Harrington ran an excellent campaign. I've never seen a candidate work harder than she did. If I have to lose to someone, I'm glad it was to someone who clearly beat me fair and square.

I hope folks at Blue Oregon will engage with her -- she seems like someone who will keep an open mind and an open door.

Cheers.

-Tom Cox

Oregonian/Kathryn: People are really pleased that we have a wider array of housing choices than we had 10 years ago. JK: I hope she has the common sense to realize that people need affordable housing, not just choices. And that means ending the artificial shortage of land so that people can once again afford a house with a (gasp!) back yard - one big enough to give a sense of nature without driving to a park. One big enough to grow food if peak oil actually happens and big enough for energy independence. A sense of place in your own backyard, not a condo rec room.

Oregonian/Kathryn: Certainly, people mention transportation as part of the concerns for growth as well. JK: Well, duh!! We recently had the nation’s worst increase in traffic congestion.

I hope she is enough of a nurd to look at real data and realize that metro policies of forced high density are increasing traffic congestion. If she truely looks at facts, she will conclude that light rail is complete and utter waste of money as a transportation option. Even its well informed proponents are no longer talking of rail as an effective transit mode, instead they emphasize it as a development tool - a tool to cause high density development, that no one wants except well connected developers who are looking to make a killing building garbage and getting tax abatements. We need true transportation choices that are proven to work(light rail is not an increased choice since they always discontinue the bus service along a light rail line to force people to rail)

Tom Cox I hope folks at Blue Oregon will engage with her -- she seems like someone who will keep an open mind and an open door. JK: Lets hope so. Our region can only stand so much more of Metro’s failed policies of trying to replicate Los Angeles, with its infamous traffic congestion.

Thanks JK

Kari Chisholm: Two scenarios: You can sit in bumper-to-bumper traffic for 20 minutes to go 5 miles - or drive 60 mph for 20 minutes to go 20 miles? JK: What does that have to do with reality? Generally speaking it is the dense cities that have longer commute times. Density also costs more (that’s why they have to subsidize it), leaving people less money for other things in life. Density doesn’t have places for kids to play, putting them in the street. Density increases pollution by putting all the pollution sources closer together.

Kari Chisholm: but is it SOOO much more annoying that it justifies the consumption of land, JK: What is wrong with “the consumption of land”? We have lots of it. Heck in the some parts of the country, they are even abandoning farms.

Kari Chisholm: urban sprawl, and JK: What is wrong with letting people live where they want? Instead of crammed together in one of Homer’s holes?

Kari Chisholm: consequent negative impacts on quality of life that are implied by the latter choice? JK: Care to name any real negative impacts?

Kari Chisholm: Again, keep in mind that we're talking about the same amount of time to drive home from wherever. JK: No, were not. Generally speaking it is the dense cities that have longer commute times. Jobs are no longer concentrated in the central cities, instead they are spread out all over.

Thanks JK

What a fucking retard. STFU "JK."

Christ, what are you, the prophet?

I've got to say: I know Kathryn Harrington. She's smart, dedicated, and fair-minded, and the decisions she makes will reflect not her ideology, but her deep understanding of the facts. We could not have done better in selecting her as metro councilor.

I'd also like to thank Tom Cox for his classy comment at the beginning of this thread. If class like that were more common in politics, the rhetoric among our policymakers might not be so poisonous.

Evan Manvel: Commute times have stayed remarkably consistent over the years -- in the 20-to-30 minute category. JK: Tell that to people on I5 in North Portland from 3pm to around 7 pm. Or on I84 or I 205 at about the same times. It can take 30 min to go from the Rose quarter to the Interstate bridge. (Statistics cover up a lot of sins.)

Evan Manvel: transportation choices to the million Oregonians who can't drive, JK: Millions? This state’s total population is only 3.6 million. Are you claiming that over ½ of Oregon’s population can’t drive?

Thanks JK

I'm not sure what your point is, JK, but the assertion you're quoting from Evan is that a million Oregonians can't drive. You then say that the state's total population is 3.6 million, and finally argue by insinuation that Evan's number is ridiculous because it would suggest that over half of the population of Oregon can't drive. There is a problem with the math there. 1/3.6 is just under 28%, not over 50%. If you include people without cars, many seniors, the visually or developmentally disabled, and kids under the age of sixteen (not to mention kids between 16 and 18 who don't have driver's licenses), it seems reasonable to believe that 28% of Oregonians can't drive. I'm still not sure that number is correct, but I haven't done much of the legwork yet.

