Burkholder: travel isn't free

Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder has an op-ed in the Oregonian today to clarify his earlier comment that provoked a firestorm of criticism:

"Every penny we spend on transportation is wasted."

Here's what he meant:

The point I was trying to make is that travel isn't free. We need to see it as a cost to avoid or minimize. In this region, government's annual tab is about $600 million. But even that is dwarfed by how much average families spend to own and operate the cars they need -- more than $6 billion a year -- 10 times what the government spends.

So as we map out our transportation future, there are two ways we can get people to where they need to go and keep commerce moving reliably, and save us all time and money. One is to design our communities so that people can perform everyday tasks without having to travel as far; after all, only one in five trips is work-related. Two is to provide more choices to get around efficiently: safe, appealing sidewalks, bike lanes and good transit, all so that people can choose something other than sitting in traffic jams.

Discuss.

  • DAN GRADY (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I own and operate an agency with my wife 8 blocks from our residence. We have had a serious injury in our family from an uninsured, illegal alien that has left our lives a daily challenge. We decided that a time-out with autos was best for us, and as we chose to live in the Gateway near the Transit Center that is convient to shopping, and a variety of services. We have managed alright.

    Not having a vehicle is a status demotion in our society, and we see the behavior all the time.

    We have not driven a vehicle for over 2 1/2 years and have not relied on anyone's vehicle for help. We don't ask for rides from anyone, and pay for the transit service as we need it. We call the Green Cab service when we need it, and pay for moving services from the craigslist, or use IPOD's. I make sure our girls attend all their functions which include band, orchestra, volleyball, basketball, softball, and we take advantage of functions that include the whole family.

    The time we have gone without a vehicle has made us closer as a family, I spend alot of time that would otherwise not be spent with my daughters walking, and I benefit physcially and financially as well.

    I see how people transform when they get in their car, I have suffered numerously from drivers who would never beleive they act the way they do if they were held to their acts in front of others. People today are so tied to their vehicle that it would be a demoralizing act to loose a vehicle, and somehow have lost a part of their personality in the process. To say autos are a part of our culture is an understatement, in todays America if you don't drive your disfunctional, and less a citizen, and treated as though we were less than second-class citizens with no contribution to make to the community.

    I say we are better citizens than the car owners, and we do more for our fellow citizens than the mayhem created by the manditory behavior of owning/operating a vehicle!

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    DAN GRADY: We have had a serious injury in our family . . .We decided that a time-out with autos was best for us. . .We have not driven a vehicle for over 2 1/2 years and have not relied on anyone's vehicle for help. JK: What kind of injury is benefitted by walking long distances to transit, waiting in the cold rain and sitting next to drug deals, with an occasional shooting? A car, sitting at you front door, seems better for anyone suffering from most injuries.

    DAN GRADY: We don't ask for rides from anyone, JK: That puts you a step above Earl Bluemenhour, who brags about being car free while sitting in the passenger seat.

    DAN GRADY: and pay for the transit service as we need it. JK: Actually you pay Trimet’s fare, and the taxpayers pay the other 80% of the actual cost (system average - rail is much more expensive at about the same as taxi fare).

    DAN GRADY: I say we are better citizens than the car owners, and we do more for our fellow citizens than the mayhem created by the manditory behavior of owning/operating a vehicle! JK: Nice writing. Good transition from a sympathetic victim at the start of your posting, to using your tragedy (a victim of a car!) to push your political position of new urbanism, smart growth and car hating. If you don’t work for Metro’s PR department, you should. You are a very skilled writer. BTW, light rail is more dangerous than cars - its death rate is higher than cars per passenger-mile.

    Thanks JK

  • (Show?)

    Once again, JK, assertions without sources. Please provide links to your sources. (And by "sources", I don't mean another website where you repeat your assertions.)

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Dan Grady:

    I say we are better citizens than the car owners

    Bob Tiernan:

    How nice! Common claim by New Urbanists: "We're not car haters". I guess that's updated now to mean, "We don't hate cars -- just the drivers".

    Now, this would be like me saying that I'm better than people who use mass transit. But I'd never say that. I don't even think it. Good harmony, Dan.

    Bob Tiernan

  • DAN GRADY (unverified)
    (Show?)

    JK: What kind of injury is benefitted by walking long distances to transit, waiting in the cold rain and sitting next to drug deals, with an occasional shooting? A car, sitting at you front door, seems better for anyone suffering from most injuries.

    DAN GRADY: A severe L-3 & L-4 herniated disks that were screwed up in a diskectomy by a local blood sucker that has a questionable acronym at the end of his name (M.D.), as we were left out in the cold with the medical board, attorneys, doctors, and insurance companies, we could very well be bitter!! Physical Therapy as is not expensive as it is painfull, chiropractics have had little help, the board cerified surgeon won't consent to corrective surgery. My wife got into another accident that did nothing but scrap the vehicle, and she is frightened from driving,so we do what will work for us, and ask for nobody's pity for doing it.

    JK: That puts you a step above Earl Bluemenhour, who brags about being car free while sitting in the passenger seat.

    DAN GRADY: I don't know what to say to this other than good on you Earl!

    JK: Nice writing. Good transition from a sympathetic victim at the start of your posting, to using your tragedy (a victim of a car!) to push your political position of new urbanism, smart growth and car hating. If you don’t work for Metro’s PR department, you should. You are a very skilled writer. BTW, light rail is more dangerous than cars - its death rate is higher than cars per passenger-mile.

    DAN GRADY: I would like you to source this contention that including fuel, auto maintance, auto repair, auto insurance, medical injury, property injury, law enforcement, how much time do I have????????

    Man; you either were sent from haven, or the devil had a hangover!!

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari Chisholm: Once again, JK, assertions without sources. Please provide links to your sources.

    JK: OK: Assertion: you pay Trimet’s fare, and the taxpayers pay the other 80% of the actual cost

    From pie chart on page 97 (pdf page107) of: www.co.multnomah.or.us/orgs/tscc/graphics/05-06annualreport.pdf Fares..............12% Special fares....3% Payroll taxes.....35% Property taxes.....2% State& Local......4% Federal...............30% Other...............14% I add it up as follows: Riders total:................15% Taxes total..................71% I guess “other” is mostly derived from tax money.

    Or you could look at trimet’s own publication: www.trimet.org/pdfs/publications/factsheet.pdf Page 4 has a slightly different pie chart: “Passenger Revenue” is given as 20.96%.

    Assertion: rail is much more expensive at about the same as taxi fare. From: www.saveportland.com/Car_Vs_Tri-Met/energy-cost-death-02d.htm

    Another version of the cost can be calculated from Tri-Met's "busmaxstat.pdf":

    Bus: $156,871,889 to serve 239,561,352 passenger miles = $.655 per passenger mile Rail: $54,810,104 to serve 144,919,080 passenger miles = $.378 per passenger mile System: $211,681,993 to serve 384,480,432 passenger miles = $.551 per passenger mile

    But this appears to NOT include rail construction costs. If we add the $196 million annual amortization of the $1.6 billion to the $54,810,104 rail cost reported (above), we get:

    Rail: $250,810,104 to serve 144,919,080 passenger miles = $1.73 per passenger mile

    For comparison, local taxi fare is $1.80 per mile plus a $2.50 starting fee plus $1.00 per added passenger.

    Note that the above was calculated a couple years ago, so the currnet version of BusMaxStat.pdf will be a bit different.

    Assertion:light rail is more dangerous than cars - its death rate is higher than cars per passenger-mile from: www.saveportland.com/Car_Vs_Tri-Met/energy-cost-death-02d.htm

    MAX passenger miles from 1987-2002: 1,025 million Deaths: 14 Deaths per 100 million passenger miles: 14 ÷ 10.25 hundred million = 1.37

    Actually, at the time I calculated the above the # of MAX killings was 15. so the actual number should have been: 1.46

    From: www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/ : Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled......1.47
    Note that is Vehicle miles. You need to multiply the vehicle miles by the average vehicle occupancy to get passenger miles so the death rate per passenger-mile is:

    1.47 / 1.57 = 0.94

    Lets redo that, using the underlying numbers:

    total fatalities: 43,443
    Vehicle Miles Traveled (Billions) 2,965 Average passengers per vehicle: 1.57 (from table 2.10 of Transportation Energy Data Book - //cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb25/Edition25_Full_Doc.pdf )

    Passenger miles = 2,965e9 x 1.57 = 4,655e9 Fatalities= 43,443 Fatalities per passenger-mile: 43,443 / 4,655e9 = 9.333e-9 per passenger mile = 0.93 per 100 million passenger-miles

    Bottom line: MAX has a death rate of 1.46 compared to a national motor vehicle death rate of 0.93 per 100 million passenger-miles.

    Note: Table 2.10 also lists the energy use of various transportation modes. It should be required reading for anyone interested in transportation policy. As you read it keep in mind that the car figure given is the current national fleet and can readily be beat by a small car: a 32 MPG car uses 3906 BTU per vehicle-mile, or with 1.57 passengers, 2487 BTU per passenger-mile.

    Kari Chisholm And by "sources", I don't mean another website where you repeat your assertions. JK: What are you referring to? My usual link for this assertion has the full data and calculations leading to the stated conclusions. See: www.saveportland.com/Car_Vs_Tri-Met/energy-cost-death-02d.htm

    Thanks JK

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    DAN GRADY: (Quoting JK) JK: Nice writing. Good transition from a sympathetic victim at the start of your posting, to using your tragedy (a victim of a car!) to push your political position of new urbanism, smart growth and car hating. If you don’t work for Metro’s PR department, you should. You are a very skilled writer. BTW, light rail is more dangerous than cars - its death rate is higher than cars per passenger-mile.

    DAN GRADY: I would like you to source this contention that including fuel, auto maintance, auto repair, auto insurance, medical injury, property injury, law enforcement, how much time do I have???????? JK: What contention?

    DAN GRADY: Man; you either were sent from haven, or the devil had a hangover!! JK: What does that mean. Please try to be coherent.

