The National Press Club posted a video of Secretary of Behavior Modification Ray LaHood’s May 21 presentation in which he admitted that the administration’s goal is to “coerce people out of their cars.” The Antiplanner downloaded it (all 193 MB) and transcribed the relevant portion of the question-and-answer period to see if LaHood’s quotes were taken out of context.
The questions below are preceded by the minutes:seconds in the video where the question begins. LaHood’s answers are in bold and the Antiplanner’s comments are in italics.
16:53 Question: Everyone agrees that basing the highway trust fund on a federal gas tax won’t produce enough money during the next authorization bill to pay for the nation’s road and bridge upkeep, let alone new construction. What should be done?
Now is not a very good time to be talking about raising taxes and we agree with that. We think that people are out of work and the economy is in a recession and that it’s not a good time to be talking about raising the tax. The highway trust fund has been a very good source of funding. It’s helped us build the interstate system, helped us build a lot of infrastructure around America. We know that it’s inadequate to do all the things that we want to do over the next five years.
So we have to think outside the box. Infrastructure bank is one thing we’re thinking about. We’re thinking about tolling. We’re thinking about other kinds of opportunities that we can use with the highway trust fund. But this administration will not be promoting an increase in the gas tax. We know its been a good trust fund to fund roads and bridges. And we need to build on that and find other ways to do it. Perhaps even public-private partnerships that have been used around the country very effectively.
Comment: Not everyone agrees that the highway trust fund won’t produce enough money to maintain roads and bridges, but I guess people like former Secretary Mary Peters and LaHood’s fellow Republican Representative Jeff Flake no longer count. It is interesting that LaHood imagines we can use terms like “infrastructure bank” and “public-private partnership,” like waving a magic wand, to conjure up money out of nowhere. No matter what you call it, the money ultimately has to come from either users or taxpayers.
18:13 When do you expect Congress and Obama to enact a new highway spending law?
We’ve had a number of meetings with the chairman of the transportation committee in the House, Chairman Oberstar. He’ll have a very aggressive schedule I think coming off of the Memorial Day Recess to get a bill through the House. . . . I anticipate the House will pass a bill sometime this year.
Comment: It is amusing that the question assumes that Obama is going to enact the law. I hope most people know that Congress enacts laws, while the president carries them out.
19:22 Question: Will the administration offer its own version of the highway reauthorization bill?
The discussions we’ve had with the chairman we’ve laid out what we think are some of the things that are very important. We want to really — notwithstanding the fact that George Will doesn’t like this idea — the idea of creating opportunities for people to get out of their cars, and we’re working with the secretary of HUD, Shaun Donovan, for opportunities for housing, for walking paths, biking paths, if somebody wants to ride their to work or to the place of employment of other places; mass transit, light rail, creating opportunities for what we call livable communities, and Portland, Oregon is the example of it, where people don’t have to ride a car every time they want to go somewhere. They can walk, they can ride a bike, they can get on a Portland streetcar, which are manufactured in Portland, Oregon. That concept of livable communities is something that we’re going to promote and work with the committee on because we think it’s the way forward. It’s the way to get people more opportunities rather than just in their automobiles.
Comment: Only one streetcar to date has been manufactured in Portland (actually in the Portland suburb of Clackamas). But the real problem here is that — typical of the livability crowd — LaHood sees no difference between offering people a choice and offering a choice people will use. While the number of Portlanders who bicycle to work has definitely increased, the number who take transit has not.
The 2007 American Community Survey found that, since the 2000 census, the number of Portland-area residents who say they usually bicycle to work grew from about 6,800 to 15,900. But the number who say they take transit to work declined from 58,600 to 57,900. The number who go to work by car (not counting taxis) grew from 664,300 to 730,500. This means that Portland roads have about 60,000 more cars during rush hour, but the region has put most of its transportation dollars into light rail and streetcars that carry no more people.
Don’t take it on your first date, if you experience these effects after taking kamagra Gold contact your doctor as you may need immediate medical help. cialis 40 mg There is a range of drug, offering high quality online cialis soft treatment of men’s ED issue. Kamagra Oral Jelly has been presented by its viagra cialis achat maker Ajanta Pharma so as to bond the achievement brought by their non specific item Kamagra pills. Medications that are PDE5 inhibitors block the action of this PDE-5 and thus allowing blood flow into the penile shaft, it helps encourage the creation of an effective energy policy, as is the provision of adequate positive choices that have low social and environmental external costs. brand cialis LaHood also fails to distinguish between transportation people people want to use and transportation people are willing to pay for. He implies that, if someone wants to take a streetcar or light rail to work, all other taxpayers are obligated to subsidize them. What if someone wants to go to work by helicopter, dirigible, rocketship, or personal limousine? Does LaHood really believe that, just because someone wants something, the government should play Santa Claus and provide it?
20:38 Question: Two senior senators, Bingaman and Grassley, want the lane miles from any highway leased to a private entity to be removed from the calculations for distribution of highway fund money. Do you agree?
I don’t know anything about it. It’s all part of the debate. Ideas like this are a part of what we are thinking about when we say think outside the box. We’ll be happy to look at this.
Comment: Not known as an intellectual heavyweight, LaHood obviously doesn’t understand the question, which could be translated as, “Should states that do highway public-private partnerships be punished by losing some of their highway funds, which would then be given to other states as a reward for not doing public-private partnerships?” A case might be made that, since tollways pay for themselves, they shouldn’t be counted in the formula for distributing federal highway funds. But they are today and they still would be under Bingaman-Grassley proposal — it is only private or leased tollways that they object to. Even though Grassley is a Republican, this is fundamentally — dare I say it? — a socialist idea.
21:27 Question: Some in the highway supporters and motorists groups have been concerned by your livability initiative. Is this an effort to make driving more tortuous and to coerce people out of their cars?