My guess, JK, is that you misinterpreted the way Evan phrased it ("the million Oregonians") as "the millions of Oregonians." That's an honest mistake, and I almost did that myself.

Does anyone have a citation as to what the actual number of Oregonians who can't drive is? Evan? Where'd the "million Oregonians" number come from?

Since drivers licenses are needed for identification it would be a mistake to think that all of the 2.8 million actually own cars or are drivers of first choice. I can't find a number for what percentage of licensed drivers actually 1. own cars and 2. drive on a regular basis. Anyone?

Evan Manvel: The actual number of the 3.7 Oregonians with drivers licenses is 2.8 million.

It's roughly 860,000 people without active driver's licenses, and I think it's fair to presume that 140,000 (5%) of the 2.8 million who have drivers' licenses are either to injured, poor, etc. to drive. JK: But you forgot the other side of the equation: Those who get around just fine with the help of family members, especially the children. Some elderly and some spouses. Also add in those who choose not to drive, but are capable.

Take those out of the potential transit pool an put them back in the family and I’ll bet you find only around 5%, or so, truly transit dependent. No where enough to justify the tremendous cost of mass transit, or its energy waste compared to small cars, or its pollution (google: seattle suv bus pollution). Those could be better served by the equal of food stamps, instead of giving away 80% free service to downtown lawyers, executives etc.

Thanks JK

nontamed: What a fucking retard. STFU "JK." JK: I accept you admission that you cannot come up with a logical argument against my statements.

Thanks JK

John Atkins: My guess, JK, is that you misinterpreted the way Evan phrased it ("the million Oregonians") as "the millions of Oregonians." That's an honest mistake, and I almost did that myself.

JK: That is what happened. Sorry. Thanks JK

Jim, since 21% of Oregonians are under 16, if you don't build non-car choices you're simply saying to those people: you don't deserve choices.

You must rely on having a family member who has nothing better to do than be your chauffer, you must impose on your family and friends, you have no independence, and, we, as a society, don't care if it's safe and easy for you to walk and bike and take transit. You have one choice, and that choice depends on other people choosing it at exactly the same time, and from the exact same place to the exact same place.

Suck it up.

Methinks that's not a very smart -- or ethical -- way of providing for everyone's transportation needs.

While it looks like the exact statistics are missing from this discussion, if you presume that 21% are too young to drive and that a certain percentage are too old to drive and that another group is too poor to own a car...we are talking a significant portion of the population.

In JK's World I guess that they should just buy Kias, pray for a 3.5% loan and forget about the additional costs with owning an auto like insurance, gase and repairs.

It's a sweet world, we just are not living in it.

Lets play with numbers <b.evan manvel:<="" b=""> The actual number of the 3.7 Oregonians with drivers licenses is 2.8 million. It's roughly 860,000 people without active driver's licenses, and I think it's fair to presume that 140,000 (5%) of the 2.8 million who have drivers' licenses are either to injured, poor, etc. to drive. Betsy Wilso: Jim, since 21% of Oregonians are under 16 JK: 1. Under 16: 3,700,000 x .21 = 777,000 under 16 2. without driver’s licenses: ...all ages = 860,000 (from above) under 16 = 777,000 (from above) over 16 = 83,000 (subtract the two) Thisa is the toal number of Oregonians over 16 without a driver’s license.

1. Assume those under 16 are evenly distributed, therefore ½ of them are 8 and under: 777,000 / 2 = 388,500 are between the ages of 9 and 16 and therefore might use transit. I am assuming those 8 and under (3rd grade?) are too young to ride transit. Many of these will be forbidden by their parent to be exposed to the dangers of transit. I guess that only 30% would be allowed to use transit, higher percentage as they get older. That leaves 129,500 transit users.

