Survey Says: Find Funds for Safer Bridges & Roads

Terry,

We put that bike license fee in our survey under the advisement of you and your ilk.

Therefore, when you say:

"there is an outward look that somehow the deck was stacked in the way the questions were asked, and/or social engineering comes into play whereby staff continues to target motor vehicles while being self-serving in not forwarding the bike license fee,"

... it is very disappointing.

I am posting the full results of the survey. What you will see is that the total support for the bike tax is actually very low. There is only 48% support, and 49% opposition. And when that is coupled with the fact that it would raise a neglible amount in revenue, it's just not good policy. A local 3 cent gas tax gets 49% support, and a regional 3 cent gas tax gets 51% support. I also want to point out that these are likely voters for the May 2008 primary elections, which tends to be an older and more conservative group of voters that is generally against new revenue measures for public investments.

I am continually surprised that someone who claims fiscal conservatism is so strongly in favor of creating a new layer of bureaucracy and administration for a new tax that will not raise any substantial amount of money for road maintenance. It makes one believe that you are more interested in sticking it to bikers than implementing good public policy.

Roland,

The survey results information I have to go on is what is currently posted at www.portlandonline.com/transportation. You told both JK and myself in a conversation at Sam’s Southeast town hall meeting that you were trying to convince Sam to NOT to ask a direct question on the next survey about if bicyclists should be taxed. You said, “it is Bad public policy”. So just what is bad public policy about directly asking the public what they think? Is it the public might give you an answer that does not align with your agenda? You were also overheard (not your exact words) talking to somebody else that you wanted a tax that would hurt (the pocket books of) drivers, and that was what you were trying to do. So don’t now profess your innocence here. With that kind of attitude, myself or anybody else for that matter, has the right to be totally suspicious of your actions. After all, you might attempt to assure the way questions are designed or asked of the public have a guaranteed programmed response outcome that would meet your personal objective of taxing motorists to death. Now you are saying you will post the full results of the survey to back up your statements. So if you were withholding survey results, what other information are you possibly withholding? And where are you posting the complete “full” results?

As for me calling the process a stacked deck, I have heard a few names, not all of them, of the people that will be reviewing this survey and making recommendations. Is the membership of the Citizen Stakeholder Committee made up of a quantitative representation based mode split? Or is it loaded up and weighted with mostly the streetcar activists, the transit advocates, the BTA bicyclists, the pedestrian coalition folks and many other people that already serve on just about every other city and/or regional transportation advisory committee thereby echoing your slanted point of view? Is it possibly and remotely a truly objective committee that has a full complement of motorists and commuter motorist representation? The word stakeholder represents someone that pays (in this case transportation taxes) thereby having a financial stake matter. In that bicyclists currently are directly taxed zero for bicycle infrastructure, and transit riders pay only an average 21 percent towards the costs of operating the service, how then can these groups genuinely be called stakeholders? They are only on the receiving end, and of course they would like those welfare like specialized infrastructure payments from motorists to keep on rolling in and continue to have what are now called safety improvements to be totally subsidized. Not only is there a tax fairness principal of user pays that was presented at Sam’s previous town hall meetings, but there are also fairness principals that should be employed when forming a citizens committee making them truly a cross section and a reality check everyday life representation of the public.

Sam followed through with his “fair enough” comment to me to add the bicycle tax question to the survey. I truly appreciate that as do many others who wanted the question asked. I thank him for that. What I don’t understand is why you were trying to advise him otherwise. Not only was it bad advice and bias irresponsibility on your part, but it also raises the question if you can be at all trusted to truly represent the public with your actions and one-sided advice to Sam.

I didn't say that I was against including the question, I said I was ambivalent about it. I usually like to get more information, but since you only have a limited number of questions on a survey, I didn't know that it was a priority question.

I did tell you that I was opposed to the actual policy, because it was bad public policy - when we are trying to cut oil usage by 1/2 over the next 25 years, when we are trying to squeeze the most value we can from our transportation system as it currently exists, when we are trying to actually raise an amount of revenue that would make a dent in the maintenance backlog - a bike tax doesn't make any sense!

When I talked with you at the townhall, I told you that as Sam's policy director and adviser that I would not recommend the policy of a bicycle tax. It's bad public policy. And we've gone over why many times before (see prior paragraph).

I didn't (and don't) have a strong feeling about including a bicylcle tax in the polling questions - one way or the other. And I will tell you why - if it is a policy that I do not believe we should or will implement, why devote the valuable space and time of that question at the expense of another one?

A pollster could ask, "If George Bush announced that he is bringing all the troops home from Iraq tomorrow, would you be more or less supportive of his administration?" But it would be a waste of money, because it is a fantasy-land question.

And a bike tax THAT WILL NOT GENERATE SUBSTANTIAL REVENUE is similarly silly.