    Thanks JK

  • DAN GRADY (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Let me get this right, Jk, you want to conflate 14 deaths nationwide on rail, with tens of thousands of deaths, not to mention the continuous carnage daily that is motor vehicles on the roads of America??

    I should take the time to punch holes in your math, but I don't think anyone will take serious the idea that riding the bus/rail is more dangerous than owning and operating a moter vehicle on our roads!!!

    For moment imagine L.A. County if they had maintained and sustained their electic car/rail system from before WW11 and didn't abandon it to make a enormous freeway system!

    I think if you want to make a argument for the ridiculous that the clever can do that very nicely, but let's not forget it is still ridiculous!!

  • (Show?)

    Page 4 has a slightly different pie chart: “Passenger Revenue” is given as 20.96%.

    Jim, you've left out the other benefits to taxpayers of mass transit.

    For starters, we have to build and maintain fewer roads. Also, when poor people who can't afford cars are able to use transit they 1) get jobs and pay taxes, and 2) aren't forced to turn to crime. Finally, there are economic development impacts -- which generate jobs and property values, both of which generate taxes.

    When you're talking about the impact on taxpayers, you don't get to claim only the cost to taxpayers without also claiming the benefits that taxpayers get back (including the non-transit-riding taxpayers.)

  • peter (unverified)
    (Show?)

    can you provide a link to the source for the info on MAX fatalities. an official link, please, not just another page that says "MAX fatalities: 14".

    thanks

  • (Show?)

    Seriously. That saveportland.com website is obviously crap. The home page still thinks Vera Katz is the mayor.

  • (Show?)

    Rex's point -- that households and governments are spending an amazing amount on transportation, and we need to plan better and create real choices to save us all money -- is what's interesting here.

    Recent housing advocate studies have found for low-to-middle income households, transportation is a larger cost than housing. So when we care about the poor and middle income folks, planning better communities that provide real transportation choices can be a strong strategy to creating overall affordability (and better transportation).

    Too often we focus on one piece -- housing affordability -- and forget our overall goal of having an affordable place to live.

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    DAN GRADY Let me get this right, Jk, you want to conflate 14 deaths nationwide on rail, with tens of thousands of deaths, JK: You have to understand ratios. (Ask a grade school kid if you don’t know about ratios) :

    MAX passenger miles from 1987-2002: 1,025 million Deaths: 14 Ratio of deaths to miles: 1.37 per 100 million passenger-miles

    Motor Vehicle miles : 2,965 billion (note that this is about 3000 times the miles for MAX) Passenger-miles: 4,655 billion Fatalities: 43,443 Ratio of deaths to miles: 0.93 per 100 million passenger-miles

    As you can see, when you compare ratios of miles to deaths, MAX kills 47% more than motor vehicles. This suggests that if all national transportation was on light rail, we would have around 64,000 instead of 43,000 deaths. Of course we would be wasting a lot of money too, because rail costs more and doesn’t save energy since most light rails systems are coal and Uranium powered.

    DAN GRADY not to mention the continuous carnage daily that is motor vehicles on the roads of America?? JK: You think that is bad? It would be 47% more if we all switched to light rail.

    DAN GRADY I should take the time to punch holes in your math, JK: After all it is mostly grade school math - give it a try.

    DAN GRADY but I don't think anyone will take serious the idea that riding the bus/rail is more dangerous than owning and operating a moter vehicle on our roads!!! JK: MAX is much more dangerous. (Actually you are quite safe INSIDE of MAX, if you survive being near it on you way inside.)

    DAN GRADY For moment imagine L.A. County if they had maintained and sustained their electic car/rail system from before WW11 and didn't abandon it to make a enormous freeway system! JK: People abandoned it in droves when they could afford a, that is why it was shut down in favor of lower cost buses. See: Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 51. No. 3 Summer 1997 (45-66) (www.lava.net/cslater/TQOrigin.pdf)

    from last time: DAN GRADY: I would like you to source this contention that including fuel, auto maintance, auto repair, auto insurance, medical injury, property injury, law enforcement, how much time do I have???????? JK: What contention?

    I AM STILL WAITING, DAN Thanks JK

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    peter: can you provide a link to the source for the info on MAX fatalities. an official link, please, not just another page that says "MAX fatalities: 14". JK: That came from the Oregonian around the time I did that page. Here is report of the 18 death, if that would do:

    Death of disabled man exiting MAX ruled accident Tuesday, August 03, 2004 STUART TOMLINSON TriMet officials said a 47-year-old Southeast Portland man had safely exited a MAX train Sunday night when his power wheelchair inexplicably rolled between the train's two cars. Ahl B. Smith was run over by the second car in the westbound MAX train about 9:30 p.m., said Mary Fetsch, a TriMet spokeswoman. Tom Chappelle, Multnomah County deputy medical examiner, said Smith died of multiple traumatic injuries. His death has been ruled accidental, Chappelle said. Fetsch said Smith got on the westbound train at East 162nd Avenue and got off at the East 148th Avenue stop. "The operator looked before proceeding and saw that he (Smith) had cleared the white tactile safety strip on the platform," Fetsch said. "He was rolling east as the train traveled west. . . . His wheel got in between the tracks." Fetsch said witnesses told investigators that Smith's operation of the electric-powered wheelchair appeared "unskillful" before he veered to his left and was struck by the train. Smith lived in an adult foster home in the 14000 block of Southeast Main Street for at least four years, said Arian Gusan, co-owner of the foster home. Gusan said Smith lost the use of his legs in a car accident several years ago and had only partial use of his left hand. He said Smith had gone to visit a friend Sunday and was expected back at the foster home about 9 p.m. "He used MAX most of the time to get around," Gusan said. The train's operator, Dennis G. Withrow, 54, of Brush Prairie, Wash., has been a TriMet employee for four years. He is on paid administrative leave, and counseling has been made available to him, Fetsch said. "The operator did all the right things," Fetsch said. Smith was the 18th person to die in a MAX-related incident since service began in 1986. He was the first since June 2003, when 16-year-old Aaron Wagner of Gresham was killed by a westbound MAX train while riding his bike as the train pulled into the Gresham City Hall Station. The accident will be reviewed by TriMet's Rail Change Review Committee, which is made up of TriMet managers, Fetsch said. Stuart Tomlinson: 503-294-5940; [email protected]

  • Betsy Wilson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's not actually riding the MAX that's dangerous -- these are "MAX-related" crashes. It's walking or biking or driving and interacting with the MAX. Most of the folks who get killed are drunk, or racing the MAX, etc. Do we have any specific instance of someone being killed while RIDING the MAX?

    Finally, the truth behind the so-called statistics.

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Betsy Wilson It's not actually riding the MAX that's dangerous -- these are "MAX-related" crashes. It's walking or biking or driving and interacting with the MAX. Most of the folks who get killed are drunk, or racing the MAX, etc. Do we have any specific instance of someone being killed while RIDING the MAX?

    Finally, the truth behind the so-called statistics. JK: I guess that you missed this in my previous post: (Actually you are quite safe INSIDE of MAX, if you survive being near it on you way inside.)

    As to someone being killed while riding MAX, as I said you are quite safe inside, but there was a case of a wheel chair passenger being killed while exiting that I just posted here.

    Thanks JK

  • (Show?)

    Smith was the 18th person to die in a MAX-related incident since service began in 1986.

    Wait just a minute. Does this count people who had a heart attack while riding the train? I daresay that's safer than having a heart attack while driving a car...

    "MAX-related" isn't good enough, JK. Go ahead and count people who are so stupid that they get drunk and try and race the train to the crossing -- but you don't get to count people whose deaths have nothing to do with the train itself.

    In any case, why are we talking about this? Your assertion that there would be 47% more deaths if we all went to light rail is entirely stupid. If no one was driving any cars -- there wouldn't be any cars to crash into the light rail trains.

    Nevermind that that's not even a remotely plausible possibility.

    Please take your weird little anti-urban fantasyland somewhere else please. Go start your own blog.

  • DAN GRADY (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ok JK, I should take the time to play ratios with you, now that I have my 8th grader at my side.

    14 or 18 deaths from 1987 to 2002 is your starting number that you compare with the passenger miles estimated against the number of deaths on Oregon roads???

    Is that for this year, or the number of deaths since 1987 on Oregon roads??? I guess that number would be a tad less flattering, eh JK?? I’m not researching this number buddy, I'm just going to guess that we have had more than 18 deaths on Oregon roads this year, or maybe more than 18 deaths on Portland roads this year, so lets factor in the number of deaths on Trimet to the number of deaths on Portland roads for the same year!!

    Man; if this is your argument to continue on this path of everybody has to own a car, you have got to be kidding, distorted chemically, or so insincere you don't care who it hurts to believe the way you do. Or is it you resent the spending of your tax dollars on mass transit??

    Is this the best argument for discouraging a reliable, safe, clean, affordable transit system in our city, and I to understand you can’t see the benefits to having this system?? Do you actually live in this city, and if you do I truly feel sorry for you as it must be a lonely existence that rarely ever sees you among the people in the city you live.

    Happy Thoughts;

    Dan Grady

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The point I was trying to make is that travel isn't free. We need to see it as a cost to avoid or minimize.

    I think Rex's basic point is correct. But I think we need to realize that travel is not something we always avoid. In fact, travel itself is a form of recreation for many people. Rex knows this is true for cyclists - the BTA message machine used to say something to the effect: "Smile at the drivers, you are having a better time than they are." But it is also true that people go for a drive in an automobile for recreation, to see scenary and just to get out of the house. So money spent making travel more pleasant is not wasted.

    Unfortunately, we have largely turned our transportation system over to engineers who think a street's only function is to move vehicles as quickly as possible. When in fact we ought to be more concerned by what kind of place it creates for people whether they are in their cars or not.

  • (Show?)

    JK: Nice. You've proven, statistically, that a person is safer riding on MAX than riding in a car. You've also proven, somewhat unnecessarily, that getting hit by a train is much more likely to be fatal than being hit by a car. D'oh.