2. Lets total up: over 16 without licenses....83,000 under 16,over 8................129,500 total transit dependent......212,500 statewide (5.7% of the population, 60% juveniles)

3. Portland region is about ½ of the state’s population, only ½ of the above are in the Portland area: 212,500 / 2 = 106,250. (we probably should divide by two again to adjust for those that are not withing 1/4 mile of a transit stop, common in the outer neighborhoods)

Trimet’s annual budget (a couple years ago) was about $600 million. divide the 600 million by the 106,250 and you get $5600 per person. That would buy a lot of taxi fare. Of course most of them could afford their own taxi fare, so we could save massive amounts of money. Perhaps $300 million. Think of how many more Homer’s holes that would build!

(PS: It is late & I did this in a hurry, so there are probably errors. Let me know.)

Thanks JK

<b<betsy wilson:="" <="" b=""> Jim, since 21% of Oregonians are under 16, if you don't build non-car choices you're simply saying to those people: you don't deserve choices. JK: No, you’re not. Most are children whose parents wouldn’t let them be exposed to transit anyway. See my just posted analysis - my guess is around 5%. And many of those could afford their own transport bill. Maybe 2% are truly needy. We could give them taxi fare for a tiny percentage of the Trimet subsidy.

<b<betsy wilson:="" <="" b=""> Suck it up. JK: What the hell does that mean?

Thanks JK

Statistics: While it looks like the exact statistics are missing from this discussion, if you presume that 21% are too young to drive and that a certain percentage are too old to drive and that another group is too poor to own a car...we are talking a significant portion of the population. JK: I am interested in your perspective on my just posted comments on this (above).

Statistics: In JK's World I guess that they should just buy Kias, pray for a 3.5% loan and forget about the additional costs with owning an auto like insurance, gase and repairs. JK: I’m sorry, what did I say about a KIA in this thread? But the cost of Trimet is around double the payments on a KIA, so there is a lot leftover for gas and insurance. Note that they come with a warranty to cover repairs.

Statistics: It's a sweet world, we just are not living in it JK: Right you are, after the planners screwed up Portland.

Thanks JK

Not everyone with a driver's license wants to commute by car. I own a car, but it is not practical for me to commute by car. (There is not enough parking.)

Even if it were practical, I wouldn't want to drive every day. Driving creates unnecessary pollution, is probably causing climate change, and makes us dependent on foreign sources of energy. I don't want to live in a place where I have no choice but to drive.

I'm tired of hearing people complain about how much we are subsidizing public transit. We also subsidize the automobile lifestyle; much of our foreign policy, for example, is about securing access to oil.

I'm not saying that we should ban cars, but we should ensure we can provide other options.

PID: Not everyone with a driver's license wants to commute by car. I own a car, but it is not practical for me to commute by car. (There is not enough parking.) JK: That appears to be the only thing that transit is good at: exporting parking spaces out of downtown.

PID: Even if it were practical, I wouldn't want to drive every day. JK: Your choice, but please pay your full cost - about $10 per ride, $20/day. How much does daily parking cost compared to this?

PID: Driving creates unnecessary pollution, is probably causing climate change, and makes us dependent on foreign sources of energy. JK: Nationally, buses now use more energy than cars. That means that driving causes less climate change than buses (if climate change is man caused. See junkscience.com & climateaudit.org). Since bus transit uses more energy than driving, it makes us more “dependent on foreign sources of energy”.

PID: I don't want to live in a place where I have no choice but to drive. JK: Fine, just pay your own way, instead of Trimet’s charging you 19% of the actual cost.

PID: I'm tired of hearing people complain about how much we are subsidizing public transit. We also subsidize the automobile lifestyle; JK: No we don’t. Cars pay their own way in Portland and most of Oregon.

PID: much of our foreign policy, for example, is about securing access to oil. JK: Transit uses oil too. And in about the same amount, per passenger mile as cars. (Buses)

But suppose we used NO foreign oil: Would we use our power to keep the oil flowing to our trading partners, or would we let the world go into depression due to lack of oil?