It is a way to coerce people out of their cars, yeah. I mean I, look it, people don’t like spending an hour and a half getting to work. And people don’t like spending an hour going to the grocery store. All of you who live around here know exactly what I’m talking about. The dreaded thing is to have to run an errand on a weekend around here or to try and get home at 3 o’clock in the afternoon or even 5 o’clock in the afternoon. Every community is not going to be a livable community, but we have to create opportunities for people that do want to use a bicycle or want to walk or want to get on a streetcar or want to ride a light rail.
I was in Houston recently. They have a light rail line that runs from downtown Houston to what is probably the best medical center in the world. And for people who can’t afford a car who don’t want to drive through all the traffic of Houston to get out there, this light rail is perfect. That’s what we’re really trying to offer people and the only person that I’ve heard of who objects to this is George Will.
Comment: For those who haven’t been there, Houston’s light rail goes from nowhere to nowhere. Hardly anyone lives downtown; why would they take light rail to the medical center? Why is taking light rail to a medical center better than taking a bus?
More pertinently, livability supporters will argue that all of LaHood’s examples are not overtly coercive; instead, they are simply aimed at giving people choices other than driving: walkways, bike paths, streetcars, light rail. LaHood never mentions any actual techniques aimed at coercing people out of their cars.
Yet coerciveness is a fundamental part of the livability campaign, as shown by Portland, Oregon, whose official objective (see table 1.2) is to allow rush-hour traffic to grow to near-gridlock levels (â€Âlevel of service Fâ€Â) on many major freeways and arterials. Besides diverting federal highway money into light rail instead of things that will actually relieve congestion, much of the money that Portland does spend on roads goes into “traffic calming,” a euphemism for “congestion building” which consists of putting barriers in roads, speed humps, narrowing streets, and turning auto lanes into exclusive bike lanes.
22:56 Question: Some conservative groups are wary of the livable communities program, saying it’s an example of government intrusion into people’s lives. How do you respond?
About everything we do around here is government intrusion in people’s lives.
Comment: That was his entire answer to the question, so I guess it wasn’t taken out of context.
Beyond the moral and constitutional question of whether government should have the right to intrude into people’s lives is the more practical question of whether the benefits of such intrusions justify their costs. In the case of Portland, the costs include a nearly twelve-fold increase in the costs of congestion between 1982 and 2005, the more than $2 billion spent on light rail, and nearly $2 billion spent on subsidies to transit-oriented developments. Meanwhile, the benefits include a lot of New York Times articles making Portlanders feeling smug about themselves, but not much else except for the lucky (or politically connected) few getting the subsidies.
More about Ray LaHood being a RINO, which means he likes big, wasteful spending:
He didn’t sign on to the Contract with America, which means that he probably disagrees w/Newt Gingrich’s current ideas of http://www.americansolutions.com/
The
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/
gives him a zero rating.
The Citizens Against Government Waste, gives him an 11% rating.
So, LaHood seems to be of the ideology of gov. coercion to make you act in certain ways & take your money to pay for others.
In general, is it fair for about all people to pay for a few?
That’s the left’s principle.
The term, “trust fund” is wrong, on many levels, but that’s typical of gov. bastardizing language, for example, “entitlements”–other taxpayers don’t owe you money.
Is it proper to pay for what one receives? Hell yes.
You pro-transit persons are unwilling to pay the full cost & want to force others to pay for your transport.
The gas tax is a very fair user fee.
Increase the gas tax by about $0.40/gallon, to completely pay for highways.
Add $0.50/gallon to pay for expansion.
More lanes are obviously needed.
A higher capacity is definitely needed to accommodate vehicles, freely, at 70mph for most of the time.
(There will still be a rush hour jam.)
Get rid of the elitist & unfair HOV lanes too, which increase congestion.
Should transit be fully user-supported?
That needs a doubling or tripling of tickets.
I don’t understand how tranist advocates can say that tranist will reduce traffic congestion during peak times. If congrestion were to drop, it is axiomatic that pent up demand would fill in and congestion would remain the same. The most transit could do is increase total capacity so that more people could travel at the same level of congestion.
If congrestion were to drop, it is axiomatic that pent up demand would fill in and congestion would remain the same.
Does this mean that if we build new roads for cars, the new roads will fill up (from “pent up demand”) and congestion would remain the same?
D4P: No it does not mean that.
Induced travel is a huge fallacy.
Although there is a partial grain of truth to it, which is twisted.
If roads are heavily congested people prefer not to travel.
And people like free flow.
People don’t drive endlessly just because they can.
Consider this: Would you drive to a store, 10 miles away if you can go 80 mph? Or will you drive locally, a mile away. You still have to navigate local street to get to the interstate.
Will you switch jobs to one at 20 miles away, if you can go 80 mph? Why don’t you move closer? Planners & zoning might make that expensive.
By your reasoning: In regards to over population being a problem, food output should be reduced.
In other words, there is growth & people need more roads.
Sure VMT increases, until 2 years ago.
People have more options on destinations & more restrictions too.
Cut freedom?
Standard left ideology, while claiming the opposite (ie who cares about fags? Let them do what they want.)
Should infrastructure not be built to persons’ wants?
It’s a huge hypocrisy to force transit, against will & the majority (democracy), yet deny more lanes that the vast majority want.
D4P asked:
“Does this mean that if we build new roads for cars, the new roads will fill up (from “pent up demandâ€Â) and congestion would remain the same?”
There is some truth to this. If the cost of the journey is reduced by making the journey faster (less congestion) then some people will make extra trips.
It’s a Tale of Two Cities.
Sheffield, UK, connected a tram system to a car park. Many car drivers parked at the car park and took the tram. This reduced the number of cars on the road for a while, but then traffic levels started climbing again as other people drove their cars more.