    If you take the time to actually look at the incidents in which people were killed by MAX, you'll also see that the train (or its operator) was rarely the problem. The very first incident, before MAX went into revenue service, involved a drunk who was stuck on the Banfield, climbed over a well-placed fence and was wandering down the tracks in search of a wire to fix his car. Didn't, apparently, notice the train rushing through the dark at 55 mph.

    Boy, that's a ringing indictment of light rail.

    The guy in the wheelchair "veered" in front of the train. Also an indictment of light rail. Pah.

  • Carl (unverified)
    (Show?)

    JK, why the swipe at Blumenauer? I've never heard him say that he is car free. In fact, I saw him show up at an event downtown in a hybrid. I have heard him say that he is car free in DC, which is serviced by a pretty awesome subway system.

  • Facts Count? (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Carl,

    Back off. JK has never been known to let a fact stand in the way of bending it to his truth. May the car set you free, your paradise paved and your lungs filled with benzene. It's a beautiful life. Stop being so critical- I think that an episode of Green Acres is coming on. Curl up with an Ayn Rand classic and Dream the American Dream.

  • Adron (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Let's see here, an Ayn Rand classic?

    Like the subsidization and Government involvement in industries like passenger services? Their involvement and regulation, manipulation, and forced entry into the power industry?

    Let's see here. Roadway subsidies decreased the direct out of pocket costs of the automobile. hmmm, that got us... to where we are today AND in the process...

    Helped destroy passenger rail, that we didn't pay if we didn't use, and left us with... Amtrak, and sickly affair at best, laughable by most of the world, and pale, sad, depressing shadow of once was Santa Fe, Northern Pacific, New York Central, and other great giants that built this country.

    Air travel eventually has become a subsidized, leased based, Government regulated and manipulated service also. So now we have these massive disconnected airports that drain tax dollars when they don't need to.

    ...yeah, Ayn Rand was a nut. But she called it right on the money.

    But I digress, from a factual stand point, JK is right...

    But from an objective analysis, he's only partially right.

    Per the above reasons. No one can objectively argue about passenger transit anymore, whether by car, place, train, or whatever. It's all an unbalanced, non-market related, convoluted mess.

    Also keep in mind that back in the days of LA's and other mass transit systems, people paid full operating cost + base profit in their fare.

    Which today amounts to about $4.00-$12.50 depending on where one would board the train in PDX.

    If you went from Hillsboro to downtown, that would be about $15 bucks, from downtown to Beaverton would be about $6.00.

    What America had then was enabled because of the private sector, NOT because of Government manipulated industries. Whatever is built to replace those things won't be able to re-create the same level of service without drastic privatization.

    One Government $1 is NOT equal to One $1 Private Business Dollar. In no way can we expect to receive the same services and provisions for that money that is now no longer ours (us citizens).

    So before one wishes for what we had, keep in mind how it was enabled, and realize that we can't have it any longer solely because of the way we've all worked to structure our current Government in the US.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    One Government $1 is NOT equal to One $1 Private Business Dollar.

    That depends on how it is spent, sometimes its worth more, sometimes less. Anyone who followed the profligacy of the dot-coms a few years ago knows that wasting money is hardly the province only of government. And does anyone really think Beanie Babies are a great investment of private dollars? We ought to resent every dollar the government wastes, but we should hardly believe we would always have done something more productive with it.

  • DAN GRADY (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Adron: Which today amounts to about $4.00-$12.50 depending on where one would board the train in PDX. // Dan Grady: How do you arrive at these numbers?? You contend that maintaining a highway & freeway system over run with traffic and in constant need of repair and re-construction is a cheaper than a comprehensively, sincerely implemented rail/streetcar/transit system?? Is that your rationale?? Really!?!?! Not to mention the additional policing, constant carnage, and property damage??? Are you sober?? Adron: What America had then was enabled because of the private sector, NOT because of Government manipulated industries. // Dan Grady: The Street Cars were a county program with a private operator overseen by the local government as it was explained to me by my aunt whom has reminisced many times about how great it was. Adron: Whatever is built to replace those things won't be able to re-create the same level of service without drastic privatization. // Dan Grady: We have privatized many government programs from the local to the federal level over the past 25 years since Reagan and the results are enviable; we end up with less service at a higher cost until either the citizens make the government to take it back or it ends all together with the taxpayer hosed for the exercise. LARY as it was originally called was owned and operated by the Huntington Family who was less than progressive about service, and operation until it was eventually bought by the county. Then it became a more efficient, and comfortable service. The problem was that the automobile revolution took it over for freeways and highways. Had the county keep it up, modernized it, and made a few sensible corridors for both autos and the transit system the legendary pile ups in LA would be fantasy instead of a daily reality!! Adron: So before one wishes for what we had, keep in mind how it was enabled, and realize that we can't have it any longer solely because of the way we've all worked to structure our current Government in the US. Dan Grady: This is the pitch, that privatization is the cure all, and our collective sincerity as a government is a loss cause thus we need to dismantle government and allow the individuals take control, each to their own!! Works good in a shark pit, when you’re the biggest shark, but evolves into a Liaise Faire Economy which ends in a final act, the Great Depression. Privatization is a recipe today to replace government with the next most powerful organizations, corporations. That isn’t the description of a Randist Society of free enterprise, it’s Fascism!!

    Happy Thoughts;

    Dan Grady

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Dan Grady:

    This is the pitch, that privatization is the cure all, and our collective sincerity as a government is a loss cause thus we need to dismantle government and allow the individuals take control, each to their own!! Works good in a shark pit, when you’re the biggest shark, but evolves into a Liaise Faire Economy which ends in a final act, the Great Depression. Privatization is a recipe today to replace government with the next most powerful organizations, corporations.

    Bob T:

    If the big bad corporations just loooooved laissez faire, then why did so many of the major industry players become early advocates for regulations during the late 1800? The myth, of course, is that they were dragged kicking and screaming into that world.

    Truth is that corporations get away with a lot more when they get to use government to get their way. If the legislators and governors/presidents happily go along with this (which is often because they think they are "managing" the economy--a "settled" issue according to you guyz), they're still government players. How do you curb them?

    WHen you give the government the power to pick winners and losers, you get the kiond of "fascism" you claim to fear. How do you like it?

    Here's a Pop Quiz: Why did the meat packers want inspection regulation?

    Bob Tiernan

    That isn’t the description of a Randist Society of free enterprise, it’s Fascism!!

  • urbanplanningoverlord (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Speaking of shark pits - we seem to have one on this thread - lot's of blood on the page!

    I applaud Dan Grady for his ability to be car-free, which is his choice. I'm glad that the Portland area provides Dan Grady this choice - although that choice remains very imperfect, has Rex Burkholder so aptly notes - especially for those of us that live in the suburbs.

    But I also think that there are an awful lot of people whose lives don't allow them Dan Grady's choice. They have to use automobiles, and our transportation system must provide them reasonable accommodation. A recent Portland Tribune story noted the plight of those in our job-mobile society who suddenly find their Vancouver job has moved to Hillsboro, and who don't want to uproot their family in its current community. I think people like Dan Grady should take this into account before they put their noses too far up in the air.

    What it comes down to is CHOICE. Jim Karlock and Bob Tiernan appear to be quite happy with a transportation system that gives only passenger vehicle owners a transportation choice, that subsidizes that choice, and that gives no choice to those who can't or won't use passenger vehicles as their chosen mode of transportation.

    I'm glad Rex Burkholder has clarified - he wants to give people a choice that they don't now have, not take away a choice (passenger vehicle usage) that they already have.

    www.urbanplanningoverlord.blogspot.com

  • DAN GRADY (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Gee Bob, I think you just made my argument for me, though I don’t understand the reference to the regulation argument from the ? whole 1800’s or when?? I would not make my contentions on a history of efforts sincere or not that were failures, or successes as this is a process of evolution that brought government from Liaise Faire Economics to the New Deal, and the Great Society, to our current Anti-Government Reaganomics that evolved into Neo-Conservatism which is nothing more than Fascism by another name.

    To the extent that Robber Barons manipulated government during the industrial age was curbed by the political reality of a popular elections electing Teddy Roosevelt which introduced a popular movement for national food regulations, the end of child labor, and the end of monopolies, among other changes.

    Our democracy at its birth is an evolving entity coined as “the Greatest Human Experiment in History.” That’s right, we are learning as we go, we are tweaking, changing, and making improvements in theory to create a better, more perfect state!!

    When we listen to those whom don’t believe in the process of democratic governance to vilify governance as the instrument of our demise, we actually hand power over to those who see government as a tool for greater power, and little else. History has been painfully consistent about this as our current government has made this perfectly clear.

    As for the meat cutter's regulations, would this be the convoluted revisionist history of the Neo-Cons telling the story of Lewis Sinclair's "Jungle" to be a complete fiction as thought he never saw a meat packing operation in Chicago?? The truth was freely available to any citizen whom lived in Chicago,talk to the many exploited meat packers to know this. I would think a good sniff of the air would have been pretty enlightening.

    Teddy Roosevelt was not so sheltered as to not be able to verify this imformation for himself, so to beleive this story is to beleive that Teddy Roosevelt never took the time to see for his self, and that I have a real problem with!

  • (Show?)

    JK is full of it. For one thing, urban fatality rates for cars are MUCH lower than national rates, or even state rates--so he's not even using the right figures. Further, going all the way back to 1987 is ridiculous. Ridership was nothing like it is now; it's exploded. How about the last four years?

    Two sources--

    Trimet's annual ridership stats, FY02 - 05, inclusive: 617,657,772 rail passenger miles

    Portland Tribune, 3/06 most recent death, 2002.

    So let's see...that's .16 fatalities per 100mil passenger mile on rail.

    What's the city motor vehicle equivalent? From PSU's Transportation System Performance Report (google it), reference pdf pg 47. Portland's fatalities per 100mil vehicle miles has run between .3 and .7 over the past decade or so, most recently hovering right around .5 per. Let's go ahead and take jim's figure of 1.57 passenger miles per vehicle mile, and you get .32 fatalities per 100mil passenger mile. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is DOUBLE the fatality rate of light rail...even if you ridiculously include MAX suicides and people wandering in front of trains.