Thanks JK

Jenni Simonis Yes, automobile traffic is subsidized. It's in the form of roads, bridges, upkeep to the roads, JK: All of which is paid by road users in Portland and most of Oregon. Gasolene tax, licence fee, weigh-mile tax, parking meter fees. (Some of which is stolen to give to mass transit)

Jenni Simonis dealing with and cleaning up accidents, and more. JK: State police used to be paid from auto taxes (if I recall correctly)

Jenni Simonis And that doesn't include the amount of pollution from cars JK: Total pollution from cars has been going down for decades, even as the number of cars increasers. In Seattle, buses pollute much more than cars. (Google Seattle bus pollution suv)

Jenni Simonis A quick search on Google brought up study after study that shows the pollution per passenger was much, much lower on buses and light rail than vehicles. JK: Are any of them credible? There are a number of study mills set up by the rail and nus industry that are just plain lies. STTP comes to mind also Sierra club cites the worst of them with out accuracy check. At this point I can prove the following: Nationally, buses use about the same energy as our current average automobile fleet. That means buses DO NOT save energy. It strongly suggests that buses pollute about the same since pollution is the result of burning fuel. However buses use diesel which, unlike cars, emits particles. Additionally, I am under the impression that buses are not as strictly regulated as cars. All of this supports the above Seattle Weekly article. From looking at Trimet costs, I also am confident that mass transit DOES NOT save money. When you look at the selling price of a monthly pass, then add back the average subsidy, you get $370 per month.

Light rail is powered by coal (CO2, mercury, thorium, uranium), natural gas (CO2), water (fish kills) and nuclear. Also take the light rail BTU and multiply by three to account for the power plant losses. Light rail is so expensive, that it will never serve more than a few lines, with feeder buses always required.

Jenni Simonis Not only are we paying for that in tax dollars to clean up the pollution problems, but also in our health. JK: I hope you are not sucked in buy the asthma is caused by auto pollution fallacy. The fact is that asthma has been increasing as pollution has been falling. The correlation is negative.

Jenni Simonis Yes, buses use the roads as well. But not as much of the road as cars/trucks. We wouldn't have to constantly widen roads if they carried only transport vehicles and buses. JK: Most people willing pay the cost of a car for a variety of reasons. I think I’ll put a few on record: Door to door. Saves 1/4 mile walk to bus stop. Saves 5 minute wait for bus. Saves 5 minute wait for transfer. Saves wait at bus stop next to drug deal. Saves wait at bus stop in the rain. Cold. Snow. Wind. Save exposure to panhandler. Prevents sitting next to drugged out babbling idiot who rants about you bod. You get to choose temperature. You get to choose music. You get to sit down. You get less exposure to colds & flu. You get to set down your cup of coffee. Saves you time. Saves energy. Saves money. Lower pollution

(I am soliciting additions to this list for my forth coming web site on the subject)

One last thing: At a time when the USA had the best transit system that it ever had and people lived in higher densities than today, people abandoned transit in droves as soon as they could get a car. You are trying to re-run a battle you lost in the 1920s and 1930.

Thanks JK

JK,

If I may I like to ask a few questions.

--How do you feel about ending all fare less square zones in order to boost both revenue and keep homeless off Trimet? (I believe the number one reason people choose not to use it is due to homeless)

--MAX is one Portland's identifiable features to the world. Would like to see it disbanded?

--As Portland grows do you not think that more auto capacity and public transportation can coexist much like it has?

--Would you agree that most young people moving to Portland (Portland has one of the highest per captia in migration of 18-34 year olds in the country) came because of Portland's planning or in spite of it. I’m not talking about the burbs here-just Portland.

--More cities such as Salt Lake, Denver, and Dallas are investing in light rail. These are all conservative cities and will have more extensive light in 10 years then Portland. Without mentions light rail lobbyists, what gives?

Excuse the poor grammer in the above post please. Sorry!

Tommy--How do you feel about ending all fare less square zones in order to boost both revenue and keep homeless off Trimet? (I believe the number one reason people choose not to use it is due to homeless) JK: Probably a good idea. More fare enforcement would probably help too.

Tommy--MAX is one Portland's identifiable features to the world. Would like to see it disbanded? JK: We have a white elephant that needs to be fed. It is apparently more expensive to operate than buses per passenger mile (Trimet averages many extremely expensive bus lines in their published average bus cost). We should look seriously at removing the tracks and using the space for bus ways shared with trucks or hov. That would have the following advantages: Greater capacity (the highest usage single line in the country is a bus way into NYC) Faster service. Buses can wander around an area picking up people in SE, then get on the bus way an go non-stop to down town then on to the jobs centers in Beaverton and Hillsboro. *Less cost.

Tommy--As Portland grows do you not think that more auto capacity and public transportation can coexist much like it has? JK: You just need to add road capacity as the population grows AND quit densifying. It is high density that causes congestion plus lack of road capacity. Public transport is losing market share all over the country except Trimet.