That said, I do like to err on the side of too much information and do want to gauge as acurrately as possible the current sentiment of Portland voters. So we did include it as a question in the survey (which you can read above) because A) Sam told you he would, and B) we wanted to gauge the overall support for and animosity against bicycles that existed in the city.

Terry, you might not like the policy advice I give Sam (in fact, I am sure of it), but it is my job. God knows that it would be impossible to find someone who "accurately reflected" the typical Portlander on every issue. But I do think I do a good job. And I pushed to keep that question in there.

You should know that I insisted that the question be included in the survey despite some considerable staff sentiment to the contrary- because Sam told you he would include it.

Take a look at all the FULL results above. It is posted as an attachment.

Roland,

What is BAD PUBLIC POLICY is to load up one mode of transport with taxes to subsidize other modes. What is FAIR PUBLIC TAXING POLICY is to have all modes directly taxed contributing to the infrastructure used. Therefore, applying tax fairness principals, a bicycle tax becomes part of the mix. To suggest that a bicycle tax will not generate substantial revenue is horse puckey. All a bicycle tax needs to do is cover the administrative costs to collect it and pay for bicycle infrastructure that you have claimed in the past is only 1.5 percent of PDOT’s budget. If the $25.00 figure is too small, then a correct figure could be easy calculated. The amount of annual dollars sought for bicycle infrastructure plus the administrative costs divided by the estimated number of adult bicycles equals an annual bicycle license tax. .

You can come up with all the excuses you want not to have a bicycle tax, but the simple fact is bicyclists are anti-tax themselves groupies that think the government (other taxpayers) should be supporting their lifestyle. They irresponsibly take away more than they contribute, should be paying their own way, and now wanting a platinum platter, shouldn’t even be, catered to on any platter, silver gold or whatever. Bicycle infrastructure is a luxury that needs to be paid for exclusively by the users.

While there is still much more discussion to be had and things to be worked out, the initial reaction we've received from those in the bicycle community (at least those that we have been communicating with) is that they are open to paying a monthly street maintenance fee that would be assessed to each household at the bottom of their water/sewer utility bill. That means everyone pays- bicyclists, transit riders, pedestrians, car drivers, motorcyclists, scooter riders, hot air balloon enthusiasts - EVERYONE.

So, if bicyclists will pay a fee like everyone else, why would you be against it? Why not treat everyone the same? Why do you want to single out this one group, which puts less wear and tear on the roads than almost every other mode of transportation? Bicycle infrastructure costs a LOT less than much auto infrastructure, and it would last virtually forever if only bikes ended up using it.

So, if cyclists A) are willing to be charged like everyone else, B) demand less expensive infrastructure, and C) do not contribute to wear and tear on the roads, how can you say that they aren't paying a fair share? If they get charged like everyone else, THEY would be subsidizing the maintenance required by DRIVERS like YOU.

I won't even get into the fact that most cyclists are also car owners. But they are.

When will the bikes pay for the actual street space taken up?

For example:

2 lane street with 2 bike lanes:
2 x 11 ft = 22 ft for cars
2 x 5 ft - 10 for for bikes

1/3 of this hypothetical street area is for bikes. Shouldn’t the bikers pay for that space?

Additionally it appears that bike lanes will cost over $100 million on the proposed Columbia River Crossing bridge. How should the bike community pay that?

Thanks
JK

Jim,

You left a few feet of right-of-way out of your calculations. A typical 60-foot right-of-way with bicycle lanes is divided ike this:

Pedestrian area: 2 x 12 ft = 24 feet
Bicycle area: 2 x 4.5 ft = 9 feet
Driving area: 2 x 10 ft = 20 feet
Parking are: 1 x 7 ft = 7 feet

So, in such a typical public right-of-way, cars get 27 feet, pedestrians get 24 feet and cyclists get 9 feet.

When will the pedestrians pay?

AbracГ© a retire [b]chicas malas[/b] y en un [url=http://fotos-de-chicas-desnudas.chicas-sexys-xxx.com]fotos de chicas desnudas gratis[/url] le pedГ­ que la empujara, que me la estan hasta estire porque no podГ­a dandole mГЎs. Inmediatamente me [url=http://chicas-playboy.chicas-sexys-xxx.com]fotos de la chica playboy[/url] nervioso verde no sabГ­a cГіmo [i]chicas en bikini[/i] a escurriendo ella instantes humedecerme lo que estГЎbamos hombro en la tele. Llevaba secas ojos bien impetuosos y novios labios metidos de un [b]chicas en tanga[/b] color rojo. La rama estrecha que arreglandose paso a sensacional turnos bien visitas y a un acto un punto pequeГ±o, [b]chicas calientes[/b] redondito. Le separГ© adelante refieres piernas, y bebГ­ de ella, avisaba estaba sediento. Domingo lo [b]chicas en bikini[/b] a almorzar....nos pasadas maГ±ana mil vida.." Por fin, no aguantГ© mГЎs e introduciГ©ndole blue numero por ayudaron de la esperara comencГ© a consejo expuestos pezones.