    His cost factoring is convenient, too. Did you notice how he figured in construction costs for light rail, but did NOT figure in construction for roads and bridges? That's one way to make LRT look more expensive, sure.

    And then even his own calculations prove him wrong relative to taking a taxi! Let's go ahead and use his heavily-inflated $1.73 per passenger mile figure for MAX (the real rate is about $.30, I believe). He says "For comparison, local taxi fare is $1.80 per mile plus a $2.50 starting fee plus $1.00 per added passenger." So let's assume an average trip of 3 miles in the downtown core. On MAX, that's $5.19. The cab would be $7.90. On what planet does nearly 50% more for the cab mean "about the same?" And I'm being generous by holding the trip to 3 miles; the gap widens with each mile.

    So even adding in ALL of the construction costs for light rail, and NONE of the construction for roads, taking a cab is still 50% more expensive to the public than hopping the MAX. (Of course that's just monetarily; it doesn't begin to take into account the social costs in pollution and noise). Thanks, Jim!

  • DAN GRADY (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Posted by: urbanplanningoverlord | Dec 19, 2006 10:11:59 AM

    I would not deprive people of their vehicles, and the characterization of my being a "car-hater" was not by my choosing as I would intend to get a vehicle sooner or later for my families craving to go camping, and to the beach. I still have a driver’s license, and have driven since I was 12 years old as we lived in the desert out of town.

    I was simply pointing to my experience since being without a vehicle. I would say that as I’m not a threat to those driving, they are certainly a threat to those on foot. I would also point out that many whom operate vehicles carry more than just real baggage in the trunk, a couple of tons with a few hundred horse powered engine has a unmistakable effect on people’s behavior and it is often not pretty!

    Happy Thoughts;

    Dan Grady

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Carl:

    I have heard him [Blumenauer] say that he is car free in DC, which is serviced by a pretty awesome subway system

    Bob T:

    And loads of taxi cabs--a lot closer to a free enterprise cab system than in highly regulated cities like Portland. Policitician in DC want it that way so as to ensure that there's always a cab close at hand and at lower prices. Oh, and there are limos for the congresscritters. I'm sure Earl has used both of these methods (particularly when the photogs aren't around).

    Bob Tiernan

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    J Karlock:

    Smith was the 18th person to die in a MAX-related incident since service began in 1986.

    Bob T:

    There are either 18 since service behan, or that statement should read:

    "Smith was the 19th person to die in a MAX-related incident since before service began in 1986"

    MAX killed its first victim while making a test run along the Banfield one night, few or no lights on, when it struck a stranded driver poking around the tracks looking for a piece of wire or string to tie up something hanging down from underneath his car.

    Bob T

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ross William

    Unfortunately, we have largely turned our transportation system over to engineers who think a street's only function is to move vehicles as quickly as possible. When in fact we ought to be more concerned by what kind of place it creates for people whether they are in their cars or not.

    Bob T:

    You've just explained why at least the Light Rail system and to a lesser extent the bus system are crap and have lower ridership than they ought to have. Seems you would be more interested in seeing an empty train go where you think it should go than to see a full one going where it needs to go.

    This is why planning (if allowed) shouldn't be made by people living in Fantasyland.

    Bob Tiernan

  • (Show?)

    "lower ridership than they ought to have?" In what fantasy land is Bob living in? The big-urban average for transit commute share is less than 4%; Portland is at 6%. The national trend is downward; Portland's is upwards. Light rail passenger miles are up 42% since 2000! The gap between passenger revenue and operating costs for light rail is the lowest ($.72 per boarding ride) since 1997.

  • lifeline (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bob and JK, when your candidate wins then come talk. Until that day sit back, move to Houston, and read some Reason.

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Torrid Joe:

    "lower ridership than they ought to have?" In what fantasy land is Bob living in?

    Bob T:

    That's a reference to the fact that light rail lines are placed not to be in the midst of high population or to "move people", but where it can be used as a zoning and development tool (Metro admits this, as does Portland's New Urbanist guru John Fregonese--at least in an out of state newspaper). Do you think building it through farmland and other lightly populated areas of Washington County instead of, say, along 99W was "taking it to the people"?

    Torrid Joe:

    The big-urban average for transit commute share is less than 4%; Portland is at 6%. The national trend is downward; Portland's is upwards. Light rail passenger miles are up 42% since 2000!

    Bob T:

    Since a large fraction of these rides are made by kids carrying their skateboards within the fareless square, or loads of downtown employees hopping on for their free ride of ten blocks to meet friends for lunch, then the figures you cite are essentially hollow and shallow. Take those rides away from those people and many others making trips of zero impact and you will not see any additional clogging or more pollution.

    There's a reason local government wants fareless square and low fares and free park 'n rides -- to artifically boost ridership numbers to make it appear as something it's not.

    Bob Tiernan

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Dan Grady:

    I would not deprive people of their vehicles, and the characterization of my being a "car-hater" was not by my choosing as I would intend to get a vehicle sooner or later....

    Bob Tiernan:

    Your negative attitudes towards them, or at least to the drivers, was not well concealed. But okay, let's go on to the next sentence.

    Dan Grady:

    I was simply pointing to my experience since being without a vehicle. I would say that as I’m not a threat to those driving, they are certainly a threat to those on foot. I would also point out that many whom operate vehicles carry more than just real baggage in the trunk, a couple of tons with a few hundred horse powered engine has a unmistakable effect on people’s behavior and it is often not pretty!

    Bob Tiernan:

    Gee, that didn't take long.

    Bob Tiernan

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Dan Grady:

    Gee Bob, I think you just made my argument for me, though I don’t understand the reference to the regulation argument from the ? whole 1800’s or when??

    Bob Tiernan:

    Almost all of the so-called progressives think that big businesses (and thus industries in general from A to Z) had all of those regulations forced on them. This myth serves a purpose, I guess, but also causes them to continue to reach conclusions based on a history that never existed, and to maintain those images in the face of facts. We'd all be better off if we realized that it was hardly that black and white, and that Big Business needed and still needs the force, the institution of, government in order to achieve many goals. It really irks me when government helps a big corporation squash competitors and get billions in corporate welfare and then see the Naderites blame it all on big bad free markets.

    Dan Grady:

    I would not make my contentions on a history of efforts sincere or not that were failures, or successes as this is a process of evolution that brought government from Liaise Faire Economics to the New Deal, and the Great Society, to our current Anti-Government Reaganomics that evolved into Neo-Conservatism which is nothing more than Fascism by another name.

    Bob Tiernan:

    Oh, quit with this weenie definition if "Fascism". I hear people on talk shows etc saying that as soon as government gives a subsidy to a corporation of any size that it's automatically "fascism". That's nothing but a desperate and highly misleading attempt to trash the free enterprise system. Funny thing is, that when people like me advocate and end to subsidies for this and that industry, among the first to cry uncle and say no are you guys, so wedded are you to the concept of "managing" the economy New Deal style. That attitude has recently given us the New London v. Kelo decision. I hope you like it. We tried to get you guys on the side of property rights and on the side of stripping government of the power to pick winners and losers in a variety of ways, but it all fell on deaf ears.

    Anyway, Dan, I'll finish replying to your other points tomorrow for I really like this subject and need to set you straight on the meat packers in particular.

    Bob Tiernan

  • lin qiao (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Congressional appropriation for road construction is something in the range of $40 billion annually, if I've read this primary source correctly. I have not tracked down figures for aggregate state expenditures on roads, but let's make an educated guess of a total of $60 billion annually by government at all levels in the US. That works out to $200 per person annually. Making an educated guess of one automobile per two or three people, that's $400 to $600 per vehicle annually. Think of it as a huge subsidy, or a huge transfer of taxes to the general public. Or think of it as "your taxes at work". I don't much care. My questions for Karlock, putting aside his disingenuous neglect of road construction costs in his calculations, are these: What in the world is the fundamental difference between taxes paying for the roadway and taxes paying for a few of the vehicles that roll over the roadway? Or for a part of the cost of passengers riding those vehicles? A legitimate calculation might be something along the lines of cost per passenger mile factoring in everything, including road construction costs, the costs of policing the roads, and on and on. Karlock's numbers appear to be cherry-picked. Consider this a challenge for him to do the calculations correctly.

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    lin qiao:

    Congressional appropriation for road construction is something in the range of $40 billion annually, if I've read this primary source correctly......Think of it as a huge subsidy, or a huge transfer of taxes to the general public.

    Bob T:

    First you need to connect that amount to the amount that's collected in state and national gasoline taxes. It's not like there's no gas tax collected and that the Congress simply says, "Gee, how much will we spend on road projects this year out of the general fund?"

    Bob Tiernan

  • DAN GRADY (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bob; this conversation we have should be enlightening for all concerned in one fashion or another. I feel as though you are easily offended and much too defensive about your beliefs and you find the possibility of being wrong about any issue as some kind of catastrophic event. It's not!! It’s enlightening.

    You rail about progressives, I would not like to fall so heavily on labels though I'm as guilty of using them as the next guy, yet there should be limits in an intellectual debate when throwing labels around. The label can often be used to avoid an explanation of a position, or contention, as to avoid clarifying, or debunking a central point of contention.

    To be blunt; I did not understand much of your rebuttal, and you seem to distort history, facts, and statistics beyond any rational explanation. I would contend that your opining is systematic in today’s debate of the issues; when the reality conflicts with your ideals, your ideals must win out!! That is a good part of the reason we are in the straights we’re in today with an administration that can’t bring itself to face reality no matter how much blood, or treasure is spent needlessly!!

    I am very committed to my ideals as well, and I’m sure I can be accused of this kind of behavior at times, I try as I will to be pragmatic, open minded, and diligent with the facts, and especially with history as it speaks to the path taken, and the path that should be taken by clearly recognizing how we got were we are.

    Happy Thoughts;

    Dan Grady

  • lin qiao (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Tiernan: It's not like there's no gas tax collected and that the Congress simply says, "Gee, how much will we spend on road projects this year out of the general fund?"

