphasis on how the composition of today's forests depends on temperature and will change as the climate changes. We are already seeing the effects of man-made climate change now, and the science is indisputable. It just blows me away that some folks can be so cavalier about our the future of our planet in the face of overwhelming evidence. Gore got it right. Climate change truly is an inconvenient truth, but it is a truth nonetheless. » reply
Roland Chlapowski. So yourSubmitted by jim karlock on Mon, 05/14/2007 - 11:44am.
1. "Hey, of total greenhouse gas emissions, only a small part are anthropogenic. Nature produces more." 2. "Hey, water is is a greenhouse gas that plays a bigger role in trapping heat from the sun than CO2." 3. "Therefore, the measurable, human-induced change in the composition of the atmosphere is not a big deal."
Given that, the next question is does an added 1% make a significant difference? I say that it does not pass the laugh test. Especially in conjunction with the fact that historically CO2 lags temperature. The best rational explanation that we currently have is that inconvenient solar cycle that just happens to track earth’s temperature cycles. To say any more is just a last gasp efforts to save Al Gore’s lies. Thanks » reply
Roland, let me address someSubmitted by jim karlock on Mon, 05/14/2007 - 12:12pm.
Roland, let me address some of your other comments:
This is a prime suspect for the mechanism that can keep the earth from overheating as the solar output goes up. However it cannot prevent cooling in the absence of sufficient incoming energy, so ice ages occurr.
Thanks » reply
Hey Jim!! Am I going to seeSubmitted by Ernest Worrell on Wed, 05/16/2007 - 8:40am.
Hey Jim!! Am I going to see you at the Flat Earth Society meeting tonight? Frank is going to be giving his presentatation on how, despite overwhelming agreement by a vast majority of the world's scientists, he has facts that finally prove the earth is stationary and that it is actually the stars and planets that revolve around the earth. You've been saying this for years, so you gotta come check out this presentation Jim!!! Ernest » reply
Regarding City Kids ExerciseSubmitted by Stephanie on Sat, 07/28/2007 - 9:03pm.
Dear JK, I'm not very familiar with you so please forgive me, but it seems that you are earnestly trying to do your best to find out correct information. I would like to respond to your statement: "But it is more difficult for kids to get out to play in an apartment farm compared to a single family house with a decent sized backyard. Of course such things don’t matter to city planners who have a “vision.”" I am not an MD, I am just a simple 21 year old student. However, as a "kid" who spent her childhood living in both the suburbs (with an extremely large backyard) and in NYC (with a modest backyard) I'd like to share my experience with you. To be perfectly honest, I've exercised much more in NYC than I ever had in small towns in NYS and NJ. The difference, I find, is that cities are much more pedestrian-friendly than small towns will ever be. Possibly NYC is more so where pedestrians have an almost unheard of right of way. When you are running, walking, or "playing" in the suburbs you are limited to your own backyard. If you desire to walk anywhere you must be very aware of your surroundings as sidewalks are poorly planned, or sometimes nonexistent. Most children (I know I did) take buses to school in small towns. When you live in the city, you are not limited to catching a certain bus and you have more freedom to go and "play" as you say. I do not know if I have miscontrued your question as I am not entirely aware as to what an "apartment farm" is, but I assumed you were comparing the effects of the city versus the suburbs on the healthiness of the child. If you were not, but if you were comparing the effects of environment on the happiness of the child I, for one, can assure you I was much happier in NYC than I ever was in the suburbs. One of the advantages of cities for youth such as myself is that we have an almost unheard of freedom not available in suburbs. Biking is dangerous in parts of the country due to cars, and cars are expensive and you need to be a certain age to drive them. Public transportation, I'm sad to say, is fairly shoddy in large areas of the country. In NYC, you do not have to be a certain age to ride the subway (although you would not see a baby taking the subway by themselves, of course) and for $7 a day you can ride as much as you want, any where, any time. I think the price of gasoline is $2-3/gallon today so you can compare. Anytime I feel like going to a "backyard" I can go to Central Park or various other NYC Parks which are much larger than any backyard I have been in. I welcome your comments, I feel you are very intelligent and it would be my pleasure to discuss more with you. Stephanie » reply
Hey BrianSubmitted by Native Portlander on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 9:07pm.