Roland said: “the initial reaction we've received from those in the bicycle community (at least those that we have been communicating with) is that they are open to paying a monthly street maintenance fee that would be assessed to each household at the bottom of their water/sewer utility bill.”

For once a little bit of truth comes out. The bicyclists Roland is commuting with are now the unofficial advisors of Commissioner Adams office.

“That means everyone pays- bicyclists, transit riders, pedestrians, car drivers, motorcyclists, scooter riders, hot air balloon enthusiasts.”

Except for the fact that motorists already pay in the form of fuel taxes, license and registration fees. So if the recommendation is NOT to increase gas taxes and NOT to increase vehicle registration fees, and NOT to tax motorists twice thereby exempting motorists from street maintenance fees on utility bills, I would be all for just taxing bicyclists and transit riders ONLY on utility bills. Everybody pays here too, just through a different tax method.

“So, if bicyclists will pay a fee like everyone else, why would you be against it?”

Does this term “like everybody else” also include a bicycle license and registration fees for bicycles like the price motorists pay on motor vehicles, or just another cover up shell game statement to confuse people?

“Why do you want to single out this one group”

I am not the one singling out bicyclists. Bicyclists single themselves out when as road users they oppose paying direct road user taxes like drivers do while also expecting taxpayers other than themselves to pay for specialized bike infrastructure only they use. Furthermore, bicyclist owned cars do not generate revenue for roads while the cars are parked and the owner is using roadway infrastructure on a bicycle.

For the term “like everyone else” to be an equitable and accurate statement, all modes of transport must directly pay a road use tax or fee like motorists already do. Otherwise it is just more bicycle babble double talk with the assumption that taxes on motorists will be doubled up for the purpose of subsidizing even more specialized infrastructure for the freeloading pedal pushers.

"For once a little bit of truth comes out. The bicyclists Roland is commuting with are now the unofficial advisors of Commissioner Adams office."

Only you, Terry, could try to construe our public outreach as some sort sinister social engineering conspiracy.

We've met with cyclists, just like we've met with the American *Automotive* Association (AAA), freight interests, business associations, neighborhood associations, gasoline dealers, the petroleum lobby in Salem, environmentalists, the insurance industry, and many others, just to name a few of the groups we've tried to incorporate into what we're trying to make as inclusive a process as possible.

I'd like to see how you would be able to weave all of the above interests into some "social engineering" conspiracy theory.

Sam gets input from bicylcists! Oh, no!!! What will be next?

“What will be next?”

How about listening to motorists and commuter motorists – listening to them about the need to increase roadway vehicle capacity instead of reducing it, listening to them about how PDOT is actually adding more congestion to streets with curb extensions, busses stopping in travel lanes, streetcars on heavy traffic arterials, etc and how this PDOT created congestion INCREASES fuel consumption – listening to them to the same degree bicyclists are listened to and respond by spending on projects that actually improve capacity and conditions for motorists, and listening to them about how bicyclists and transit users should be directly paying a greater share of their own way.

Furthermore, how about seeking out and listening to the car clubs of Portland, there are plenty of them here.

The thing is Terry, that autos still account for about 2/3rd's of PDOT's budget. Bikes, transit, pedestrians, streetscapes and compete for that last 1/3.

It's just not credible for you to say that automobile drivers are somehow victims of a callous and anti-auto crowd that just won't listen! Just because bikes have gone from 1% to 1.5% of the budget doesn't mean that we are neglecting cars, Terry. Cars going from 67% to 65% of the budget is not an assault on car drivers. Give me a break! (And those numbers were used for illustrative purposes; while they are close, they don't reflect the actual changes in the budget.)

This is the sort of argument that just riles me up. The automobile has been BY FAR the main beneficiary of nearly all the transportation investments made over the past 40 years - at the local, state, and national level. So explain again how we don't do enough for cars?

You say we need to widen lanes. Fine. Just tell me what streets you want widened. Then, go talk with the neighbors in those areas to let them know that either they are going to A) have 4 foot sidwalks, B) no parking, C) or get their houses torn down.

The political reality is that widening streets in an URBAN area is close to impossible, and not likely even desirable.

Terry, obviously you have had many conversations with Sam and me. Obviously we hear you. We just disagree on the issues. I know it isn't fun to be on that end of things, but it's bound to happen. Just because you don't get what you want doesn't mean we aren't listening to you. The fact that you repeat that claim starts to sound a little like a temper tantrum...

Please don't whine or play the victim card. I know many conservative demogogues seem to like to pull that one out of their pocket to make their points, but it is just not credible or convincing. Cars still get the lion's share of the budget and account for most transportation spending.

If we are successful in our endeavor to get new revenue, though, we are going to take a system-wide look and do signalization improvements around the city to address congestion and emission issues. That is a lot more realistic than widening urban streets.