    So what, Mr. Tiernan? The fact is, gas tax is a tax. First, there's no Holy Writ saying it must be spent on road construction. Congress or state legislatures may create such rules, but that's a policy choice. Second, even if you say gas taxes have to go to "transportation", why say road construction is "transportation" but buses, or subsidized bus fares, are not? ALL THESE THINGS ARE TAX EXPENDITURES AIMED AT MOVING PEOPLE FROM PLACE TO PLACE.

    As far as I can tell, the Karlock/Tiernan et al. objections are fundamentally, irreducibly ideological. They work themselves into a lather about how buses and MAX are "subsidized", but deliberately turn a blind to the obvious fact that the road construction and maintenance are just more expenditure of taxes ALSO for the common good. They cannot stand the idea that people might do anything collectively, even if it's as innocent as riding a bus or a MAX train together.

    By the way, Mr. Tiernan: What's with the blather about "general fund"? I've always wondered what in the world a politican even means by that. Taxes come in as revenue, go out as expenditures. (Well, in principle: Republicans are of course more comfortable with borrow-and-spend than tax-and-spend.) As I noted above about gas tax, it's the legislators who DECIDE which taxes go into, for purely accounting purposes, a "general fund" as opposed to various "dedicated funds". It's all about accounting and arbitrary, politically/legislatively defined labels, not about Holy Writ.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Do you think building it through farmland and other lightly populated areas of Washington County instead of, say, along 99W was "taking it to the people"?

    I am puzzled by this since the westside light rail goes through Beaverton to Hillsboro with stops along the way at Intel and the other high tech employment centers. So it may not have been taking it to the people, but it certainly focused on getting people to work. Which is why the westside line is used heavily in both directions, not as a commuter line from bedroom communities to downtown Portland.

    I think some of the debate over Portland's transit system is essentially over this very idea. The Portland region has many destinations in the suburbs that need transit service. That suburban transit needs to serve not just the people who live in the suburbs, but people from elsewhere in the region who need to get there to work or shop.

    The westside max serves some very desirable destinations, as the ridership demonstrates.

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    lin qiao:

    So what, Mr. Tiernan? The fact is, gas tax is a tax. First, there's no Holy Writ saying it must be spent on road construction.

    Bob T:

    Thanks for that incredibly revealing comment!

    Don't ever make a claim that auto users pay billions in gas taxes but at the same time they "don't pay for roads". Just don't.

    Bob Tiernan

  • (Show?)

    Maybe this will turn off the bold type.

    Since a large fraction of these rides are made by kids carrying their skateboards within the fareless square, or loads of downtown employees hopping on for their free ride of ten blocks to meet friends for lunch, then the figures you cite are essentially hollow and shallow. Take those rides away from those people and many others making trips of zero impact and you will not see any additional clogging or more pollution.

    Codswallop. No one can make a statement like that who has ever even peeked at the inside of a MAX car anywhere outside the CBD. Try getting on an inbound morning train at about 42nd St, or an outbound train downtown.

    This is so obviously false and ridiculous that it effectively obviates credibility for any other statement Bob Tiernan makes.

  • lin qiao (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mr. Tiernan,

    Uh, did I claim that auto users don't pay for roads? Kindly re-read what I actually wrote. Good Gawd. Of course auto users pay for roads. Auto users pay taxes that go for lots of other things as well. And bus riders pay taxes as well. (I'm waiting for you to quote this with another "duh" comment.) You're still trying to promote, in an underhanded way, the wacky fantasy that Holy Writ proclaims a bunch of dedicated tax streams, with this tax going for roads, that tax going for something else. Nonsense. Tax revenue is tax revenue. Legislators can decide to spend it on roads, on buses, on whatever. They're then accountable to the voters for their choices. In some cases, the voters may declare through initiatives how specific tax streams are to be spent. (Not a brilliant idea IMHO, but there it is anyway.)

  • (Show?)

    Actually lin, there IS something approaching a holy writ as to how gas taxes are spent. According to this paper from the Road and Transportation Builders Association, 84% goes to highways, 15% to mass transit.

  • lin qiao (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks to Mr Frane for bringing up Mr. Tiernan's obnoxious comment about "kids carrying their skateboards." Now, while I fully realize that Mr. Tiernan does not want to mix with The Great Unwashed, it's far from clear that this particular preference of his is meaningful in a discussion of the merits and demerits of buses and trains.

  • lin qiao (unverified)
    (Show?)

    And thanks to torridjoe, too. That 84% to highways is right in line with my estimate from the Congressional source I cited previously. But of course the "Holy Writ" is not that; it's a decision by Congress.

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Torrid Joe:

    Actually lin, there IS something approaching a holy writ as to how gas taxes are spent. According to this paper from the Road and Transportation Builders Association, 84% goes to highways, 15% to mass transit.

    Bob T:

    As if there's something wrong with a "holy writ" that says that money collected as a user fee should actually be spent (mostly) on what those users are using!

    Bob T

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Lin Qiao:

    Thanks to Mr Frane for bringing up Mr. Tiernan's obnoxious comment about "kids carrying their skateboards." Now, while I fully realize that Mr. Tiernan does not want to mix with The Great Unwashed, it's far from clear that this particular preference of his is meaningful in a discussion of the merits and demerits of buses and trains.

    Bob Tiernan:

    There ya go -- making assumptions again.

    1: I don't see people as the great unwashed, as a Senator "Billionaire" Kerry does.

    1. The reference to those trips/rides means that they are insignificant and unimportant rides in the big picture, i.e. reducing congestion etc.

    Bob T

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    they are insignificant and unimportant rides in the big picture, i.e. reducing congestion etc.

    The only people who can reduce congestion are the people who create it. But there is a real misunderstanding if people think the bulk of trips, even during rush hour, are commuters going from work to home. Mom and dad picking up the kids who could be taking a bus with their skateboards are a part of the traffic problem and they probably tolerate (and therefore create) more congestion than most of us.

  • Lee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Dan Grady and others: The following is not saying that mass transit is bad or anything else you want to read into it-its fact and needs to be considered. Most of my work associates, friends, neighbors cannot exist without the use of vehicles. For example: 1.Well driller-try moving a 40 ton drill on tri-met or commuting to the drill site everyday out in the suburbs using mass transit; 2.Insurance agent-try seeing seven clients at their place of businesses, homes, etc. using mass transit 3.21 construction co. owners using mass transit to haul site materials, visit city hall for endless permits, seeing four on-going constructions sites spread over the tri-county; 4.Medical care workers that visits from three to five medical facilities with notebooks, patient files, therapy equipment using mass transit; 5. 3 tile setters, 4 plumbers, 5 electricians, 3 cabinet makers, etc. taking all their tools, materials via mass transit; 6. Six doctors with patients at two or more facilities, with extreme time constraints using mass transit; 7. Several shop owners with goods to collect or disperse around the metro area using mass transit; 8. Three restaurant owners/managers that see more than two restaurants with goods, staff for fill-in tasks, etc. trying to use mass transit; 9. Coffee roaster owner with clients all over the metro area and beyond putting out fires, delivering goods, calling on new clients, etc., trying to use mass transit;

    I think you get the picture because I could go on and on. Most of my associates and friend's world cannot exist without vehicles which brings you so many of the services that your family has and will use.

    Sure, very occasionally maybe mass transit could be used in the above, but really very seldom. No vehicles may work for you, but even you are keeping your drivers license-you need that break for the coast or mountain trip. But please do not look down on us that use vehicles to keep others and yourself functioning.

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Dan Grady:

    To the extent that Robber Barons manipulated government during the industrial age was curbed by the political reality of a popular elections electing Teddy Roosevelt which introduced a popular movement for national food regulations, the end of child labor, and the end of monopolies, among other changes.

    Bob Tiernan:

    The so-called robber barons (not a bad label for many of them) manipulated government like many others manipulated and tried to manipulate it. It's to be expected -- that's what vigilence is for. The existence of people and groups seeking favorable legislation is not a sign that the system is failing or is no good. Note that there is a lot more such manipulation since government has even more power to pick winners and losers.

    As for your hero Teddy Roosevelt, you can have him. He's highly overrated. Contrary to popular myth, there was even more business concentration after Teddy's reforms.

    But myths serve a purpose if that's what you like. Just like those naive kids who wear Che T-shirts. If celebrating someone with murder record is their thing...

    Dan Grady:

    As for the meat cutter's regulations, would this be the convoluted revisionist history of the Neo-Cons....

    Bob Tiernan:

    Hold it! Quit using that term "Neo-Cons". I don't even know or care what it means any longer, and they are clearly not the only source of information that you disagree with.

    Dan Grady:

    ....telling the story of Lewis Sinclair's "Jungle" to be a complete fiction as though he never saw a meat packing operation in Chicago??

    Bob Tiernan:

    Nope. I'm aware of some information from the past few years that casts doubt on some of it, but I don't even have to go there when discussing the information I have regarding this issue. It doesn't matter at all whether or not it was fiction because the regulations did, in fact, come about, and it's that result I look at as well as documented efforts leading to regulation that started long before Sinclair grew out of his knickers.

    Dan Grady:

    The truth was freely available to any citizen who lived in Chicago, talk to the many exploited meat packers to know this.

    Bob Tiernan:

    I'm not sure about that. It has been pointed out that it was no secret what it was like in a meat processing plant and that if people were getting turned into sausages it would have been known long before Sinclair came to Chicago. But like I said, I don't need to go there.

    Dan Grady:

    I would think a good sniff of the air would have been pretty enlightening.

    Bob Tiernan:

    What would that have proven, other than that such places can stink? Places like that can stink, certainly in 1901, without anything illegal going on.

    But to even briefly address the meatpacking regulation issue, I will remind you first that even Sinclair admitted years later (in the 1930s) that his book led to reforms in a different area than he envisioned, and that they didn't really address his concerns.