Newbury, UK, got a new bypass, because of the traffic travelling through the centre of the town. For a while, Newbury went back to being a traditional British town. But traffic levels were rising on the bypass, and eventually not only did the bypass get saturated, but traffic levels in the town centre were back to the bad old days.
Newbury, incidentally, had some induced growth due to a reduction in journey costs, but this was a minor effect. The bypass had such an impact on the highway network that traffic drove that way from miles around, it being the only uncongested piece of road. The scheme was finally torpedoed by the local council, who approved the backlog of development schemes, and the car trips to go with them.
We need to think above the box, not just outside the box. To avoid congestion we need to build up the transport infrastructure as fast as we build up buildings. We need to avoid one-dimensional corridor-think and think in at least five dimensions – length, width, height, time, dollars. We need to elevate and automate our transport infrastructure.
King of France: Should there be no roads so people cannot travel by car?
Should people be be limited to VMT?
Should infrastructure not be built for what people want?
The UK does have more geographical limits.
I would loathe to live/work in London, because of its congestion/crowdedness, not to mention its ugliness (offense intended).
ROT:“The 2007 American Community Survey found that, since the 2000 census, the number of Portland-area residents who say they usually bicycle to work grew from about 6,800 to 15,900. But the number who say they take transit to work declined from 58,600 to 57,900. The number who go to work by car (not counting taxis) grew from 664,300 to 730,500. This means that Portland roads have about 60,000 more cars during rush hour, but the region has put most of its transportation dollars into light rail and streetcars that carry no more people.”
ws:A Portland City Audit revealed that people who commute to work is about 8%, compared to the ACS (for the city of Portland) survey of 4% who bike.
http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?a=219201&c=48978
Transit was 11%, and walking 4% (city of Portland)
Also, your statistics are for the Portland area / Vancouver, WA urbanized area. Vancouver does not have the same transit options available as the Tri-County area in Oregon does. Funny enough, the ‘Couv has just about 60,000 workers who commute to the Portland area every day.
I think if we’re going to draw conclusions about the region, you should exclude Vancouver from the UA.
The city of Vancouver also increases the VMT on Portland roads, “skewing” the statistic that people in Portland travel more by car.
Antiplanner wrote:
“LaHood also fails to distinguish between transportation people people want to use and transportation people are willing to pay for. He implies that, if someone wants to take a streetcar or light rail to work, all other taxpayers are obligated to subsidize them. What if someone wants to go to work by helicopter, dirigible, rocketship, or personal limousine? Does LaHood really believe that, just because someone wants something, the government should play Santa Claus and provide it?”
If the bicycle tracks are proving popular, then the public obviously like them. Good. If the light rail isn’t growing, then maybe the public should be asked what could be done to make it better. Taxpayers subsidise all kinds of things that they may not use themselves.
Antiplanner wrote:
“Yet coerciveness is a fundamental part of the livability campaign, as shown by Portland, Oregon, whose official objective (see table 1.2) is to allow rush-hour traffic to grow to near-gridlock levels (â€Âlevel of service Fâ€Â) on many major freeways and arterials. Besides diverting federal highway money into light rail instead of things that will actually relieve congestion, much of the money that Portland does spend on roads goes into “traffic calming,†a euphemism for “congestion building†which consists of putting barriers in roads, speed humps, narrowing streets, and turning auto lanes into exclusive bike lanes.”
Table 1-2 actually says LOS ‘E’ and LOS ‘D’ as the operating standard.
It seems to me that the authors of the report have accepted something that Antiplanner still seems to be struggling with. The objective is to provide for the car within the urban environment. Beyond a certain point, engineering for the car is the tail wagging the dog. The Michigan Turn reduces accidents and massively reduces delays for traffic at signalised junctions, but isn’t used for many junctions in USA. Why the need for wider roads until these issues are addressed?
Beyond a further certain point, traffic management is far more important. For example, the Leeds Superbus scheme deals effectively with congestion. Bus lanes have been added to the medians. As the bus approaches the junction, the traffic lights go red for the cars, and green for the bus, meaning that the buses can slip through even very heavy traffic. In the 30 months since the scheme opened, patronage went up 75%. The buses carry more people than cars, so promoting them improves the overall performance of the roads.
Traffic calming is about reducing the speed of cars and other vehicles, and as vehicles move slower the congestion reduces. Laweiplein, Drachten is a good example. It was a split cycle junction, with parallel staging for right turns. The congestion was appalling.It was converted to a roundabout without priority markings, relying on a lower speed for vehicles. The congestion vanished.
http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/Evaluation%20Laweiplein.pdf
Just sticking with traffic signals, a massive amount of the capacity disappears because car drivers want to exceed 20mph. Crazy, isn’t it? And mini-roundabouts often have more capacity than small signalised junctions, and a fraction of the delays, yet traffic signals (or worse yet, all yield junctions) are preferred.
Replacing car lanes with anything-else-lanes doesn’t matter. It’s the number of lanes at the stop-line which determines the capacity of the junction. It would be better, though, if the speed limit was set to 20mph instead, so that cyclists could take and hold any traffic lane. If it isn’t a freeway, it should be a road for all to use equally.
Scott (another “live one”):
Should people be be limited to VMT?
Should infrastructure not be built for what people want?
Somehow in principle, we may agree that “users should pay” at least to the maximum extent feasible. I’d like to see the results of “full cost pricing”–including some science-based charge for negative environmental impacts–for motor vehicles, the closest I suspect we could ever get to a “pure” market situation in transportation. Under such a pricing regime, we could gradually pull transit subsidies AFTER motor vehicle full cost pricing is established, since the gross underpricing of vehicle travel is driving (sic) the personal transportation environment.