You said, "And bikes are viable year-round, but we just need to get there." News flash Brian, I really don't want to see my 80 year old grandmother or even my 60 year old dad riding a bike. It's just plain NOT a good idea. You said, "When we are all breathing in astronomical amounts of carbon monoxide, ..." Funny, the cars now are so much cleaner than they were in the 50's and 60's and we are living so much longer. Bikes are fine, there is nothing wrong with them until someone tries to limit the choices to bikes or walking. Again, I point out that the elderly are not a good choice to put on bikes (yes, I know some do, but certainly not a majority). I point out that you won't be getting your food brought to any market (supermarket or farmers market) by a bike. It is not a cure-all, which is what you bike fanatics tend to make it out to be. Quit wasting car road money on bikes. » reply
No one is forcing you out ofSubmitted by Brian Hamm on Tue, 05/08/2007 - 9:41am.
No one is forcing you out of your car, and no one is saying your grandmother should be riding a bike. What Sam's team is doing is promoting the MOST EFFICIENT form of transportation. It doesn't require gas/oil, it doesn't produce emissions, it promotes exercise, and it reduces traffic congestion. As I said before, I suppose I'm riding my bike for you and your kids. You're welcome. And there is a grocery in North Portland that grows most of their produce in the St. Johns Community Garden, and then totes it by bike trailer to the store. Don't just make sweeping generalizations without finding out how innovative some Portlanders are. And no one said biking is a cure-all. It's a step in the direction of healthy lifestyles, fun recreation, and energy independence. » reply
Hi NP!Submitted by Stephanie on Sat, 07/28/2007 - 9:33pm.
Dear Native Portlander, I think it's nice that people have different opinions, variety is the spice of life after all. I would just like to take a moment to respond to you what you wrote here: "News flash Brian, I really don't want to see my 80 year old grandmother or even my 60 year old dad riding a bike. It's just plain NOT a good idea." and also "Again, I point out that the elderly are not a good choice to put on bikes (yes, I know some do, but certainly not a majority)." I think that's an interesting observation that you make. As someone who does not live in Portland, but in an area where I am neither required to bike nor take a car, I am in the unique position where I have the choice to make which mode of transportation I would use (which is actually neither). But I digress. What I would like to say is that learning how to ride a bike is much less intimidating to me than learning how to ride a car. Car insurance is expensive, not to mention taxes. Hence the large amount of Florida plates you see. I find it interesting that we allow 60 year old people to drive (in fact, it is practically expected) but you consider a 60 year old person riding a bike to be "NOT a good idea," by which I assume you mean to imply that such a circumstance would be dangerous. Personally, (and I have no evidence to back this, but only my personal opinion) I would be much more afraid of the accident an 80 year old (or 60 year old, although 60 years old isn't really that old! Really!) would create with a car, than the accident said 80/60 year old would create with a bike. When people tend to get into a bicycle-car collision, the car side wins. Hands down. The danger you have here is not that they would be dangerous, per se, to other members of society, but that they would be endangering their own personal health, which I note not out of malice, is because we drive cars. I think that cars are very convenient, and in the suburbs, necessary. Perhaps not completely necessary, it is possible to be 21 and not ever take a car in suburban NJ but it is somewhat dangerous to walk along the highway. By somewhat dangerous I mean that when I must walk on the highway I am afraid a car will hit me. I am not saying that it happens often, but it only needs to happen once for me to be seriously injured. Really all of you are so intelligent and well-versed in these subjects I feel fairly, well, ignorant. You put the common man to shame. All I have to offer are personal experiences and opinions, so please treat me gently. Stephanie » reply
it's all about the choicesSubmitted by Greg Tompkins on Sat, 05/26/2007 - 6:45am.
People should have the option whether they want to ride their bike or drive their cars. Why should car owners be punished through ridiculous fees and gas taxes? Similarly people should have the choice whether to buy their organic hoity toity food at Whole Foods or shop at WinCo. I think the same applies to Wal-Mart. We desperately need a Wal-Mart close in OR downtown. I am tired of having to DRIVE to Beaverton or further to go to a Wal-Mart! Sure the hippies would protest but who cares? They just like to throw up objections to everything and stop real progress from occurring. Besides a lof ot these "local" shops have the same crap made in China too that big boxes do. Did anyone hear the story that Pearl botiques are soon going to be replaced by major retailers like GAP, Eddie Bauer, etc? Maybe we should be talking about a Wal-Mart or WinCo beneath their condos? » reply
It is hard to say what JKSubmitted by David Dean on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 6:42pm.
