"It's pretty clear that the two thirds of the population who use a car as their primary mode of transportation simply don't matter to the "behavior changers" in city government."

Plus I'm pretty sure that it's quite a bit more than two thirds.

You know, I'm really, really surprised that this is going out to people already in Portland. You'd think, if Sam and Randy's crew were really trying to consolidate power with an electorate that was more King Log than King Stork, they'd be sending this to Brooklyn, Austin, Minneapolis, and other hipster heavens. In Portland, reading this justifiably leads to head explodey from sheer rage. However, if the current City of Portland crowd wants to get that influx of "creative class" money, this gibberish would be great for attracting more perpetual teenagers to the place where they can retire. Ship out a few cases to Williamsburg or Exposition Park, and watch the parental 401(k) money just roooooool in.

We may be getting a new city council soon, but the voters in this city are far too cowardly terrified to be un-PC enough to speak out against this garbage.

And not entirely off-topic - was reading in the DJC this morning about the new apartment building (Bunkers R Us) going up next to the Hollywood Theatre. Apparently the number of bunkers was reduced from 52 to 47, but still absolutely no parking included in the building. So, yes, there's lots of public transportation nearby - but where do I park the car I still need on weekends? What if I can't afford to get groceries at Whole Paycheck? I can see the parking meters in the not-so-distant future.

An amusing set of constants in all of their photo-filled brochures: the cyclists are always grinning, the weather is always nice, and the cyclists are always on flat (or gently sloping) ground. I have never seen a propaganda piece that shows a cyclist in the rain or snow, or riding up SW Broadway or SW Scholls Ferry Road.

umpire, go to the project site and walk out in a concentric circle until you find parking that is not time-restricted. That is where they will leave their cars for days or weeks at a time. And 9 times out of 10 it will be in front of someone's house.

What's funny is how over time, governments lose sight of why rules were made in the first place. The reason that 99% of cities require developers to reasonably provide for their own parking is so that it doesn't create a burden on other existing property owners or the city.

If 99% of people are doing something a certain way, is it safer to assume that there is a good reason for it, or that they are all "crazy" and you're the only one who really "gets it"?

"If 99% of people are doing something a certain way, is it safer to assume that there is a good reason for it"

Oh but there is the enamor for being the only or first to do something.

WES, the first suburb to suburb commuter rail.

PMLR bridge, the first transit/ped/bike only bridge.

Being stupid is cool when you are the first to do it.

I hate cars. But I have one. And I've spent enough time in it in heavy traffic the last couple weeks to be eager to get the rest of you off the road.

An amusing set of constants in all of their photo-filled brochures: the cyclists are always grinning, the weather is always nice, and the cyclists are always on flat (or gently sloping) ground.

Also, I find it amusing (in a nauseating sort of way) that both autos shown in the pic are Subies - the car hater's car of choice.

Status quo is one thing, but autos are losing their dominance--no matter what the City does or doesn't do, and whether drivers like it or not.

What gets me is how useless Tri-Met is. I thought of taking it the other day, and it was clearly going to take at least an hour to get downtown. I decided to do the hour walk instead. It would be a 10 minute drive, at worst. A real public transit system would be a nice middle ground. I think most people would rather not get rained on and not risk getting killed by a car if they're not driving--no matter the biking propaganda. The City should spend more of its efforts on improving public transit.

observer: A real public transit system would be a nice middle ground.
JK: Would you be kind enough to explain why the public should pay for a transit system for you?

If you had to pay the actual cost of your transit trip it would be close to $10.

Public transit is slower than driving.
Public transit costs more (about 4-5x) than driving.
Public transit does NOT save energy.

Thanks
JK

Observer, I don't know what you have been observing, but your remark "but autos are losing their dominance" is ludicrous, even here in Portland.

A prime example where every inducement to hate cars is in SoWhat. It has bus service, trams, trolleys, wide sidewalks galore, bike paths everywhere (even a two lane bike path along Moody), bioswales/curb extensions eliminating over 1/4 of all on-street parking, maybe a lightrail line, parking meters thwarting/hating cars, employee incentives to use transit and TOD's up the gazoo, it still has only 7% transit usage while PDOT projected 40%.

7% is not "dominance".