However, until we have full cost pricing for driving, we can’t really be sure what people “want”…
One fly in the ointment: since in most places, the road you live on is a monopoly, fully privatized roads would result in public demands for tight government regulation, as with electric utilities.
Another fly: the force of government would also be needed to make sure private tolls were paid, e.g., holding up vehicle registration renewals, etc. The public would NOT put up with private road operators towing a car from your driveway for that $20 toll you ignored last month. Many tow truck operators would get shot between their eyes for such B.S.
Scott wrote:
“King of France: Should there be no roads so people cannot travel by car?
Should people be be limited to VMT?
Should infrastructure not be built for what people want?
The UK does have more geographical limits.”
“I would loathe to live/work in London, because of its congestion/crowdedness, not to mention its ugliness (offense intended).”
Roi ne suis,
Ne prince, ne duc, ne comte aussi,
Je suis le sire de Coucy.
I’m not sure what your comments are a response to. I don’t think they’re a response to mine.
“I would loathe to live/work in London, because of its congestion/crowdedness, not to mention its ugliness (offense intended).”
Bless.
ROT:“Yet coerciveness is a fundamental part of the livability campaign, as shown by Portland, Oregon, whose official objective (see table 1.2) is to allow rush-hour traffic to grow to near-gridlock levels (â€Âlevel of service Fâ€Â) on many major freeways and arterials. Besides diverting federal highway money into light rail instead of things that will actually relieve congestion, much of the money that Portland does spend on roads goes into “traffic calming,†a euphemism for “congestion building†which consists of putting barriers in roads, speed humps, narrowing streets, and turning auto lanes into exclusive bike lanes.”
ws: Entirely not true, as this is what the document says:
“REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT POLICIES
Objective: Maintain an acceptable level of service on the regional motor vehicle system during peak and off-peak periods of demand, as defined in Table 1.2.”
There’s no objective to make people endure traffic.
Also, I’d like some statistics that most of the transportation money that Portland area spends is for “traffic calming” and bike lanes. I’ve seen plenty of investment in roadways in the Portland area, and I guarantee you the highway and arterial road miles have increased greatly over the last 20 years.
217 is being widened as we speak, it got a new overpass in 2001 @ I-5. Highway 26 was also widened greatly a few years back and I can think of three new roads that have just been built in my area too.
Are those statistics on bicycle commuting in Portland saying?
1. 8% of commuters travel by bicycle every day.
2. The annual average is that 8% of commuters travel by bicycle (with bad weather days being much lower and good weather days much higher).
3. 8% of commuters travel by bicycle for part of their commute at least once in the past year.
Nobody has taken my comments head on.
For example, msbetty referred to privatization & some crap.
Who said that? (maybe O’Toole, not me)
Regardless, its moral to pay for what one receives, ie tolls.
You pro-transit people: Are you willing to pay the full value & let drivers pay gas-tax & go 60mph? Forcing others is not proper.
ws, I frankly trust the U.S. Census over a City of Portland survey. City planning studies are embarrassingly self-serving and self-congratulatory.
I wish people like LaHood would stop holding us up as an example all the time: “There doing this in Portland!” No, the planners are TRYING to do this in Portland. There’s an impression out there that Portland has acheived some sort of urban design nirvana.
It’s far from a definitive success at this point. The only results we can confirm are smaller, less-affordable, housing units, and ugly infill development that existing residents hate.
I believe the survey is regarding what is one’s primary source of transportation to work. The follow up questions on the next page ask about secondary means to work.
If you rode your bike 9 out of the 12 months, that would be your primary source of transportation. If you drove to work the other three months, that would be your secondary.
47% of people said they did not have a secondary mode of transport, 10% said they drove alone for secondary, 14% transit for secondary, 7% walk secondary mode, and 10% bike for secondary.
Forcing others is not proper
Should “others” be forced to pay for bombs dropped on Iraq and such?
Francis King: Taxpayers subsidise all kinds of things that they may not use themselves.
Mike: In a country that protected individual rights as its sole and primary concern, taxpayers would never subsidize anything they do not themselves use. User fees would cover it all. It is telling how socialist (on the broad scale) the Western world has become that people just accept that some subsidization is going to take place.
The only objectively determinable proper purpose of government is protection of individual rights, which is inclusive of protection of individual property. A military, police, and criminal court system protect individual rights from force or fraud, while a civil court system resolves disputes of objective law between parties. A Department of the Interior would have a relatively easy — and inexpensive — task to manage it all.
Everything else should be done by private industry. Until people begin recognizing that, we will be bled to the death of a thousand stings, tax dollar by tax dollar for one public rationed asset after another.
bbpdx:
That’s fine, but the 2008 survey is more up-to-date considering it was done in Dec. 2008. The ACS survey and the Portland survey are supposed to be different: one is measuring the city of Portland only, the ACS link provided is measuring the urbanized area as a whole, including Vancouver.
Regarding bicycle statistics, the ACS survey (in a paper that gave statistics found for Portland only) found about 4% of people in the actual city of Portland commuted to work – about 8 times the national average. The Portland Audit survey occurred a few months after the gas price “crisis”, so that may account for some increased percentages. Nonetheless, 4% (remember, this is just commuting to work alone, not other errands) is nothing to sniff at.
How does a compromise of 6% sound of people commuting to work on their bicycle in the city of Portland? 🙂
Mike:Everything else should be done by private industry. Until people begin recognizing that, we will be bled to the death of a thousand stings, tax dollar by tax dollar for one public rationed asset after another.
ws:Maybe those public highways should be privatized and pay property taxes to their respective states for their ROWs?
ws,
The latest ACS data for City of Portland says that:
4.7% commute by “other means”, including bike.