It is hard to say what JK means. He has limited himself to sarcasm and contrariety. Yes, local is superior to big-box. People go to franchised stores because they want consistency and familiarity. When you go into a local coffee shop for the first time, you don't know what to expect. It could be good, it could be bad. In contrast, if you go into a Starbucks, you know exactly what to expect. I prefer the adventurous aspect of trying new places. I like to compare coffee and leave open the possibility that I may get the best coffee I have ever had, which I know I will never get at a Starbucks. If I should find that amazing coffee, I will then be able to recommend that coffee to my friends and coworkers. The fact that the money stays local and the stores have personalities is only icing on the cake. When I see someone in a Starbucks, it is easy to see that they probably made that choice out of convenience and the desire for familiarity and consistency, to the detriment of any local coffee house. Their desire for monotony is eroding other options. Maybe if people realized they were being judged, they might stop to think about the choices they make. On the flip side, if you want to judge me for drinking local coffee, go ahead. If you appreciate Starbucks, Olive Garden, Home Depot, and Walmart, what is the point of living in Portland? You could get those anywhere. Isn't Portland's culture one of the most compelling reasons to live in Portland? And don't local businesses contribute a lot to that culture? » reply
David, In JK's world weSubmitted by Why Buy Local? on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 7:08pm.
David, In JK's world we would become like Houston. He claims to care about the city but there is very little evidence for this. I mean, he just wants to put more roads, strip malls and subdivisions everywhere. From his comments he really doesn't give a rats ass about our history, our agricultural land or the environment. Kind of odd, really. Just like how he will whine about a "personal" attack when that has been his style for years. The good news is that his "style" is on the way out- really, right now it's pretty much him, three right wingers and a couple of people who never got over their love for Ayn Rand in college that think his way in Portland. » reply
Judge not so that ...Submitted by Native Portlander on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 8:56pm.
See, that's pretty much what I'm talking about. You want to go to a local shop, I don't care; I'm not going to criticize you for WHERE EVER you shop. On the other hand, you (apparently) see no problem with 'judging' people for choosing chains. WHY??? What makes you so morally superior? Your attitude, which you clearly expounded, is what has made this city seem so 'holier-than-thou'. Rather than live and let live, it's a 'you're-not-doing-it-my-way so you are so beneath me' attitude that truly turns me off to the so-called progressives. The 'tolerance' crowd is one of the most intolerant group of people I've ever had the misfortune to rub elbows with. If I like Starbucks or Olive Garden then I do. If you like the corner mom&pop store that charge 30% more then you do. I live my life peacefully and am happy with my choices, please stop trying to take my choices away from me. If you don't like Starbucks (for WHATEVER reason) then don't go there. If I like the little restaurant down the road I will go there (and you don't have to). But I don't wish to take your choice away from you, please quit trying to take my ability to choose away from me. » reply
Wow, touchy, eh? Why soSubmitted by Why so on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 9:03pm.
Wow, touchy, eh? Why so paranoid, my friend? I actually dare enter a Starbucks now and then myself. You are reading your own fears and fantasies into these posts- and they are not even all from me. The real question is why you, as a Native Portlander, think that giving your money to large out of state corporations is cool. It doesn't cost 30% more to shop local. It just takes cajones and the ability to give back to your fellow man. Or don't you appreciate and benefit from the local economy? Perhaps we should just start importing construction workers from Texas. » reply
Not ParanoidSubmitted by Native Portlander on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 9:24pm.