"your remark "but autos are losing their dominance" is ludicrous, even here in Portland."

Come now, if the powers-that-be can put enough impediments in Portland to auto travel, it will lose dominance. The question is whether there will be a citizen revolt first, or whether there really will be a shell of a "sustainable" city occupied by true believers, while everyone else lives outside the city.

Observed in Southeast today - a lawn sign saying "we are the 99%" outside a house that had to have been worth at least three-quarters of a million dollars. Some people are going to have a rude awakening at some point...

Portland Metro 2009: 120 killed, 16,000 injured. Go by Car, only, anything else is a waste.

PdxMark - you must be clairvoiyant! Today is cloudy/foggy/icy - and a City BPS manager was injured in a bike accident this morning, reportedly on Mt. Tabor.

Allan L.: Maybe if the state used all that highway money to actually improve Portland's pathetic 1960s-era freeway system, you would not be stuck in traffic so often. Even here in the 50% smaller Reno area we have 4 and 5 lane freeways and almost never have anything resembling the mess you have in Portland.
We also have electric hybrid busses - which "green" Portland should have had a decade ago. But instead TriMet has pissed away billions on a slow light rail and streetcar system..

PdxMark: Portland Metro 2009: 120 killed, 16,000 injured. Go by Car, only, anything else is a waste.
JK: Got a reference for that death claim? The April 02, 2009 Oregonian reported:
There were 20 traffic fatalities in the city: 15 fatalities for car drivers or passengers, five pedestrians and no bicyclists, according to a traffic fatality summary report. Of course that is only the city.

You number is meaningless without knowing the total miles traveled. When you look at the proper measure, deaths per mile traveled, you see that light rail kills people at OVER double the rate of cars. Unlike cars, most of the LRT killings are of pedestrians, not occupants. (Admittedly buses are a bit safer than cars.)
See http://www.portlandfacts.com/transit/maxsafetychart.html

Thanks
JK

Two Subaru wagons pictured here without bike racks. So where was the pic taken?

Maybe if CoP would stop hobbling streets, arterials, and boulevards there wouldn't be so much congestion. In my opinion that is also why freeway traffic has recently gotten so much worse. It's the only efficient way left to get around.

motto: "Only one guy charged with a felony"

So far.

JK: Here's a link to the OregonLive article, which includes a link to the AAA report.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2011/11/portland_areas_traffic_crashes.html

Ten percent of the jobs in the US are tied to the auto industry. Drive less social engineering campaigns act to eliminate these jobs, many of which are family wage, financially self-sustainable jobs in the private sector, and/or family owned small businesses. Drivers pay 60% of the costs of driving and nearly 90% of the costs of roadway infrastructure. On the flip side, transit passengers cover only 25% of the operational costs of transit Today’s average transit passenger is receiving a taxpayer funded subsidy of over six dollars in operational costs per each one-way trip which does not include the cost of the rail vehicles, the tracks they run on, shelters, the busses, the damage heavy two-axle busses do the roads, etc.. Bicyclists merely contribute lip service when it comes to paying for the costs of bicycle infrastructure. Motorist paid fuel taxes - the current primary revenue source for transportation infrastructure - are absent when cars are parked. Equity is missing. Financial self-sustainability is absent. PBOT continues to shoot itself in the foot with more pot holes to come. The results of adopting targets of driving less – such as in The Portland Plan - will undoubtedly contribute to a significant reduction of family wage private sector jobs, generate significantly less revenue to maintain roadways while increasing both public debt and the overall costs to taxpayers within the city. Financial equity requires that bicyclists and transit passengers be charged user fees to the degree of becoming the primary revenue sources to pay for alternative infrastructure

PdxMark: JK: Here's a link to the OregonLive article, which includes a link to the AAA report.
JK: Thanks.
I suspect that travel has always been dangerous. Before cars, there were crappy roads with robbers, panicked horses (for those who had the luxury of a horses), hungry carnivores, fatal trip and fall accidents. Then came the railroads with their crappy safety record - bridges collapsing, trains colliding and tracks washing out. In the automobile age, the fatality rate has been dropping for decades.

Some early New York City data suggests that pedestrian deaths were far higher in the horse days than the auto age.

Thanks
JK