72.1% commute by car, alone or in carpool
12.5% take transit, unsure of breakdown by bus and MAX
To me those numbers don’t justify policies that make driving onerous to the advantage of bikes and light rail, particularly considering that buses and light rail also rely on the road system.
No matter what Portland and Metro say publically, it IS there policy to make driving miserable. And if they succeed, they’ll get a rude wake-up call from the economic troubles it brings.
Mike:“In a country that protected individual rights as its sole and primary concern, taxpayers would never subsidize anything they do not themselves use.”
ws:Can’t help to resist picking apart your logic. If you don’t have kids and went to a private school as a child, should you have to contribute to public schools?
We should have user fees for fire protection. If your house catches on fire and you can’t afford to pay someone to put it out, too bad for you. And if your neighbor’s house catches fire as a result, too bad for him/her.
What a wonderful world that would be. I guess we can only dream.
How intellectually perverse is it to confiscate private wealth and restrict private liberty–all to effect boutique non-solutions favored by elite dilettantes–and then explain to the people that “we are providing [them] opportunities.” By the same token, anyone who burns down all but one restaurant in a region–say, an Indian one–is providing people “opportunities” to eat ethnic food. Is this how dishonest the dialogue has become, where we use euphemisms to describe dispossession of rights and resources?
bbpdx:“To me those numbers don’t justify policies that make driving onerous to the advantage of bikes and light rail, particularly considering that buses and light rail also rely on the road system.
No matter what Portland and Metro say publically, it IS there policy to make driving miserable. And if they succeed, they’ll get a rude wake-up call from the economic troubles it brings.”
ws: Driving is not onerous, drivers and non-drivers alike all subsidize the automobile which drives its cost down and makes it incredibly popular. I have never noticed driving to be miserable in the Portland area. Every city in the world has congestion, and Portland is not any worse than any other city of its size.
Assuming we didn’t have subsidization of the automobile – we’d still have a good percentage of people driving and nice roads too. I am completely at ease with this. We’d also have way more people walking, biking, and taking transit too. I’d even hypothesize if we had a market based transportation system, cars would be the predominant use, but it just would not be as pervasive as it is, land uses would be drastically different, and we’d have way more functioning cities, etc.
Yes, Metro promotes driving less. Is this a problem? Should they instead promote driving more? What if they said nothing but promoted alternative transportation opportunities, are they forcing you our of your automobile somehow? The root of a lot of congestion is haphazard use of the automobile for every daily need – it’s not about getting rid of them completely. We have built a world of congestion by building communities only for cars, it only makes sense that we try and relieve this through alternate methods (that of course do not take away from cars). It’s not about making cars impossible to use. I have never felt that way ever when driving in Portland.
I’d actually argue that auto-dependent developments are making driving more difficult than light rail investments. The enemy of cars is actually other cars.
We need a multi-modal transportation system. Unfortunately, promotion of this concept from the the car crowd makes one seem to be a socialist commie. Hypocritically, someone who promotes automobile only sprawl is a champion of “freedom”. I don’t disagree that there are anti-car zealots who do not understand how cities work, function, and breathe. That is not me nor does it represent most people.
Houston has invested billions of dollars in its roadways, and its congestion is worse than Portland’s. Ever take a commute in Atlanta (sprawl city)? Sure NY is congested but it has millions of people in one area trying to use their cars too, and it doesn’t take away from the fact that NY residents do not have to choose between a car and not getting somewhere; there’s plenty of options available to them. Does Houston have similar options to their congestion woes? Hardly.
Lastly, too many arguments end in an “us vs them” statement. So I promote mass transit, does that mean I don’t want cars at all? Completely untrue, I just find it sickening that we have become so stupid in America that we can’t build a community with walkable amenities like a bakery, grocery store, coffee shop, office space, etc nearby housing. We have to segregate them and force one to drive to them instead (I wonder how we became so obese in this country? Obesity = subsidized too!).
D4P:“We should have user fees for fire protection. If your house catches on fire and you can’t afford to pay someone to put it out, too bad for you. And if your neighbor’s house catches fire as a result, too bad for him/her.
What a wonderful world that would be. I guess we can only dream.”
ws:
“CHEYENNE, WYâ€â€After attempting to contain a living-room blaze started by a cigarette, card-carrying Libertarian Trent Jacobs reluctantly called the Cheyenne Fire Department Monday. “Although the community would do better to rely on an efficient, free-market fire-fighting service, the fact is that expensive, unnecessary public fire departments do exist,” Jacobs said. “Also, my house was burning down.” Jacobs did not offer to pay firefighters for their service.”
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32825
I believe some of the first “fire stations” ideas in the US were advocated from that Federalist A-hole, Benjamin Franklin. What a socialist.
ws: “Yes, Metro promotes driving less. Is this a problem? Should they instead promote driving more?”
No, but they should spend money on maintaining and expanding the road system that the taxpayers use. Transit (particularly light rail) is hugely expensive. Every rider on every ride is being subsidized by the taxpayers.
I notice miserable driving conditions in Portland frequently.
The problem is liberal utopianism, ws, which this town has in spades. I don’t want to ride a bike. I don’t like riding the bus. I like taking advantage of the invention of the automobile, in the same way that I take advantage of the invention of the television, and the computer, and modern medicine. I don’t want to go back to riding horses. I accept technological progress.
A system (the car) that allows individuals to go where they’d like to when they’d like to, without stopping every two blocks for other people, is in fact a technological advancement over streetcars and the like. Our current transportation system is responsible for untold amounts of economic prosperity over the last 60 years.
ws and bbpdx,
Actually, the ACS breaks out bicycling from “other” if you look in the right table. It says 3.9% of Portland commuters bicycle to work. The National Household Transportation Survey found, however, that a large percentage of people who say they “usually” bicycle to work often take transit or drive (whereas nearly everyone who says they usually drive rarely takes transit or bicycles). So even 3.9% is probably high.