I'm touchy? I'm paranoid? Not really, I'm just tired of being told that MY choices are 'wrong'. Especially when I don't waste my time judging others. It's odd (to my way of thinking) when the 'progressives' (which I'd classify as anyone who does this judgment thing) talk about tolerance but don't practice it. I don't talk about tolerance, I practice it. I don't know how much more expensive shopping local is, but it is typically more expensive than a chain. It's my choice where I spend the money, just as it's yours where you spend your money. As I put in one of my first posts, sometimes it's better to shop local, sometimes it's better to shop big box. However, with people who don't want Walmart to be around, who want to discourage the building of anything big box; then you are artificially limiting my choices. Do I appreciate and benefit from the local economy, just as much as you my friend. Every time I go into a Walmart or a Home Depot or an Olive Garden, some of my money is going to the wages of the people that work there. Some of my money is going into the taxes that that store pays. Some of my money is going into the pockets of the suppliers of that store (typically some type of local supplier/delivery outfit), etc. Bottom line, if the store/restaurant exists in my city, then it too is a part of my local economy. As for importing workers from Texas, too late, we're already doing that. We're doing it because the schools around here aren't turning out graduates who can do construction work. They lack the math basics and the work ethic. » reply
But you do waste your timeSubmitted by David Dean on Tue, 05/08/2007 - 9:28am.
But you do waste your time proclaiming the benefit of big-box businesses in a place where most people won't share your opinion. It seems to me you are inviting scorn. Although you consider Portland unfriendly to business, Portland is one of the few places left in the US that still has a vibrant local business scene. You don't have to go further than 20 miles outside Portland, in places like Vancouver, Gresham, Beaverton, Clackamas, and Tigard, to find the big-box hegemony you find so satisfying. In the suburbs you won't be "artificially limited." No, instead you will find your choices have undergone a very natural castration. The point is, you already have the choice to live in suburbville. Why do you want to label yourself "Native Portlander" and bring the 'burbs to Portland? It seems unreasonable to me to call Portlanders intolerant and judgmental for wanting to encourage the culture which makes Portland distinct. Why do you choose to live in Portland when there are places which better match your ideals? » reply
Hi Native, Thanks for theSubmitted by David Dean on Tue, 05/08/2007 - 8:33am.
Hi Native, Thanks for the reply. The values you espouse are tolerance and freedom of choice. Ironically you want the freedom of choice to support businesses which erode choice in the market. And you want the ability to make economic decisions without your neighbors having an opinion, despite the fact that your choices impact them. Chains and local businesses are somewhat mutually exclusive. Most Portlanders take pride in their local businesses and don't want to see our local flavor washed away by big out of state chains. Since you are making choices in the public space which affect us, we have every right to hold an opinion. Freedom goes both ways. If you don't like the way you are judged, you are free to change your behavior or surround yourself with people who share your values. But for better or worse, everywhere you go, you will be judged. » reply
Ironic??Submitted by Native Portlander on Tue, 05/08/2007 - 7:56pm.
Sorry your argument doesn't hold up. If a local store, let's say hardware is up and running and the city/neighborhood likes it they will support it. If a big box moves in, say Home Depot and people don't like the box (for whatever reason, they prefer to shop 'locally' or they think the big box is too impersonal, whatever) then they don't shop there. Eventually the big box doesn't make enough money and closes down. I have seen many big box stores close, the bottom line on why they close is they aren't making enough money. If both stores were in my neighborhood I'd go where I thought my money was best spent, you'd go to the local shop no matter what (or so it seems). So I don't agree with your argument. Witness Germany where the big, bad Walmart ended up closing up several stores and leaving. In the scenario you painted that shouldn't have happened but it did. As for being judged, I was merely commenting on how all the 'liberals' have a real attitude and lack of tolerance for anyone who doesn't agree with them. Rather pig-headed, stubborn and just plain wrong on a number of levels. Sure I know that most of the folks that hang out here are bike lovers - just making sure you know that there are others of us out here that disagree. Eventually the tide will turn and attitudes like the ones posted here will hasten that day. Good Day. » reply
I wouldn't go to the localSubmitted by David Dean on Wed, 05/09/2007 - 12:31am.
I wouldn't go to the local shop no matter what, but I would go there by default. I see what your saying about community choice and it makes sense. You would rather people have all choices available rather than have local neighborhood and business associations artificially limit the choices of the rest of the community. That is a very reasonable argument but you fail to account for is the fact that big-box stores are naturally predatory. A chain store can open next to local stores where there isn't enough consumer demand for all of them. It can then use its deep pockets to lose money for years in a market overly saturated with supply until the local market collapses. That is an essentially one way process. This should be illegal predatory behavior, but it isn't. » reply
Courtesy while you're thinking what to say. It saves time.Submitted by Stephanie on Sat, 07/28/2007 - 9:47pm.