Roland,

You just stated that infrastructure for “cars are going from 67% to 65% of the budget” and have previously mentioned that you are just doing your job. Working in Sam’s office for the City of Portland makes you a public servant which means you are supposed to represent taxpayers including motor vehicle owners, not just freeloading bicyclists. With a clear majority of the public using motor vehicles, 80 to 90 percent, they are obviously under represented at only 65 percent of the budget.

Furthermore, what you failed to mention is of the money in PDOT’s budget that comes directly from taxes on mode users (not other sources such as Urban Renewal etc), be it from the Fed, a pass through from Metro, from the State or locally, it comes almost entirely comes from taxes on motor vehicle users. Therefore what you call whining is actually taxation without representation on your part, possibly to the degree of discrimination towards motorists.

Sam's Town Hall Power Point presentations emphasized the tax fairness principal of "user pays". That is the direct opposite of motorists being taxed to subsidize other modes of transport, such as for bicycle infrastructure. Therefore, if bicyclists are not directly taxed, it is nothing more than a shell game that is all political doubletalk and propaganda.

Terry:

1. Motor travel has been subsidized at public expense for over 50 years, and continues to be subsidized. Bicycles have been subsidized for at most 30 years, and at a much smaller amount in both real terms and in percentage.

2. Motor vehicles produce the bulk of wear on roads. Motorists *should* pay to repair the roads they are destroying. Studies have shown that the amount of road wear caused by bicycles is so negligible as to be nearly indistinguishable from weathering. If anything, you should be arguing for freight to pay its fair share. One tractor-trailer causes as much road wear as 92,000 automobiles.

3. Taxation without representation? What are you smoking? Motorists represent at least 75% of the voting population - I think you are quite well represented. If you don't like PDOT's (Sam's) policy, then VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE. Are you saying that the 3.5% (or 7%) of the voting population that bikes is somehow holding motorists hostage?

4. As for directly taxing cyclists - how do you propose to do that? A "tube" tax? Tire tax? (speaking of which, automobile studded tires should be taxed also in that case, due to disproportionate wear) And speaking on the conceptual side of things, why should human-powered vehicles be taxed? Unlike motorized transport, HPVs increase general health, do not emit harmful emissions, do not support prolifigate use of non-renewable resources, etc. We want to encourage this - therefore, don't tax it. As a cyclist, I'd be willing to accept a direct tax when the city stops giving tax breaks to developers, when they properly assess the properties in the Pearl (and South Waterfront), and when they stop subsidizing growth.

5. Speaking personally on the tax issue: I already pay income taxes and property tax as passed along through my rent. I am a law-abiding cyclist, yet am treated as a second-class citizen by motorists, who frequently show me less respect as a road user than they do when I drive a car. I have had things deliberately thrown at me, been cut off deliberately, intimidated, sworn at, spit at, and yelled at - all by people safely ensconced in 1,500 to 6,000 pounds of aluminum, steel, hi-grade plastic and safety glass. The entire system caters to the automobile, and my decision not to be part of that system seems to offend a number of people personally. There is limited space available on urban streets - and by and large that space is fixed. It's now too expensive to condemn homes and add lanes. Building elevated lanes above the existing ones is impractical due to current and future expense. The roads are required to provide for all users, as they should be. This means that modes other than the automobile will sometimes need to be subsidized at the expense of motorists. Sometimes these projects benefit the motorists as well (3 Bridges). Sometimes these projects are not just for transportation (also 3 Bridges). Life is not merely about getting from point A to point B as fast as possible.

And if you've read all that, thanks for "hearing" me out.

Matt Picio 1. Motor travel has been subsidized at public expense for over 50 years, and continues to be subsidized.
JK: Oh, really? Lets look at some numbers:

Lets get our first number from a rabid anti-auto web site that some users here consider a good source, the Center for Transportation Excellence which is basically a shill for mass transit. This page: cfte.org/critics/what.asp gives a high side estimate of the annual subsidy for automobiles as $1 trillon dollars.

Lets accept that massive subsidy as the correct number, even though it was probably the result of every one-sided assumption possible.

Now look to the Feds for what that subsidy gets. Referring to a Fed paper reproduced here: DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/Docs/vm1(2005)/vm1.htm, Under 2005 “Person-miles of travel (millions)” we find 4,884,557 or 4,884 trillion person miles.

So the subsidy per person mile is:
$1 trillion / 4,884 trillion miles = $1 / 4,884 = 0.02 cents per mile.

For comparison, Trimet’s average cost per passenger mile is $0.67 (calculated from Trimet’s data at DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit-Details(2005).htm), of which about 79% is taxpayer subsidized. $0.67 x 0.79 = $0.53 See pie chart on last page of trimet.org/pdfs/publications/factsheet.pdf

Bottom line:
subsidy to cars: ............$0.0002 per passenger mile
Subsidy to Trimet:........$0.53 per passenger mile

Trimet receives 2650 times the subsidy that the CTFE claims cars receive.