As for Vancouver, it has a perfectly adequate bus system. Lots of Portland suburbs on the Oregon side don’t have light rail — Lake Oswego, Tigard, Oregon City to name a few. To understand transportation, you really have to look at the entire urban area, not just the parts that prove your point.
Portland has undergone a sorting process: people who tend to drive have been pushed out to the periphery. That may mean less per-capita driving in the inner city, but overall there is still lots of driving.
D4P & ws,
Don’t really know what fire has to do with this discussion, but in fact there are companies that provide private fire services to some cities. People pay the fire company a monthly or annual fee, which is purely optional. If your house catches fire and you haven’t paid your fee, the fire department will make sure the fire doesn’t spread to your neighbors who have paid their fees. Most people pay their fees and the cost tends to be less than public fire services.
Then there is AIG, the infamous insurance company, that offered customers a special deal: if your house is threatened by wildfire, they will send their trucks out to protect it. As far as I know, this is still available.
bbpdx:“No, but they should spend money on maintaining and expanding the road system that the taxpayers use. Transit (particularly light rail) is hugely expensive. Every rider on every ride is being subsidized by the taxpayers.”
ws:Subsidization of automobiles is prevalent too considering the externalized costs that society pays (police/fire protection, pollution, deaths/injuries, defense in the Middle East to secure oil, local tax dollars that go to roads, etc.). Nobody has a direct “fee” that they pay, it’s all from general tax funds (vs. paying a gas tax fee or transit tax). Go ahead and audit any fire fighting agency, and you’ll see that about 1/4 of their incident responses are for fires, the rest are for medical emergencies (which automobiles consist a good portion of).
Also, roads do not pay for themselves by gas taxes and user fees alone:
This is just one example, but there is not one road in Texas that pays for itself based on the tax system of today. Some roads pay for about half their true cost, but most roads we have analyzed pay for considerably less.
To conclude, in the SH 99 example, since the traffic volume for that road doesn’t generate enough fuel tax revenue to pay for it, revenues from other parts of the state must be used to build and maintain this corridor segment. The same is true across the state, meaning that, as revealed by the tax gap analysis, overall revenues are not sufficient to meet the state’s transportation needs.
http://www.txdot.gov/KeepTexasMovingNewsletter/11202006.html#Cost
Transit is subsidized but so too are automobiles.
From Debunking Cato:“Between 1982 and 2003, Portland-area freeway miles increased from 570 to 715, and arterial mileage from 450 to 950” As far as equity is concerned, I find there is plenty of investment in road construction.
I can personally think of many roads in my area that have just been constructed in the last few years (new roads, not widened). Hell, Beaverton put in a new road alignment (eminent domain case too) that cost about 4 million dollars. The funding of this road was not user fees, but property taxes (Major Streets Improvement Program). Drivers and non-drivers paid for that road. That is called a subsidy.
A person who walks to work or drives in Wash. Co. could make the claim that they should not have to subsidize roads for other people. We will never know what people are willing to pay for or want in their communities until we have transparent costing system in place. People do not know they are subsidizing the automobile because it is behind a veil of general tax funds.
I always find that if people are excessive complainers of the “Portland method” that they should go live in sprawl hell for one year and come back and see if their opinions are any different. I would put money on the fact that they are different, and that they would understand why the planning agency is very particular in how things are done.
bbpdx:The problem is liberal utopianism, ws, which this town has in spades. I don’t want to ride a bike. I don’t like riding the bus. I like taking advantage of the invention of the automobile, in the same way that I take advantage of the invention of the television, and the computer, and modern medicine. I don’t want to go back to riding horses. I accept technological progress.
ws:I don’t ride a bike either, but how can we not give equal access to the streets to bikes? Let’s assume a group of bikers had the money to design some bike lanes, should they be able to take over a portion of that street because they have the money to build bike lanes, or would that be unfair because the street is predominately used by cars? I don’t have the answer to that question, but streets are for all modes of transportation, pedestrians included.
The combustion engine is only about 10 years younger than the bicycle, it’s not an issue of technology. Airplanes are faster than cars, why not everyone just own a plane? Clearly, this is a hyperbolic and sarcastic comment, but it is a clear point that cities simply do not function by one mode alone, they are much more complex than that.
Economics are also at play – why drive somewhere close when one can walk at a cheaper cost? Contrasting this, why ride a bike a long distance when one can just drive?
bbpdx:A system (the car) that allows individuals to go where they’d like to when they’d like to
ws:If the car is “king” compared to any and all transportation modes, why is it every single automobile owner in this world complains about traffic congestion to some degree? Clearly there are pros and cons to driving. It’s great when no one’s on the road, and abysmal when they are. That’s where a multi-modal system comes into play. We can’t keep having myopic visions of the interstate system as a solution to congestion (which is funny because it was billed as a solution to congestion). Let’s see, we had interstates to bypass local streets, beltways to bypass
Clearly one is not able to go where they want when they want in gridlock. Nothing will solve congestion, it is impossible. I seriously think we will see the time that DOTs will come to the conclusion that they simply cannot widen a 16-lane highway anymore, and that you have to put your hands in the air and admit alternatives to living and lifestyle are the only possible method.
A few quick comments:
Comment #26: The link is to The Onion website — do you know what that site is about?
Comment #30: “I always find that if people are excessive complainers of the “Portland method†that they should go live in sprawl hell for one year and come back and see if their opinions are any different.”
I never hear anyone who lives in “sprawl” complaining about it — the complaints are always people who think they live in a superior neighborhood.
ws: I went to private schools (Catholic, despite my being an atheist… best private school quality relative to cost) and my children will be doing the same when it’s time. I have a law degree now, so at least anecdotally I must conclude that private schools worked well for me.