Dear Native Portlander, I would love to respond to what you wrote: "Witness Germany where the big, bad Walmart ended up closing up several stores and leaving. In the scenario you painted that shouldn't have happened but it did." As a Marketing major at NYU Stern, with a International Business co-major, I'd like to clarify what I've learned regarding this situation. Basically in Germany, many customers felt uncomfortable with Wal-Mart's policy of "friendliness" shall we say. Essentially, greeting customers with a smile was perceived as insincere - therefore it was not based on the fact that their product was bad or less desirable than local stores, but that Wal-Mart was inadequately prepared for the different culture. As I have not studied this case in-depth, I would like to state a disclaimer that I could not say for certain that the reason why Wal-Mart was unsuccessful was because of different cultures, but as it was taught to me, I certainly learned that it was a large part of it. Furthermore, I am not attacking Wal-Mart in any way. As someone who lives both in NYC and in NJ, I have shopped at Wal-Mart myself. Their prices are certainly amazing, and the quality is not bad. It is a great place to find something inexpensive that is not secondhand. I would like to point out though, that I have found much cheaper things at Target, and for better quality. I'm interested to hear your (or anyone else's) response. Stephanie » reply
It's also your choice toSubmitted by Ron on Wed, 05/09/2007 - 2:58am.
It's also your choice to come to this blog, read the comments, and then reply. For crying out loud, quit your whining. If people want to express their opinions that are contrary to yours, they are not ramming them down your throat because you choose to read them and respond. » reply
Oh are the taxpayer fundedSubmitted by Greg Tompkins on Sat, 05/26/2007 - 4:10pm.
Oh are the taxpayer funded blogs in this town mutually exclusive to the liberal hippies too? » reply
Bike Counts in MarchSubmitted by Roger Geller on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 3:59pm.
I have some data for bicycle use in March on the Eastbank Esplanade, the Hawthorne Bridge, the Broadway Bridge, and the Steel Bridge. For the weeks counted in March, we saw the following peak use data: Eastbank Esplanade: 1,599 daily bicycle trips This compares to peak use last summer of: Eastbank Esplanade: 2,278 daily bicycle trips *the counter on the north sidewalk of the Steel Bridge malfunctioned, resulting in a loss of perhaps 50-100 additional trips. Roger Geller » reply
Please give us someSubmitted by jim karlock on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 7:03pm.
Please give us some informationon how those numbers were obtained. Thanks » reply
Count informationSubmitted by Roger Geller on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 8:43pm.
The data was recorded by 24-hour pneumatic hose counts. The hoses were laid across the paths and the data was collected by data collection staff in Portland's Office of Transportation. Most bicycle count data is collected manually as pneumatic hoses laid across the width of roadways is unable to record bicycles, which are not heavy enough to adequately compress the tubes to trigger the count mechanism. The hose counts work on the bridges because the relatively narrow width of the pathways allows for shorter hoses that bicycles are able to successfully compress. Roger Geller » reply
CountsSubmitted by Native Portlander on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 8:41pm.
Nice for the March counts which weren't the best month nor the worst. I still wonder about Dec, Jan, Feb - I can tell you from my 'unofficial' observation during those months (some days near the Hawthrone Bridge, some near the Broadway Bridge) the counts were LOW, very, very LOW. And I can't blame them, it was horrible weather! You want to bike, great, pay for it. Quit using car funds for bikes. You want to bike, set up and use bike funds. » reply
Bicycle infrastructure isSubmitted by Brian Hamm on Tue, 05/08/2007 - 9:49am.
Bicycle infrastructure is paid for by TRANSPORTATION funds. Not car funds. Cycling is a form of transportation, just like driving, and yes, even skateboarding. Infrastructure for TRANSPORTATION is paid for by the Department of Transportation. Not the department of cars, or the department of Native Portlander's Hummer. » reply
Most transportation fundsSubmitted by David Dean on Tue, 05/08/2007 - 10:25am.
Most transportation funds come from gas taxes. And rightly so. » reply
funds??Submitted by Native Portlander on Tue, 05/08/2007 - 7:35pm.