Trimet likes to brag about their tremendous increase in ridership, but compared to population growth, they gained only 1% over the last full decade for which census data is available (1990-200). At that rate they will have half of us out of our cars in only 500 years. There is a strong correlation between income level and transit use (people tend to get a car as soon as they can afford one) and our strong surge in immigrants may be the sole reason for Trimet’s market share gain. You should also note that their reported ridership numbers are deceptive. They are boardings, not people, so if you transfer to get to work, you count as two boardings each way for a total of four boardings in one round trip to work and back.

Cars are a fact of life and aren’t going away, the planners need to recognize this instead of attempting to force a lower standard of living on people.

Tommy--Would you agree that most young people moving to Portland (Portland has one of the highest per captia in migration of 18-34 year olds in the country) came because of Portland's planning or in spite of it. I’m not talking about the burbs here-just Portland. JK: I haven’t seen any data on this.

Tommy--More cities such as Salt Lake, Denver, and Dallas are investing in light rail. These are all conservative cities and will have more extensive light in 10 years then Portland. Without mentions light rail lobbyists, what gives? JK: There is an extremely active rail lobby. It just makes sense to spend millions promoting the sale of Billion dollar boondoggles.

If you want to see who really wants light rail look at the spending: In 1996, the voters rejected the building of a north-south light rail system.

Here is a list of big contributors ($5000 and over) who were in favor of building light rail. Their contributions totaled $980,000 . All pro-rail contributions totaled over $1,156,340.

The light rail opponents spent about $110,000 and won.

<h2>NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR AMOUNT</h2>

Portland General Electric $52,500 Pacific Power $52,500 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $50,640 Fred Meyer $50.000 International Union of Operating Engineers $44,710 U.S. Bancorp $35,000 First Interstate Bank $30,000 Siemens Duewag Corporation $30,000 Oregon Public Employees Union $27,400 Legacy Health $25,000 Portland Trail Blazers $22,750 Local Union Legal Foundation $20,000 Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas $20,000 Bridge Structural, & Ornamental Iron Workers $17,400 Sheet Metal Workers $16,350 Bank of America $15,000 Intel Corporation $15,000 Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen $14,000 LTK Engineering Services $13,400 BRW Inc. $12,500 Middleton & Compauy $12,000 Greenbriar Company $10,000 Tom Walsh $10,000 Zummer Grinnel Frasca Partnership $10,000 Goldman Sachs & G.) $10,000 Nike, Inc $10,000 Kiewit Pacific $10,000 Morse Brothers $10,000 Union Pacific Railroad $10,000 Hanley Industrial properties $10,000 Bombardiere Corporation $10,000 City Center Parking $10,000 Obie Outdoor Advertising $10,000 OTAK Architects $10,000 Standard Insurance $10,000 U.S. West Communications $10,000 United Infrastructure $10,000 Amalgamated Tran it Union $8,100 Cement Masons $7,650 Hoffman Corporation $7,500 CH2M Hill $6,000 O'Brien Kreizberg $5,600 James Furman & Co- $5,000 Dames & Moore $5,000 Providence Health Systems $5,000 Slayden Construction $5,000 Kaiser Permanente $5,000 David Evans & Associates $5,000 Class PAC $5,000 CFI Pro Services $5,000 Davis, Wright, Tremaine $5,000 NW Natural Gas Co- $5,000 Zidell, Inc- $5,000 Stoel, Rives, Boley, Jones, & Gray $5,000 Yeon Properties $5,000 Pacific Gas Transmission $5,000 AT & T Wireless $5,000 Block 216 Partners $5,000 Keylorp Management $5,000

<hr/>

TOTAL, CONTRIBUTIONS OVER $5,000 $884,800 PERCENTAGE OF ALL CONTRIBUTIONS 76.5%

TOTAL, CONTRIBUTIONS OVER $1,000 $980,640 PERCENTAGE OF ALL CONTRIBUTIONS 84.8%

TOTAL, ALL CONTRIBUTIONS $1,156,340

Source: Records for Oregonians for Roads and Rails and for Oregonians for Local Control at Secretary of State's Office, Elections Division, Salem, Oregon.

<h2>Thanks for the replies. The numbers on young people moving about can be found here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=120695</h2>