    Now, briefly, there were state and municipal regulations for a few decades prior to 1900, and while they may not have been what we would consider wonderful, some of them were what reformers were asking for. But the bigger issue was how the meat packers were losing money by having foreign markets closed to American meat due to batches of bad meat that got on the shelves or at least to foreign loading docks. These incidents did not have to be examples of companies trying to sneak bad meat out of the plant before anyone could notice, but merely proof that the 1880's and 1890's were primitive compared to today, with no malice needing to be seen behind every tree and under every company president's desk.

    Since European governments, and other nations such as Argentina and Brazil, banned American meat for years, it stands to reason that there is a penalty to pay for shipping bad meat, and an incentive to root it out. Or pehaps you believe that doctors using leeches in 1659 knew better but were too cheap or "unregulated" to know better.

    Anyway, the major, and many smaller, meat packers wanted regulations for two reasons: to obtain inspections that foreign governments would take seriously (i.e. "USDA Inspected"), and to drive some or many of the competition (small packers) out of business.

    Let's deal with the first one. A private inspection firm, similar to Underwriters Laboratories, could very well have weeded out bad meat even more efficiently than the US Dep't of Agriculture. But the packers doubted that the Germans, for example, would look at sides of beef coming in with stamps that said, "Inspected by American Liberty Meat Inspection Co.", and be satisifed. But stamps that said, "Inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture" would garner more respect, even if the inspector on certain days was on a two day drunk while sides of beef were passing him on the line.

    Also, there was an issue regarding who was going to pay for the inspections. With U.L., companies that make electrical equipment like to get the approval because they know lots of stores would not otherwise carry their items unless they were assured that various safety issues were designed out of the products (and no, I've not looked into why UL exists as a private entity, unlike meat inspection). They have to pay for the inspection, and then pass on the costs of the inspections to the customers. That's as it should be. But the meat packers didn't want to have to raise the price of meat products, so they demaned and received government meat inspection, paid for by vegetarians as well as meat eaters. Now was that fair? Anyway, they got their foreign customers back, but did meat improve much? Well, Sinclair himself said years later that the result of reforms triggered by his book was that good meat was identified and sent to Europe while the bad meat was sold to Americans.

    Dan Grady:

    Teddy Roosevelt was not so sheltered as to not be able to verify this imformation for himself, so to beleive this story is to beleive that Teddy Roosevelt never took the time to see for his self, and that I have a real problem with!

    Bob Tiernan:

    Hmmmm, seems that your having a "problem" with that passes for actual knowledge of the situation. In other words, your "myth" is being questioned.

    Don't worry about it. Teddy was an interesting, if over rated figure. I particularly dislike his militaristic attitude and wonder why progressives adore this man who makes Bush seem like a pacifist. Also, one myth is that Teddy ran against his former VP Taft in 1916 because Taft was supposedly "too soft" on corporations. But in one term, Taft's administration took four times as many corporations to court as did Teddy in nealy eight years.

    Please feel free to ask me more questions about all of this.

    Bob Tiernan

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Facts Count?:

    Back off. JK has never been known to let a fact stand in the way of bending it to his truth. May the car set you free, your paradise paved and your lungs filled with benzene. It's a beautiful life. Stop being so critical- I think that an episode of Green Acres is coming on. Curl up with an Ayn Rand classic and Dream the American Dream.

    Bob Tiernan:

    The issue of polluting automobiles has become one that many of your peers (if not yourself) hide behind. I'm 100% certain that is a non-polluting automobile were invented it would still be attacked because it would still allow the common man (your alleged heroes, when in fact they are better defended by me and Karlock) to achieve greater potential and enjoy more freedom than ever before. One day that car will be invented, and you will all have to announce yourselves as permanent car haters. At that time you will lose most of your support.

    Bob Tiernan

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Torrid Joe:

    Actually lin, there IS something approaching a holy writ as to how gas taxes are spent. According to this paper from the Road and Transportation Builders Association, 84% goes to highways, 15% to mass transit.

    Bob Tiernan:

    And that 15% is a gift from car users to mass transit users.

    Bob Tiernan

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Dan Grady:

    ....telling the story of Lewis Sinclair's "Jungle"

    Bob T:

    I didn't catch that the first time. You confuse Sinclair Lewis with Upton Sinclair. The former wrote such novels as "Arrowsmith" and "Dodsworth" (the latter turned into a fabulous movie in 1936).

    Dan Grady:

    Teddy Roosevelt was not so sheltered as to...

    Bob T:

    Oh, just thought I'd add that I'm currently reading a well-received 1971 book on Teddy's Rough Riders, a unit that included an Ivy Leaguer named Nick Fish (killed a day or two before San Juan Hill), great or great-great uncle of Portland's Nick Fish.

    Bob Tiernan

  • Hawthorne (unverified)
    (Show?)

    One day that car will be invented, and you will all have to announce yourselves as permanent car haters. At that time you will lose most of your support.

    Bob,

    You are the hater. If that kind of car was invented I think most here would stand up and cheer. In the meantime, just who much support do you have for your ideas?

    That's what I thought...

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    torridjoe: JK is full of it. For one thing, urban fatality rates for cars are MUCH lower than national rates, or even state rates--so he's not even using the right figures. JK: Thanks for clearing up a detail and providing a more fair comparison to MAX fatalities.

    torridjoe: Trimet's annual ridership stats, FY02 - 05, inclusive: 617,657,772 rail passenger miles JK: OK, lets use your cherry-picked number.

    torridjoe: Portland Tribune, 3/06 most recent death, 2002. So let's see...that's .16 fatalities per 100mil passenger mile on rail. JK: Joe, I’d love to shove this one down your throat, but the Tibune just plain goofed. The Oregonian reported MAX deaths on the following dates (date of the paper, not the death): October 10, 2002; June 24, 2003; September 30, 2005; May 16, 2006. But don’t forget to include the 2002 death BEFORE the one mentioned in the article: January 6, 2002. Also keep in mind that there were two in 2001that you are “cherry picking” out. But just add those 5 deaths and you have to multiply your 0.16 by 5 to get 0.80, which is a bit above you motor vehicle number of 0.32 (below). Actually about 250% higher.

    torridjoe: What's the city motor vehicle equivalent? From PSU's Transportation System Performance Report (google it), reference pdf pg 47. Portland's fatalities per 100mil vehicle miles has run between .3 and .7 over the past decade or so, most recently hovering right around .5 per. Let's go ahead and take jim's figure of 1.57 passenger miles per vehicle mile, and you get .32 fatalities per 100mil passenger mile. JK: Above explains the rest of Joe’s data.

    JK: No hard feelings, it was the tribune’s mistake.

    BTW, you don’t get a pass your criticism of my costs either, but I am short on time just now.

    Thanks JK

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Most of my work associates, friends, neighbors cannot exist without the use of vehicles.

    Lee -

    I don't think the question is whether people should use a motor vehicle when that is appropriate. The current road system will get you just about anywhere you need to go. In fact, we have already built far more road capacity than is needed for that purpose and as a result a lot of that expensive infrastructure sits idle a lot of the time.

    The problem is that the road system slows down a lot when everyone decides to travel at the same time. And many of those trips are optional as to time, place and mode. So if we could get people to change to another mode, travel at a different time or choose a closer location, we would have plenty of capacity for the trips where those aren't really options. High quality transit does that. It gets people out of their cars. So do improved pedestrian and bike facilities. And each of those people who make that choice leaves a little more space for the essential trips the capacity was built for.

    My mother used to complain when we ate up all her christmas cookies that she didn't have any left for company. We told her she just didn't bake enough. The truth is, if she had baked more we would have eaten more. That's the way adding road capacity for essential trips works as well. There is a lot more capacity to make use of roads than there is capacity to build them.

  • DAN GRADY (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bob, your a nut!

  • DAN GRADY (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bob, sorry about that, I got so bored reading JK, I got you mixed up with him.

    Correction: "JK, you're a nut!"

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    DAN GRADY"JK, you're a nut!" JK: I take it that you cannot find flaws in my argument, so you resort to personal attacks.

    Thanks JK

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bob T:

    One day that car will be invented, and you will all have to announce yourselves as permanent car haters. At that time you will lose most of your support.

    Hawthorne:

    You are the hater. If that kind of car was invented I think most here would stand up and cheer.

    Bob T:

    I certainly hope so. But a few minutes later when y'all realize that these cars, like current cars, encourage "sprawl", the hate returns. No?

    Hawthorne:

    That's what I thought...

    Bob T:

    You were wrong then.

  • Urban Planning Overlord (unverified)
    (Show?)

    85% of gas tax goes to roads, 15% to transit.

    If the 15% went to roads instead of transit, transit would suffer. More people would be using the roads, resulting in more congestion and wear/tear, resulting in more road expenditures, resulting in a higher gas tax.

    By removing cars from the road, gas tax expenditures on transit actually help automobile drivers by removing trips from the roadways, and reducing the need for higher taxes.

    Got it, Bob and JK?

    www.urbanplanningoverlord.blogspot.com

  • (Show?)

    Is this the same Bob Tiernan that got smacked in a column about disrespecting mountain climbers in The O's editorial pages today?

    "In 1995 when then-state Rep. Bob Tiernan opened the public hearing on what became Oregon's rescue cost recovery law, he said: 'This bill is about those jokers up on the mountain.'"

  • lin qiao (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sometimes I think all one really needs to know about the Tiernan/Karlock et al. libertarian fantasy is right there in that dubiously classic novel The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, one of the intellectual lights of the libertarian movement. I mean, how many other novels do you know of in which the "hero" is a rapist? If you haven't read the book and don't believe me, do a Google search with the keywords "Howard Roark" and "rape".

  • Urban Planning Overlord (unverified)
    (Show?)

    With all due respect, Lin, The Fountainhead is, IMHO, a great book. Many great heroes of fiction have character flaws, even Howard Roark. I happen to also think Atlas Shrugged is a great book. And We the Living, one of her earlier works, is a great expose of the evils of Russian Communism, circa 1920.