Despite this, I pay $1,400 per year (a portion of my property taxes) to fund public schools in my city that I will never use and from which I accrue no value, and a portion of my state and federal income taxes goes to support the state and federal departments of education, both worthless and unnecessary. This is robbery at the point of a gun. I am given no choice but to surrender money to pay for services I do not use and never will, and from which I accrue no value.
The same goes for subsidization of transit. I actually DO use transit — I ride the Phoenix RAPID express bus to work for my commute. It costs me 85 cents per ride. I know good and well someone is paying for that who shouldn’t have to. If I had to pay the full cost of riding the bus, and who knows how high that really would be… if it were more than, say, $2.00 each way, then pass. My four-banger Honda gets mileage that beats that price.
And before someone gets cute and asks why a guy with a law degree drives an old Honda… “Waste not, want not.”
Mike, my point is that public schooling system has been championed by many founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson. We did use to have a private only school system in America, and the poor were essentially left out of education process and opportunity for advancement was completely hindered.
Education poses a serious threat to our nation. We need people who understand what this country is about so it can continue to prosper:
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” – Thomas Jefferson
This is not robbery. Do you want to live in a society where there is no education and only certain echelons of society can attend? This has en affect on everyone. Maybe in your case you can drum up more business with a less educated population (depending on what type of law you practice), but society as a whole does not benefit from this.
(Yes, there needs to be overhauls in education, but this is not the crux of my argument – some things in life should be levied on higher status citizens).
Borealis:
I know what type of website The Onion is. It was a pertinent link. Many people in sprawl complain about the side effects of development, traffic, quality of life, etc. In effect you have the a pretty large contingent of NIMBY sprawl citizens. They like their house and lawn, but don’t want anyone else to have the same.
Also, you could survey many people and ask them if they think urban sprawl is “bad” and you most definitely get a resounding “yes”. It is also a political issue that politicians use. No politician would ever get elected by promoting sprawl – it wouldn’t get urban votes and it wouldn’t get rural votes, either.
Certainly understanding what sprawl is is difficult for some folks.
“They have a light rail line that runs from downtown Houston to what is probably the best medical center in the world.” -LaHood
Hmmmmm…. so does this mean the Feds will be funding LRT in Rochester, MN?
“Why is taking light rail to a medical center better than taking a bus?” =The Antiplanner
The age-old human problem –> Fashion over function
Sprawl is a low density neighborhood, where I prefer to live.
What happen to the Portland I grew up in that bragged about living in houses with yards and more parks than most cities. We had very affordable housing before the planners moved us towards stack and pack living and subsidized transit.
Craig, your comment is contradictory. Portland still has the nation’s largest urban park: Forest Park. If it had developed just single family homes like you are proposing, this would consume more land and ultimately more parkland.
You can’t a metropolitan area of 2 million people at very low densities and save forest and farmland magically. It does not work like that.
Portland had great affordability years ago when there was no economy other than timber, had a very small population, and no one had heard of it. You’re living in the past.
Some are expanding this “use-fee” concept too much.
For areas like military, education, fire, police & such, that is debatable, but not really the focus for urban issues.
For tollroads, that wouldn’t include local streets, w/houses & stuff.
Whoever proposed that? Nobody? Gated communities are a different matter.
Some do propose more freeway (high-speed) tollways & privatizing.
That’s kind of a last ditch effort when higher gas taxes fail to be used.
The Bottom Line:
Are you drivers (85%) willing to pay more for roads?
Those pro-transit people, are you willing to pay full price & stop being hypocritical, especially in the idea that “others should ride, but my conditions prevent that.”
ws: some things in life should be levied on higher status citizens
So robbery at gunpoint is morally good, as long as the victim is rich? What makes his property less entitled to equal protection under law than yours?
ws:
Thank you for the responses to my comments. That was a reasonable and informative conversation for a blog comment section.
The Antiplanner wrote:
> Don’t really know what fire has to do with this discussion,
> but in fact there are companies that provide private fire
> services to some cities. People pay the fire company a monthly
> or annual fee, which is purely optional. If your house catches
> fire and you haven’t paid your fee, the fire department will
> make sure the fire doesn’t spread to your neighbors who have
> paid their fees. Most people pay their fees and the cost
> tends to be less than public fire services.
In large areas of Maryland (excluding Baltimore City), fire
and rescue services are provided by private volunteer
fire departments or volunteer rescue squads. The dispatching
is handled by a central county communications center, and
the volunteers are trained by county and/or state people.
Some of these volunteer companies have county people that
staff the station weekdays during the day, and volunteers
at other times. They are funded by a combination of county
taxes, and by voluntary donations from people that live in
the areas served by the company.
Scott:“So robbery at gunpoint is morally good, as long as the victim is rich? What makes his property less entitled to equal protection under law than yours?”
ws:I’m sorry, but I do not understand your logic on this one. I never said that or insinuated that. You’re trying to use an extreme point to suggest that I am advocating “armed robbery” because I think that everyone should have access to education.
Regarding higher citizens paying the burden for some services like education, that is justified considering our nation cannot prosper with uneducated people, nor can we uphold our Constitution or democracy with uneducated people.
Knowing that some people cannot afford an education, it is only reasonable that their education be subsidized by people who can help them. It is to the benefit of our country and ultimately the benefit of the wealthy considering their businesses are dependent on a stream of educated children.
ROT:“As for Vancouver, it has a perfectly adequate bus system. Lots of Portland suburbs on the Oregon side don’t have light rail  Lake Oswego, Tigard, Oregon City to name a few. To understand transportation, you really have to look at the entire urban area, not just the parts that prove your point.”
ws:I don’t have a problem regarding making comments about transportation and regions, I do have a problem regarding making statements about a city then using statistics that include Vancouver, which is arguably the most sprawled city in the metro area.