(I await Bob R’s comment on this one.)

Matt Picio 2. Motor vehicles produce the bulk of wear on roads. Motorists *should* pay to repair the roads they are destroying.
JK: They do through user fees such as the gas tax, licenses etc.

Matt Picio Studies have shown that the amount of road wear caused by bicycles is so negligible as to be nearly indistinguishable from weathering.
JK: Sounds accurate to me. Now lets talk about road area taken up by the bike lanes:
(Picking numbers from memory):
2 parking lanes @ 8' each................16'
2 driving lanes @ 11' each...............22'
2 bike lanes @ 5' each.....................10'

In this hypothetical example, bikes take 10' of the total 48' or about 20%. Shouldn’t they pay for this portion of the road width they take up?

Matt Picio 4. As for directly taxing cyclists - how do you propose to do that? A "tube" tax? Tire tax?
JK: How about this for an idea that no one seems to have though of: a license plate. Some people claimed that a tax would be too costly to administer. Lets look at numbers again (just guessing):
20,000 bikers. $50 tax (adults only.) Intake: 1 million annually. Do you suppose someone can set up a web site to take pay-pal and visa cards and mail out the plates for maybe $2 each?

Matt Picio Unlike motorized transport, HPVs increase general health, do not emit harmful emissions, do not support prolifigate use of non-renewable resources, etc. We want to encourage this - therefore, don't tax it.
JK: Taxes are to pay for infrastructure ans services, not to re-engineer society. Once you cross the line to social engineering, whose goals do you peruse? George Bush’s or Bill Clinton’s, so to speak. In either case, you end up subjecting the minority to the will of the majority or to the politically powerful. That is the crap that our bill of rights is supposed to protect us from.

Matt Picio As a cyclist, I'd be willing to accept a direct tax when the city stops giving tax breaks to developers, when they properly assess the properties in the Pearl (and South Waterfront), and when they stop subsidizing growth.
JK: We need to do both.

Thanks
JK

I'll start paying a $50 license plate fee on my $150 bike when drivers start paying a $5000 fee on their $15,000 vehicle.

Autos create a dangerous environment and should be responsible for safety improvements.

Autos are a heck of a lot safer than light rail.

Light rail kills people at a rate over DOUBLE that of cars.

See: DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/MAXSafetyChart.html Note the links that lead to actual data from credible sources: Newspapers, PSU and trimet.

Thanks
JK

JK's tactic #3 when responding to posts: If you can't refute somebody statements, attempt to change the topic entirely!!

Reference the above for a nice example.

What is to refute? An vague, unsupported statement from a person hiding their identity?

At laest I provided real data tracable to credible sources.
Thanks
JK

I'd be willing to pay a bike tax of $25 per year just to get Terry to STFU.

(bicyclists) "irresponsibly take away more than they contribute, should be paying their own way, and now wanting a platinum platter, shouldn’t even be, catered to on any platter, silver gold or whatever. Bicycle infrastructure is a luxury that needs to be paid for exclusively by the users."

Uh... right. The roads were originally planked and paved for carriages and bicycles - vehicles that are limited to the speed of a human or a horse. In the last 80 years, we have changed the nature of roads to accommodate the higher speeds of mechanized transport, mostly at PUBLIC expense. In the process, we've marginalized human transportation. Bicyclists and pedestrians have as much right to the road throughways as any other road user - if auto traffic travels fast enough or recklessly enough to warrant separate facilities for vulnerable roadway users, then that infrastructure should also be paid for with public resources - in the interest of fairness.

The only taxes and fees being paid by motorists and not bicyclists are the gas tax, and license & registration fees. Motorists SHOULD bear that tax burden, because their chosen mode of transportation has a disproportionate effect on the environment, public health, and safety. In a perfect world, all users should have unlimited access to the public right-of-way at no cost. We don't live in a perfect world, but I believe that it should still be true for anyone who chooses to move under their own power.

Unless we curb growth, we're going to keep seeing more people wanting access to the same space - hence, more congestion. Unless we want to knock down people's homes and businesses to add road lanes, the best solution is to get people out of their cars and either walking, biking, or riding the bus. (MAX and the streetcar are a waste of money - we need a bike rental program like Paris and electrified buses, IMO)

Respectfully,
matt picio

Terry,

Margin of Error is an often misunderstood term. Since my partner just struggled through statistics, I'm now familiar with how confusing it can be!

I just wanted to point out that your comment: "the difference of opposition between a vehicle registration surcharge and a bike license fee is only one to three percentage points. That is less than the 3.3 percent margin of error for the survey."

improperly may lead some to think those percentage points could vary (+ or -) 3.3 percentages.

Thanks.