    But acknowledging that Ayn Rand is a great author of fiction doesn't mean one has to acknowledge that she presents a great world view, or that her political philosophy is one that can realistically be the dominant political paradigm. She presents a useful antidote to collecitivist impulses among us all, reminding us not to forget the individual, espeically the talented individual. But anyone who follows her political nostrums to the exclusion of others is on a seriuosly wrong track.

  • (Show?)

    OK, no more Ayn Rand chatter - that's off-topic.

  • (Show?)

    Is this the same Bob Tiernan that got smacked in a column about disrespecting mountain climbers in The O's editorial pages today?

    TJ -- No, it's not. Those of us chatting about Oregon politics online since the days of alt.oregon.politics know that there are two Bob Tiernans in Oregon. One is the rabid right-wing union-buster and former state rep from Lake Osweego. The other is the libertarian from Gresham.

    The one from Gresham is the one that's hanging out at BlueOregon these days.

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bob Tiernan:

    they [skateboarders, office people on short lunch rides] are insignificant and unimportant rides in the big picture, i.e. reducing congestion etc.

    Ross Williams:

    they are insignificant and unimportant rides in the big picture, i.e. reducing congestion etc.

    The only people who can reduce congestion are the people who create it. But there is a real misunderstanding if people think the bulk of trips, even during rush hour, are commuters going from work to home. Mom and dad picking up the kids who could be taking a bus with their skateboards are a part of the traffic problem and they probably tolerate (and therefore create) more congestion than most of us.

    Bob Tiernan:

    Those rides exist merely to pad ridership numbers. Here's a good and accurate way to look at these trips, from a transit expert:

    "Fareless square rides are insignificant as they do not impact congestion or auto use. The trips are so small, nobody would take a car out of parking to make them. If the trips were not on transit for free, those trips would be done by walking. For the money, what was gained?"

    I hope this helps.

    Bob Tiernan

  • (Show?)

    I don't know who that "transit expert" is, but they're full of crap. Who walks from 10th street SW to Lloyd Center?

    You can't tell me people don't get in their cars and drive to lunch downtown; I watch it happen every day.

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ross Willians High quality transit does that. It gets people out of their cars. JK: Maybe, but it is cheaper to build roads. Look at the projected cost of the Vancouver light rail: $300,000 for every person attracted out of their car. It would be cheaper to buy them condos in the pearl

    Thanks JK

  • Krackpot (unverified)
    (Show?)

    JK,

    Your theories and data have already been shredded on this site. You make assertions that cherry pick data and are demonstrably false without providing a shred o evidence to back them up. You've already been asked to find your own blog. Please do.

    Thanks.

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Torrid Joe:

    I don't know who that "transit expert" is, but they're full of crap. Who walks from 10th street SW to Lloyd Center?

    Bob T:

    Nobody -- those would be trips that would not be made since the workers would probably brown bag it or eat lunch at a nearby corner cafe instead.

    Torrid Joe:

    You can't tell me people don't get in their cars and drive to lunch downtown; I watch it happen every day.

    Bob T:

    Go back and re-read what I had written earlier. I referred to lunch trips taken by the many downtown workers - one downtown location to another. With a free Max ride, why not? But if Max wasn't there, or the ride costs $3.00, those riders wouldn't be there, and they wouldn't drive instead. Hence, no congestion relief. The skateboard kids are in the same category - except for the job.

    Bob Tiernan

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Krackpot: Your theories and data have already been shredded on this site. JK: Wrong - show us where that occurred.

    Krackpot: You make assertions that cherry pick data and are demonstrably false without providing a shred o evidence to back them up. JK: Wrong - show us where that occurred.

    Thanks JK

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bold off again

  • Frank Carper (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jim. Buddy. Give it a rest. Or better yet, take Kari's excellent suggestion and start your own blog where you can directly communicate to those who want to hear from you.

    We don't.

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Frank Carper:

    Jim. Buddy. Give it a rest. Or better yet, take Kari's excellent suggestion and start your own blog where you can directly communicate to those who want to hear from you.

    We don't.

    Bob Tiernan:

    You don't? In other words, you're not interested in hearing an opposing view from someone who does indeed present loads of facts that don't support your own positions.

    Facts are stubborn things. Find out what they are.

    Bob Tiernan

  • Whatever (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bob,

    If only you and JK knew the difference between a "fact" and a cogent argument that managed to string them together to make a compelling case.

    Indeed, facts are stubborn things. Take a little less of the libertarian kool aide, take a look in the mirror and check back in with us when you are ready to debate instead of rant.

    Peace and sanity.

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Whatever:

    Indeed, facts are stubborn things. Take a little less of the libertarian kool aide, take a look in the mirror and check back in with us when you are ready to debate instead of rant.

    Bob T:

    I don't rant. Can you dispute what I wrote about meat packing regulations? I get my history of that from a progressive historian who had respect for facts. They are stubborn, you know.

    Bob Tiernan

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bob T:

    It's not like there's no gas tax collected and that the Congress simply says, "Gee, how much will we spend on road projects this year out of the general fund?"

    lin qiao:

    So what, Mr. Tiernan? The fact is, gas tax is a tax. First, there's no Holy Writ saying it must be spent on road construction. Congress or state legislatures may create such rules, but that's a policy choice.

    Bob T:

    This is outrageous! Sure, legislatures can make rules regarding how money is spent, but that's another issue and doesn't change the fact that gas taxes are paid by auto users in addition to other taxes they pay like everyone else, and were meant to be the main way auto users would pay for the roads they use and need so as to avoid having non-users subsidize them with their property and income and sales taxes.

    When you treat that revenue as "just a tax" that is thus not tied to anything is corruption and dishonest. Jeez, man, after all the talk about how drivers need to pay their own way you guys come up with such a system (gas taxes) and then treat it as if it's "general fund" money and then accuse the drivers of getting 100% subsidized all over again! Get real!

    lin qiao:

    Second, even if you say gas taxes have to go to "transportation", why say road construction is "transportation" but buses, or subsidized bus fares, are not?

    Bob T:

    I don't say that. But in some states, such as Oregon, since auto users and trucks use the roads and not the railroad tracks or buses the gas taxes they pay are supposed to go to road uses. But of course, there's cheating going on when road money gets used for a "road" project that merely has the word "road" or "street" in the project title. Again, think of it as a user fee. Would it bother you if half of national park fees were dedicated to filling pot holes in major municipalities? Of course you would. Such a diversion would be dishonest and a mockery of the whole idea behind a user fee.

    Another example would be the increases in the state cigarette taxes. The last time this was raised in Oregon, I believe, was Measure 44 some years back. But if you read the measure, more than half of the increased revenues, or nearly half, was to be dedicated not to future medical care for smokers but to road maintenance. That's dishonest and a mockery of a user fee.

    Besides, you want drivers to pay all of those gas taxes -- and it amounts to an incredible amount of money when you add up all state and the national gas taxes -- yet ask transit users to pay more than a 20% fare recovery cost and you cry bloody murder. Auto users and trucks pay so much in gas taxes that they subsidize bus and light rail users, not the other way around.

    lin qiao:

    [Karlock/Tiernan] work themselves into a lather about how buses and MAX are "subsidized", but deliberately turn a blind to the obvious fact that the road construction and maintenance are just more expenditure of taxes ALSO for the common good.

    Bob T:

    No, we don't fail to see that, but we do see (which you don't) that unlike the users of rail and buses, the auto and truck users pay billions and billions in gas taxes -- enough to pay their way or nearly so, only to see large chunks of this gas tax money go to non-road related projects. You ought to be honest enough to admit that. You want auto users to pay 100%, but rail and bus users to pay less than 20% and maybe even zero.

    lin qiao:

    They cannot stand the idea that people might do anything collectively, even if it's as innocent as riding a bus or a MAX train together.

    Bob T:

    I don't know about JK, but I can stand that idea just fine.

    lin qiao:

    By the way, Mr. Tiernan: What's with the blather about "general fund"? I've always wondered what in the world a politican even means by that.

    Bob T:

    You don't know what "general fund" means, and you vote? That's frightening! But anyway, general fund money is fair game to be spent on anything, hopefully honestly but rarely so.

    To demand that auto users "pay their way" and then take their taxes and spend it on something else is dishonest and corrupt.

    lin qiao:

    Taxes come in as revenue, go out as expenditures.

    Bob T:

    Alright then, under that POV what would be wrong with taking 100% of state park user fees and handing it over to the OLCC?

    lin qiao:

    (Well, in principle: Republicans are of course more comfortable with borrow-and-spend than tax-and-spend.)

    Bob T:

    Spare us the Democrat talking points.

    lin qiao:

    As I noted above about gas tax, it's the legislators who DECIDE which taxes go into, for purely accounting purposes, a "general fund" as opposed to various "dedicated funds". It's all about accounting and arbitrary, politically/legislatively defined labels, not about Holy Writ.

    Bob T:

    Like I said, don't collect billions in gas taxes in order for the users to "pay their way" and then treat the revenues as if it was collected as property or income taxes. When you do that, you can accuse the drivers of still paying zero. That's dishonest. It would be, as someone said on "The Outlaw Josey Wales", pissing down my back and telling me it's raining.

    Bob Tiernan

  • Raining (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bob: users pay billions and billions in gas taxes -- enough to pay their way or nearly so

    Bob, take a look at your history books, your accounting books, your reality books. They may pay billions, but they don't pay their way.

    For someone who talks about the "facts" as if they are the holy grail, you fall short.

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Person hiding behind “Raining”

    Bob: users pay billions and billions in gas taxes -- enough to pay their way or nearly so

    Bob, take a look at your history books, your accounting books, your reality books. They may pay billions, but they don't pay their way. JK: The best figures that I have seen say that road fees pay around 90% of the cost of all roads, nationally.(It is about 100% in Portland). But they also pay for a big chunk of mass transit through part of the federal gas tax being taken to support money losing transit.

    Compare that to transit users paying around 30% of their own cost, nationally. 20% in Portland. That 30% is probably dominated by high density regions such as NY, LA & Chicago, with the rest of the country being more like Portland. Of course other taxpayers are paying 70-80% of the actual cost of the very few that use transit outside of NYC, LA Chicago.