You write:
“While the number of Portlanders who bicycle to work has definitely increased, the number who take transit has not.”
You then go on to talk about Portland-area statistics. Are people from Vancouver really “Portlanders”? I’d disagree. Nitpicky yes, but I find that this to be misleading.
ws: You mis-attributed a quote to me; it was Mike.
However, I would have said about the same thing.
You are advocating to “take from the upper incomes”, yet denying & actually restating in your post, that is justice.
So, personal robbery is wrong, but governmental robbery is okay?
This issue is mainly on the progressive tax, which goes beyond the urban issue focus here.
The source of money for transit is from the many & indeterminate
(ie general funds, many sources),
but less than 4% ride.
Fair?
Over 85% people drive.
As long as it’s brought up, the lower 40% of income earners pay no income tax & the top 5% pay 60% of all income tax collected.
Fair?
Is it proper to pay for what one receives?
For property tax, is it fair for those who have large homes to pay more than those who procreate often & cannot afford much?
Reality: Lower income people have more kids & are subsidized by responsible people [w/less children] who have developed skills to be productive.
The gist is, WS, that the gov can take from some, to give to others.
Fair?
Just?
Proper?
That’s not say that everybody should be charged for gov services, but the way its going now is way overboard, especially for the next generations (ie deficits).
The thing is that many voters want all these things from the [inefficient] gov, but are unwilling to pay & want “others” to fit the bill.
ROT:“If your house catches fire and you haven’t paid your fee, the fire department will make sure the fire doesn’t spread to your neighbors who have paid their fees. Most people pay their fees and the cost tends to be less than public fire services.”
ws:If you get in a horrific car accident, and you didn’t pay the fee, will they render assistance or let you die?
I’d like to note, to make sure the fire doesn’t spread to the neighbors, they’d have to put out the fire on the aforementioned house anyways. Sounds like a loophole for free fire service.
Scott:You mis-attributed a quote to me; it was Mike. However, I would have said about the same thing.
ws:I meant to change that, sorry.
Scott:“Over 85% people drive.”
ws: Why do so many people drive, though? The costs are hidden. Do you think people would drive as much if they paid transparent costs, say $10-12 a gallon? No, we’d still have cars and great roads, but no, people would drive way less and would take transit, walk, or bike for more of their trips. You can’t just point to a statistic — a stat created by our out of whack transportation system — and use it as evidence for justification.
Scott:As long as it’s brought up, the lower 40% of income earners pay no income tax & the top 5% pay 60% of all income tax collected. Fair? Is it proper to pay for what one receives?
ws:The progressive tax structure does not go against Capitalism, and is defended by many economists. (I’m not arguing for or against such a system). I don’t disagree that the top x % pay a large portion of all taxes, that is because the top percentage is just that much more wealthy than the average joe. There’s quite a difference in someone who earns 500k and someone who earns 30 million in regards to their taxes, but both pay the same rate.
Scott:The gist is, WS, that the gov can take from some, to give to others.Fair?Just?Proper?
ws:I think it’s “just” for some things, such as education.
Scott:“For property tax, is it fair for those who have large homes to pay more than those who procreate often & cannot afford much?”
ws:Is it fair for someone who makes a lot of money, has a huge home, and is single to pay property taxes (for schools and all) compared to a family of 5 who live in a modest home (knowing that each one of those children takes x amount of dollars to educate in a public school). Furethermore, is it fair for another family with 2 children to pay the same rate as a family that has 6 children (assuming they live in the same size home and pay the same property taxes)?
No, I don’t think we should encourage the very poor to procreate massively, or at all (to answer your question).
ws, taxation for the purpose of giving my productive money to others is armed robbery. Don’t think so? What do you suppose would happen to me if I refused to pay my taxes?
I chose the term “armed robbery” very deliberately and not to shock or misdirect, but to characterize redistributive taxation (such as “subsidies”) for what it really is. I am actually not the first to name it as such, not by a long shot.
You write:
ws: Knowing that some people cannot afford an education, it is only reasonable that their education be subsidized by people who can help them.
No, it is not justified. Until more people start to understand what “individual rights” really means, this misconception will continue to contribute toward our ruin. It is never, ever justified to steal, via governmental force or otherwise, from one person for the unearned benefit of another. Not ever. Not even if you’re robbing the rich to educate the poor. Not even if the rich person can easily afford it and the poor person really, really needs it. “Need” does not give a person a claim over the life of another.
I am going to go out on a limb and guess you went to public schools. Your concrete-based epistemology is evidence enough of that. I say this not as an ad-hominem, but to suggest that there is a reason you have drawn your conclusions as they are, and that an objective epistemology would have better served you.
Mike:
Like I said, there were plenty of founding fathers that understood that education for all was the best way to preserve our democracy. We had private education only in the early years and it did not work. I agree many things should not be socialized — that is not the crux of my argument — but this is education. Not only do I disagree with your position, many other people do too. You are in the extreme minority on this.
Individual rights are important, but they should be set aside for greater things if necessary. This is not socialism, this is not communism; it is simply the right thing to do in some cases.
Furthermore, it is not robbery by any legal definition if there are laws and a representative government that created those taxes. I’m not saying you shouldn’t be angry if there are unfair taxes, though, calling it robbery is just plain silly. You’re a lawyer, afterall! Could you call taxes that go to public education as “robbery” in the court of law, based off the legal framework that define this common law? I’m guessing no, but hey, I’m no lawyer.
Yes, I went to public schools. Riiight, private schools are *never* “concrete” based. That was pure and simply an ad-hominem attack.