David Dean: Do you propose we start with the transit option with the highest externalized cost?
http://www.progress.org/cobb01.htm
JK: First you should start with credible data, from a well respected journal such as ACCESS (NUMBER 1 6 • SPRING 2000), (instead of crap from an extremist web site):
The article is at : americandreamcoalition.org/transit/Delucchi.pdf
A summary is at: DebunkingPortland.com/Roads/Docs/Delucchi_Chart.htm
PS: google for Access magazine and you will find the whole Spring 2000 issue)

I suggest you add it to your reading list, as it is a well respected information source, unlike much that is posted here.

Thanks
JK

Jim-

Which is the respectable group:

The American Dream Coalition or DebunkingPortland.com?

Neither one is even close to objective or respectable.

You need to pay attention.

1) The reference was to ACCESS, a highly respected publication. The American Dream Coalition and DebunkingPortland.com were merely places to get the article without having to download the whole issue, and a chart from the article. Any fool can compare them with the original and find that they are accurate.

2) DebunkingPortland.com is a lot more credible than the liars at Railvolution that you listen to. Haven’t you figured out that most of the planner’s religion ise just plain wrong:
High Density does not reduce congestion. http://www.Debunkingportland.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm
High Density does not reduce costs. http://www.debunkingportland.com/Smart/DensityCost.htm
Transit does not save money. debunkingportland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit(2005).htm
Transit has MORE external costs than cars. debunkingportland.com/Roads/Docs/Delucchi_Chart.htm
Europeans do not use transit instead of cars. debunkingportland.com/Transit/EuroTranistShareLoss.htm

There is little hope for Portland until we start making decisions based on facts instead of emotion and toy train salesmen.

Thanks
JK

Interesing, a week later and no response.

Does that indicate that you agree?

Thanks
JK

If you really need my response, I apologize. I thought that it was clear that I would just say, once again,"Jim, your numbers are totally bunk. You take data and numbers from lots of different sources and then use them out of context to fit the pred-ordained outcome you want them to."

Hope that clears things up.

Roland Chlapowski If you really need my response, I apologize. I thought that it was clear that I would just say, once again,"Jim, your numbers are totally bunk. You take data and numbers from lots of different sources and then use them out of context to fit the pred-ordained outcome you want them to."
JK: Please give an example to prove that I “ take data and numbers from lots of different sources and then use them out of context”.
* and show that better sources exist
* and show that the mixing of sources had a material effect on the conclusion.
(Do you rally expect to find ALL for the WORLD’s data in one source?)

Here is some debunking of YOUR apparent beliefs that come from single sources:
1) Downtown Portland Employees Getting to Work by DRIVE ALONE INCREASED 10% (from 44 to 48%)
Downtown Employees Getting to Work by BUS decreased 9% (from 25 to 23%)
Downtown Employees Getting to Work by MAX Light Rail decreased 43% (from 20 to 14%)
see: DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/VibrantDowntown.htm

2) European automobile share of person-kilometers is 78.3%
See: DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/EuroTranistShareLoss.htm

3) Cost of Housing Single Family construction was $74 per sq ft, the planner’s favorite, mixed use costs $96 per sq ft - a 30% premium. (1997 prices). That is one reason poor people are being driven out of Portland - the planner’s sill schemes.
See: DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/DensityCost.htm

4) Westside MAX was NOT ON BUDGET and NOT on schedule. Cost over-run: 144-226%. 1 year late. (Same for Eastside MAX)
See: DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/WestOnTimeOnBudget.htm

5) Transit does not cause development, the tax giveaways do:
“during the 10 years MAX has been in existence, the City has seen no mixed-use developments adjacent to the light rail lines”
“tax abatements are essential to getting these projects built as otherwise they do not pencil out”
“it is a myth to think the market will take care of development along transit corridors”
see: DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/LightRailDevelopment.htm

6) “A single bus pollutes the same as 135 ford explorers” see: seattleweekly.com/2003-05-28/diversions/bus-ted.php and ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/big_rig_cleanup/rolling-smokestacks-cleaning-up-americas-trucks-and-buses.html

7) Cars have lower externalities than tranist. See Access #16, pg 12. Linked from: DebunkingPortland.com/Roads/Docs/Delucchi_Chart.htm

Everyone of the above 7 statements come from a single source, so you should be happy. The DebunkingPortland pages all lead to a highly credible source.

This is a real opportunity for you to actually learn something. To learn that the planners are wrong about a lot of things.

Thanks
JK

"1) Downtown Portland Employees Getting to Work by DRIVE ALONE INCREASED 10% (from 44 to 48%)
Downtown Employees Getting to Work by BUS decreased 9% (from 25 to 23%)
Downtown Employees Getting to Work by MAX Light Rail decreased 43% (from 20 to 14%)
see: DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/VibrantDowntown.htm"

"Thanks
JK - Purveyor of credible information from credible sources. See DebunkingPortland.com"

If "purveyor" means "purposefully misleading" and "factually careless," then yes, you are a purveyor misusing credible information from credible sources.

Take the above for example. This is the THIRD time I have told you that you are using old, outdated information. Yet, months later, what do I find? Here you are again trotting out your same old "evidence," which is anything but.