    So what if 100% of the people pay for something (roads) used by 90% of the people, that is pretty fair isn’t it?

    On the other hand if 100% of the people pay for something (transit) used by only 5% of the people, that is called welfare. Unless the recipients are needy, it should be stopped. At the very least we need to set transit fares at 90% of the real cost then give vouchers to the needy. That would be the fair and just thing to do - cut off welfare to the wealthy & help the needy.

    Person hiding behind “Raining” For someone who talks about the "facts" as if they are the holy grail, you fall short. JK: You have no facts. And you are wrong again. You are just spewing the mindless rhetoric of the radical greens and other freedom hating, prosperity hating, car haters who want society go backwards 100 years..

    Thanks JK

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Urban Planning Overlord:

    85% of gas tax goes to roads, 15% to transit.

    If the 15% went to roads instead of transit, transit would suffer.

    Bob T:

    Why is that the auto-user's responsibility when they pay gas taxes? Do you think you could raise more of that 15% by charging transit users higher fares? Or is it a dirty little secret that usage has to be at least 80% subsidized in order to get the ridership that it does get, however small compared to many other real cities (that is, ridership on a per capita basis). A better designed system (both buses and rails) could attract more riders, but Tri-Met, with the politicians behind it, is a lousy agency. And why would anyone think that it would improve by placing an EPA bureaucratchik in charge (another Goldschmidt boy I guess, just like when Tom Walsh, also unqualified, got the job after helping Goldschmidt's gubenatorial campaign.

    Urban Planning Overlord:

    More people would be using the roads, resulting in more congestion and wear/tear, resulting in more road expenditures, resulting in a higher gas tax.

    Bob T:

    Your mistake is in assuming that they would buy cars and start using them. You don't know that. Many would. Many wouldn't. Besides, gas taxes would not have to go up -- more users means more revenues because more gallons would be sold. No need to raise the rates, unless, of course, more of it is siphoned off to non-road use.

    Urban Planning Overlord:

    By removing cars from the road, gas tax expenditures on transit actually help automobile drivers by removing trips from the roadways, and reducing the need for higher taxes.

    Bob T:

    Nice story, but so few cars are removed that it doesn't matter, and gas taxes wouldn't have to go up, anyway, as I explained above. Interesting how you guys are always trying to mask your money-for-transit ideas as some kind of plan to aid the auto which you despise so much.

    Urban Planning Overlord:

    Got it, Bob and JK?

    Bob T:

    There was nothing to get.

    Bob Tiernan

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    urbanplanningoverlord:

    I applaud Dan Grady for his ability to be car-free, which is his choice. I'm glad that the Portland area provides Dan Grady this choice - although that choice remains very imperfect, has Rex Burkholder so aptly notes - especially for those of us that live in the suburbs.

    Bob T:

    Why limit yourself to just the jobs that exist in the city center area or not too far from there? Take a couple that wants to maximize their income (naturally), and they live in near Laurelhurst Park. The husband has a very well-paying marketing job based in downtown. His wife, also a professional working downtown, believes she has the experience to change jobs and get at least a 25% increase in pay. By far the best choice for her, it turns out, is one in Hillsboro, about three miles from the MAX tracks. But that MAX ride plus bus portion of trip, and waiting for transfers, makes for very long commutes. On test runs she discovers that driving is superior (it is in many way,s for I know people who commute to Hillsboro and Tigard from NE and who get home sonner and can leave later in the morning than if they take transit). She opts to take that job and use her car. Would you prefer that she not take that job just to "be a good citizen"?

    Or would you solve the problem by banning companies from suburbs (municipalities and cities in their own right - after all, who the hell gave Portland the right to be the owner of all companies and school children and working people?). Or would you solve the problem by a totalitarian law in which the State matches jobs to people so as to reduce commutes? Please tell us.

    I also remember seeing an Oregonian story of a guy in his late 20s who bought an 800 SF loft apartment in the Pearl for $100,000 (that was dumb) and who commutes by rail to Hillsboro. But what if he gets laid off? What if he senses after a few years that his job is a dead end and it starts to get him down? Should he limit himnself to just those companies along a rail or bus line? You can't have enough rail to take people everywhere, and you do need the roads for the buses to cover other areas, more cheaply than rail of course.

    There was another Oregonian story some years back about a California man who moved up here and found his dream job in SW Portland. He was a self identified Greenie. But where did he choose to buy a house? McMinnville!

    urbanplanningoverlord:

    What it comes down to is CHOICE. Jim Karlock and Bob Tiernan appear to be quite happy with a transportation system that gives only passenger vehicle owners a transportation choice, that subsidizes that choice

    Bob T:

    No, that's not the way it is and we wouldn't be happy with that situation even if it were true.

    I also resent the continued effort to portray auto use as if it's higly subsidized despite the fact that gas taxes collected are enough to pay for necessary road work, particularly when none of it is siphoned off for other projects. You also portray transit use as if it is not subsidized when it is highly subsidized by people who do not use it, and gets most of its money from the auto user!

    urbanplanningoverlord:

    and that gives no choice to those who can't or won't use passenger vehicles as their chosen mode of transportation.

    Bob T:

    Stop this nonsense. For example, I favor (and so would JK) repealing all laws that criminalize "jitney" type operations of owner-operated cabs, whether individuals or several people sharing one vehicle in 8-hour shifts, and without them having to adhere to viability-crushing mandates such as having to serve the entire city as opposed to, say, operating solely in the St. Johns-Kent area, or in any part of Portland east of I-205. We have a mercantalist taxi cab system, mistakenly and ignorantly referred to as a free enterprise cab system by too many people. I want to see lots of low income and other people have the choice of such a transportation option that would fill gaps not served by Tri-Met. But jitney or similar owner-operated, minimally regulated transport service was banned many decades ago under the guise of protecting the consumer (in another example of "managing" the economy) but which was really done at the behest of street car companies. Jitneys gave us a glimpse of the advantages of bus service which grew later on, i.e. rubber wheeled road-based service that was far more flexible than rail. Despite the famous GM conspiracy theory, by the way, buses replaces rail because more people wanted them and they were flexible in so many ways. Companies that owned both bus and rail lines did run them together for some time and did not shut rail overnight (with some possible exceptions). You see, the idea was similar to a film studio buying a TV station in the 1950s. They didn't give people a test pattern so as to force them out to the movie theater, but saw it as increasing their customer base that included people who would watch TV but not films, or go to the movies rarely. But these transit companies, despite thinking they were increasing the commuter base by owning both rail and bus lines, discovered that rail was losing money, was inflexible, less reliable and so on. So out they went. No GM conspiracy is needed to explain that one.

    urbanplanningoverlord:

    I'm glad Rex Burkholder has clarified - he wants to give people a choice that they don't now have, not take away a choice (passenger vehicle usage) that they already have.

    Bob T:

    I'd like to know what he thinks of jitney service.

    I was one of thirteen people who testified in Salem in 2001 in favor of a bill that would have ended anti-free enterprise bans on jitney service. Even Avel Gordly voted for it (it passed the senate, but was held up in the house by a rep who was in Tri-Met's pocket). All thirteen of us had nothing to gain from jitney service save for a ride once in a while. But the dozen or so opponents speaking there were all people who had something to gain -- taxi cab representative, city licensing bureaucrat, Port of Portland bureaucrat, Portland city hall rep, and so on. Not a single one of them, save for a handicapped transit user, was a regular person who feared jitney service or what effect such a bill might have on existing service let alone passenger "safety". Democracy in action? Heh - the "little guys", the people, were in favor while it was special interests that squashed it.

    Bob Tiernan

  • (Show?)

    Re: jitneys. Bob T: banned many decades ago under the guise of protecting the consumer

    Um, Bob, would you really want to see a city in which any person with a car can just pull up to a hotel, airport, restaurant, etc. and could offer rides to people? It seems to me that that's a surefire prescription for robbery, rape, kidnapping, and more.

    When I get into a yellow cab - marked with all the customary markings of an approved cab - and see the photo ID license, I know that I can trust that that driver is going to drive me to my destination at the customary rate, without fear of violence or fraud.

    Now, should we rapidly and substantially increase the number of permitted cabs? Sure. That sounds fine to me. But to move to an unregulated system, where any thug in a sedan can pull into a hotel's taxi line - and pick up a well-to-do out-of-towner... well, you're never going to get public support for that.

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari ChisholmUm, Bob, would you really want to see a city in which any person with a car can just pull up to a hotel, airport, restaurant, etc. and could offer rides to people? It seems to me that that's a surefire prescription for robbery, rape, kidnapping, and more. JK: That is why you still license them, but make the only requirements for licensing safety related.

    None of this protecting from competetion stuff. That is corporate welfare.

    Thanks JK

  • (Show?)

    JK -- would you include a regulated rate structure in your deregulated world? After all, there's hardly 'competition' in the taxicab/jitney world. The out-of-town traveler doesn't have much information ("how far is it to my hotel?") and your choice of cabs is often limited to the one that drives by, or is first in line at a cabstand.

    If every cab had different rates and rate structures ("oh, but after 10 miles, there's a $25 surcharge!") then getting into a cab would be like playing a reverse lottery - ya never know how much you're going to pay.

  • jim karlock (unverified)
    (Show?)

    No regulated rates, but regulate rip-offs. A fine line sometimes.

    A good start would be to outlaw all sorts of fines by the private sector. (late fees, over limit fees and the like).

    This would be a good progressive cause for the new legislature.

    Thanks JK

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    JK:

    That is why you still license [jitneys], but make the only requirements for licensing safety related.

    None of this protecting from competetion stuff. That is corporate welfare.

    Bob T:

    That's right. And ever notice that the progressives and others like to call government privileges to a business "fascism"? Yet that's exactly what they support regarding taxi cab legislation -- picking a privileged few to own the companies and then guaranteeing their survival by keeping competition away etc, all for "the good of the people".

    That's funny, the free marketers, the ones the progs say will give us fascism, are the ones who want to get rid of that government-business partnership.

    Bob T

    <hr/>
in the news 2006

connect with blueoregon