Car funds, transportation funds - don't the majority of funds for 'transportation' come from the gas tax that automobiles and trucks pay? My point, if you want bike paths, then the people who want and use them should pay for them. Licensing bikes has been tried elsewhere and works. Another way to get bikes to contribute would be have a tax on bike tires, the tax is collected and used for bike improvements everytime a tire is sold. You like bikes, good for you. You don't like box stores, good for you. I ride bikes for enjoyment not for transportation and I like both 'local' and chain stores/restaurants, etc. You really need to learn to be more tolerant. » reply
Funds.Submitted by Kade on Wed, 05/09/2007 - 3:59pm.
If we're paying the car portion out of a fuel tax, let's be fair and pay the bike portion out of a fuel tax as well. How much do you want your food to cost? Just like some taxed gas is used for other purposes (e.g. lawnmowers), some taxed food will be used for other purposes (i.e. walking, pushing that gas pedal). If you'd rather it be a tire tax, then it's only fair to add one to car tires as well. And regarding tolerance: I really don't see how it's "more tolerant" to want to spend all the transportation funding on autos. Bikes take only 1.5% around here as it is, which by the statistics I've seen is much less than the fair share based on usage. » reply
"Car funds, transportationSubmitted by Dan on Wed, 05/09/2007 - 4:52pm.
"Car funds, transportation funds - don't the majority of funds for 'transportation' come from the gas tax that automobiles and trucks pay? My point, if you want bike paths, then the people who want and use them should pay for them." Come on Native Portlander, this argument is, no offence, totally lame. I'm weekday bike commuter to and from work and for light errands around town. However, last week I decided to take a long weekend and went camping in Southern Oregon for a few days. How did I get there? I drove my CAR! However, according to your criteria, I, as a biker, do not help pay to build the infrastructure I utilize. Therefore, my question for you then: What is the address that I can submit my refund application to get the 500 miles worth of gas tax I paid while driving my car on my trip last weekend? Obviously, I will need this refund in order to be consistent with your argument. » reply
Your vote doesn't go furtherSubmitted by David Dean on Tue, 05/08/2007 - 10:24am.
Your vote doesn't go further because you live a more wasteful lifestyle and subsequently pay more taxes. Our elected representatives are doing a great of representing Portlanders and allocating funds accordingly. You can complain about gas taxes subsidizing healthier and more sustainable forms of transportation, but that is the consequence of democracy. If you disagree, you are free to put forward a bike tax proposition, but it will suffer a flat tire in the polls. » reply
Just say it!Submitted by Terry Parker on Thu, 05/10/2007 - 5:01pm.
Come on Sam, why don’t you just come out and say it. You are an anti-auto radical. Now that probably does not fit the bicycle freeloader spin presented to and reported on by the media, but it represents an honest evaluation of your philosophies and agenda. So why not be straightforward and just come out and say it? Or will that hurt your political future since the regional job base depends on good roadway infrastructure and over 80% of Portlanders use their car as their primary means of transportation? » reply
Terry, c'mon.Submitted by Roland Chlapowski on Fri, 05/11/2007 - 1:17pm.
Sam owns a truck and drives it every day. Wanting balanced transportation investments does not make one anti-car. » reply
Roland and Sam, I just tookSubmitted by Doug on Sat, 05/12/2007 - 4:01pm.
Roland and Sam, I just took a quick look at the comments to this post. It's amazing how quickly a conversation can degenerate here. Regardless, thanks for linking this article, and thanks for your work in making Portland a better city in which to travel by bike. Many of us are capable of realizing that bicycle infrastructure is not at about removing choices, but about creating them. I don't ride my bike all of the time, but when I do it's nice to have safe, efficient routes to use. By both of those measures however, Portland has a very, very long way to go. Don't get too complacent and self-congratulatory. Keep working toward the ideal demonstrated in Amsterdam. » reply
Post new comment |
NavigationGet Our UpdatesRecent blog posts
Sam's Snapshots
Recent comments
 |
Home |
Sam's Calendar |
Sam's Priorities |
Sam's Portfolio |
I Want To... |
Your Neighborhood |
Archives
PRINT
Statistics
Nice spin, long but if that's what you feel it will take. So the question, where are the numbers of how many bike riders we had in December, January and February? How much more transportation money will we pour into a mode of transportation that is viable 6 or 7 months out of the year? How does your food get to the grocery store ... by bike? How do you travel to Seattle or San Francisco ... by bike? Heck, how do you travel from Clackamas Town Center to Vancouver ... by bike?
Show us the numbers Sam, and we don't want to see how it's used when the weather is nice.