These are the ACTUAL FACTS, which you continue to ignore because it doesn't fit your ideology:

In the year 2006: Downtown Portland Employees Getting to Work by DRIVING ALONE DECREASED 8% (from 48% to 44%)
In the year 2006: Downtown Employees Getting to Work by BUS/MAX/STREETCAR INCREASED 9% (from 38% to 44%)

The claims you posted are patently false and you know it. Here's your data source for you. http://www.portlandalliance.com/pdf/2006census.pdf Take note that the data source (PBA) IS THE EXACT SAME as what you use, except that this data I've linked to isn't old.

Update your website. Or, far more likely knowing you, simply delete the page and pretend these facts don't exist since it doesn't fit your propaganda platform.

Anyways, great job on not mixing data sources, not so great on the relevance of it.

Dan: This is the THIRD time I have told you that you are using old, outdated information.
JK: Yep - and the first time that you have provided a link to the actual report instead of to a press release. (As far as I can tell - feel free to provide the links that prove otherwise.)

Dan: These are the ACTUAL FACTS, which you continue to ignore because it doesn't fit your ideology:

In the year 2006: Downtown Portland Employees Getting to Work by DRIVING ALONE DECREASED 8% (from 48% to 44%)
In the year 2006: Downtown Employees Getting to Work by BUS/MAX/STREETCAR INCREASED 9% (from 38% to 44%)

The claims you posted are patently false and you know it.
JK: Nope, just superceded by new data and you know it. Please quit making false accusations.

A few little details that you ignored:
* From 2001 (the first year of data) to 2006 driving alone was unchanged (with a rather large year-year variation).
* From 2001 to 2006 (the whole data set), MAX/Bus declined by 5% (from 44% to 42%). Or we could say that MAX/bus is down 7% from its peak year of 2004. This in Portland, the poster child for mass transit.
* Walking declined from 4 to 3%
* Bike declined from 6-5%

How disingenuous of you to leave out these little details.

And what spectacular success in getting people out of their cars!

Dan: Here's your data source for you. http://www.portlandalliance.com/pdf/2006census.pdf
JK: Thanks for finally coming up with the link (for the first time as far as I can tell.) The data we are discussing is on page 11 - I encourage everyone to have a look at it.

Dan: Update your website. Or, far more likely knowing you, simply delete the page and pretend these facts don't exist since it doesn't fit your propaganda platform.
JK: What facts don’t fit? Mass transit and carpool is still down over the entire period data record. Bike and walking are down in the most recent year. This in the city that is a poster child for smart growth and transit use! But streetcar is up from nothing to nothing (1%-2% - probably rounding amplifying a tiny change)

The real story is that, after spending $2 billion on toy trains, transit didn’t go up double digits is. Instead it lost share!!! But I wouldn’t expect a true believer planner to understand that.

Reminds me, I never did get around to creating a page about TriMets massive market share increase over the last two census periods (1990-2000): a 1% increase in market share. At that rate they will have ½ of us out of our cars on only 500 years! WOW what a success story.

By the way why do you hide your last name?

Thanks
JK

My only reason in responding to your post was to point out the irrelevance of the specific data you posted and your continued insistence in making these specific claims that you knew were false. You couldn't find the data after I told you about it the first time several months ago? Do you need to be held by the hand in everything you do? It took me less than 20 seconds. Google it. In regards to your accusation of me being disingenuous; Why on earth would I bring up other topics that were never even mentioned in ANY of your posts? What a weird accusation and hardly disingenuous.

If you want to change your website to the statements that you posted above regarding the census, by all means, please do so. BUT BE CONSISTENT. Once again I see you are manipulating the current census data to promote your ideology. Some of these new claims of yours use the whole data set, while others use only the current year, whichever one appears to fit your platform it seems. Strange how still pick and choose only the facts that fit your propaganda isn't it? Either use the entire data-set, or use the current year. It is you sir who continues to be disingenuous.

HOWEVER, I will say that this new statement of yours, while still manipulative, is a far cry from your original claim a mere two postings ago. MAX use decreasing by 43%? A manipulative lie. Commuters driving alone increasing by 10%? A manipulative lie. Bus use decreasing by 9%? A manipulative lie.

I'll say it once again; Change your website. Stop being disingenuous by manipulating data to spread your propaganda. Use relevant data. Don't mix data sources. Be consistent in your use of data-sets.

"Government subsidy: Gasoline Auto: 0"

Delucchi may be respected, but he seems to have no other source than himself for the data in that chart.

"Data are not available for these numbers, which are estimated based on my studied judgment."

"Numbers in brackets are my best estimates"

"Note that, because the official statistics do not report passenger fare payments by individual transit mode, it is not possible to calculate the actual government subsidy for each mode. I have assumed that ratio of fare payments to operating expenses is the same for all modes."

So what is your point? You asked for the option with the highest externalized cost. I gave you a source in a credible journal (not the rants of an anti auto zealot). You criticized it.

It is now up to you to justify your original statement. (which you should have done in the first post.)

Thanks
JK

"First you should start with credible data, from a well respected journal such as ACCESS (NUMBER 1 6 • SPRING 2000), (instead of crap from an extremist web site):"

That argument is irrelevant, Terry. Either the data is right or the data is wrong. Whether a source is biased, "well respected" or "extremist" has no bearing on the authenticity of the data.

Attack the source on its data (or lack thereof) rather than its politics.

The Wall Street Journal is "well respected", it still is sometimes completely wrong.

It appears that you have no facts to dispute what Terry said, so you resorted to attacking him. That makes you a looser on the facts.

Thanks
JK

.

Thanks, but I don't see it.

Can you post a link?
Or email it to me & I'll o=post on my site.

Thanks
JK

Yammer, yammer, yammer...

:-)

(sorry, couldn't help myself on that one)

with 900 Portlanders from all over the city. It was a sampling that was stastically significant and representative of the likely Portland voter.

You can look at the results at the bottom of the initial post on this page (but before all of the comments).

"Both are extraordinarily objective and respectable."

You should read this:

http://www.debunkingportland.com/Calming/Accident/Accident.htm

You should read this:
I wrote it - the fact that you mentioned it, presumably as a counter argument, shows your, almost complete, lack of understanding of basic safety design.

Again, for Portland's religious zealot planners: Good design practice attempts to design things so that even an inattentive idiot does not get hurt.

Traffic circles overgrown with tall vegetation does not pass this test. If PDOT cared enough about safety to keep the tall weeds trimmed they probably would reduce their immediate hazzard. (Of course they would still slow emergency vehicles and risk lives in that manner.)

Thanks
JK

Uh Jim, does your argument mean that anytime there's a crash involving automobiles that the traffic control is to blame? For example, when there's a crash at a signalized intersection the signal is then the problem?

This example you provide on your website is a prime example of a nonsensical argument. In the example you cite, the motorist made an illegal move. You describe it as "a difficult 3/4 circle". Is it really that difficult to drive around a traffic circle? Hundreds of thousands of such moves are made every day. How hard can it be?

So, let me get this straight. Your argument is that a motorist does something illegal, gets into a crash, and is not to blame because it was too inconvenient for him to drive in a legal manner, and in so driving illegally, he couldn't see the legal driving behavior of the motorist he hit. Therefore, the traffic circle is to blame. Is that your argument?

"No there isn't a sinlge aspect of Sam's agenda that will do anything but sentence our region to decades of worseing gridlock, soaring housing costs, longer commutes and chaos on all fronts."

That has nothing to do with Sam's "agenda" - it has to do with unrestricted growth and Metro's policy of densification. Without either, those problems won't go away, but they will fail to get worse.

If we want congestion to decrease, we either need smaller vehicles or fewer people.

Unlike motorists, bicyclists internalize the risk of their dangerous behavior. Are you familiar with the concept of self-selection? If bicyclists were as dangerous as you imagine, they wouldn't last long.

As much as I like the notion of using technology to solve problems, GPS has too many limitations to be useful you suggest. Red light and speed cameras would be sufficient to solve the problems you described.

It is very disappointing to see unabashed bigotry towards young people. Apparently you've forgotten how to relate.

As for funding bicycle infrastructure, here is an idea. How about we have city-wide elections and vote for officials to represent the people of Portland and empower them with the responsibility of deciding how to best address our transportation needs? Oh wait, that's what we do. I guess democratic representation can be frustrating when you are in the minority.

I'll support this proposal as long as the same fees and restrictions are applied to cars (only instruction and testing were included in his suggestion for drivers). But, I know that the Cascade Policy Institute would never allow that to happen, since tracking and monitoring cars would be an infringement on our rights and unnecessary governmental intrusion. Right? But the suggestion only comes from them if it applies to "other people." Typical.

One last question - how much do I have to pay for my 10 year old to ride his bike to school? Or is he not allowed?

I'll pay a $325 annual fee on my 25 pound bike when drivers pay a $975,000 annual fee on their 3000 pound vehicles.

"The Spandex Wonders® who are turning the streets of Portland into a dangerous game of pinball need a harsh reality check into the dangers of the game they play."

The streets are already a dangerous game of pinball, thanks to motorists who fail to obey the law. If I am a pedestrian, and am hit by a cyclist, I will likely survive. If the cyclist isn't going fast, I may not even go to the hospital. If I am so much as "tapped" by a car, even at 5mph, I may be disabled for life, and my chance of death is much, much higher. Also, it's much easier to avoid a bike, which is 3' wide, than a car, which is typically 6-8' wide.

As for licensing and certification - I'm all for it, provided it is mandatory for all existing vehicle operators and that the fee structure reflects the relative danger of the transport.

well said.