Isn't the city blaming the growing pothole problem and the new leaf tax on the decline in gas tax revenues?

If there were jobs in Portland so that I didn't have to drive 13 miles to work one way (a 2 hour Tri-Met commute), then maybe I'd think about it.

This is just a small part of the mission creep problem at Metro. Just go on the "calendar" section of their website and look at the number of events sponsored by Metro each day. The lack of fiscal discipline is stunning. One could easily cut 200 FTE positions over there and the public would never notice the difference.

So the answer to your questions is, "they do it because it provides jobs for some bureaucrats and they like being employed." With no accountability.

It's really hilarious to watch some of the county governments in our more rural surrounding areas ready to copy Portland's lead. Advising all to consider the bike as a great alternative to get to work.

No bike lanes or even safe shoulders to ride on. 1 hour commute to work. Icy, rainy roads in the winter. It gets better and better.

I do not think it is a bad idea to encourage people to let their kids walk.bike to school. It teaches them self responsibility and gives them self confidence.

I grew up in NY and that was how everyone did it. With my kids here, I made them walk/bike. I wasn't until a day where I had to pick one up at middle school for some reason that I discovered all these parents lined up in cars to drive their kids home. Seemed ridiculous to me. I recall telling a parent in the high school that my kids sometimes take the MAX to school. She looked at me like I was the Antichrist. Her kid is probably now in his sixth year of college. I wonder if she doesn't drive to Eugene to cook and clean for her kid?

Oftentimes, when someone complains about the form of a message, it's really the content that rankles.

Jack,
You can apply this question to many things done by government: take the bus, turn off the lights, ride your bike or walk, emit less carbon, and so on ad nauseam. So for weeks of electioneering we were promised that if elected, services would be made more efficient.

Someone commented that there is nothing worse than doing efficiently what doesn't need to be done.

Thus, it is a false assumption to say government has to cut back "services" as revenue falls. Rather, we need to look to see if government has taken on missions that belong to more basic units of society.

Sam, Randy, et al, don't believe in democracy or government as we knew it. They KNOW what's best for us. And we're going to ride a bike or the streetcar. Even, as Beulah said above, if the job we find is 13 miles/2 hours by TriMet bus/MAX. And the new/old governor is going to fix the environment which is more of the same. Ignore the economy. Get used to going by bike and streetcar.

With so many people out of work around here, the extra time it takes to bike, walk, or take the bus is a non-issue according the the City.

"What if you could lower household costs, become more active, create more quality family time and reduce your household carbon footprint? If your family owns two or more cars, consider becoming a one-car family."

Sam Adams owns two cars. You first, Mr. Adams.

George Mason University economist Don Boudreaux answered pretty well:

"These ideas," Boudreaux says, "are almost exclusively about how other people should live their lives. These are ideas about how one group of people (the politically successful) should engineer everyone else's contracts, social relations, diets, habits, and even moral sentiments." Liberalism's ideas are "about replacing an unimaginably large multitude of diverse and competing ideas ... with a relatively paltry set of 'Big Ideas' that are politically selected, centrally imposed, and enforced by government, not by the natural give, take and compromise of the everyday interactions of millions of people."

Liberalism's ideas are "about replacing an unimaginably large multitude of diverse and competing ideas ... with a relatively paltry set of 'Big Ideas' that are politically selected, centrally imposed, and enforced by government, not by the natural give, take and compromise of the everyday interactions of millions of people."

You mean like the Constitution?

The actual problem is a common one throughout history: The confusion of Personal and Cultural values with Universal values. Sometimes a value can be in more than one category.

For example, one might say "human rights" is a Universal value--most all humans condemn the act of randomly killing your neighbor, and won't tolerate it. Or "justice"--most humans desire that everyone receives fair and equitable treatment (to simplify the idea).

"Stoning women for adultery", for example, is a Cultural value, NOT a Universal value. "The right to a free market" is a Cultural value, NOT a Universal value. And so on.

Many folks actually do not understand the difference between these types of values; they either assume that "values are values", or that government does, in fact, exist to legislate and enforce their personal and community values.

People and local and regional governments make this mistake all the time; it's the main reason we have increasingly bitter (and artificial) divides that are labeled uselessly with "liberal" and "conservative" or "Republican" and "Democrat".

With that in mind, I ask: What types of values does the current city council uphold?

Around here, if I were to ride bikes with my kids to school, the only meaningful conversation would be, "OK, cross now! No, wait! OK, NOW!" There are no crosswalks with lights between our neighborhood and the local public school unless you add a full mile to the trip.

Sam Adams owns two cars. You first, Mr. Adams.

After his infamous incident in a Hayden Island parking lot involving his full sized Chevrolet pickup truck, he tried a "car-free diet" for a month.

After the month was up, he made it clear that he was going to drive. Buses are for us little people, not for important people like Sam-I-Am Adams. And his love affair with the streetcar has nothing to do with him riding the Streetcar (as he lives nowhere near a Streetcar line) but rather the development and networking potential.

What John said. It is a religion, plain and simple. The planners all pray towards Metro three times a day.

"It's really hilarious to watch some of the county governments in our more rural surrounding areas ready to copy Portland's lead."

Where do you think their planners were trained? Guess where their planners still live?

And Kitzhaber just announced (after the election was over) that his top priority in these economic times is going to be... the environment?! This state, and particularly this city, have become soooo f**ked up over my lifetime.

Hectoring is defined as bullying and intimidation. I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding how a web page could possibly be hectoring you, Jack. That seems a bit hyperbolic. The page you link to seems as if it's more of an informational site for people interested in getting around town without a car for every adult, with links to maps of bus lines and carpool sites. Seems pretty non-threatening.

Its development may not be the greatest use of city funds, but they're not exactly jumping out of the screen to rip your steering wheel from your hands. As someone who enjoys driving my convertible at every opportunity, I actually hope lots of people do switch over to non-car lifestyles: more road for me.

Consider biking to school. In the fog. When it's 33 degrees. And the road is wet

Imagine sharing a 4 inch shoulder (common in SW Portland) with garbage trucks, people talking on cells phones, putting on makeup, or eating their McMuffins while you listen to the crunch of your knobby tires on the gravel left by last years snowplow.

Sounds fun!

The second question my Doc asked this year was, "what kind of car do you drive". A large SUV, I replied. "Good," he said, "you have cut your risk of dying in an automobile crash by 60%". Mass wins.

ecohuman has it all wrong.

Since life requires us to produce what we need, productiveness is an absolute value--thereby making opposites out of the industrious worker and the parasitic recipient of govt. handouts. Since life requires us to use our own judgment rather than submissively accept the assertions of others, independence is another absolute value--making moral opposites out of the person acting on his own rational convictions and the one deferring to the consensus of his neighbors (or Metro). Since life requires the mind, our political system must allow us to use it, i.e., freedom (including the freedom to trade) is an absolute universal value.

Snards, you are so correct. Kitz is going to swim upstream, by removing more dams, certainly going to try creating more regulations on business, and generally pound square pegs into round holes. Instead of any compromise we will get acrimonious behavior from a guy who now has a bunch of axes to grind. Oregon will stay a third world state and four years from now we will do it again. It hurts that this state has so many Rajneeshees voting for the politicians that support this kind of crap.

productiveness is an absolute value--thereby making opposites out of the industrious worker and the parasitic recipient of govt. handouts.

I don't know what an "absolute" value is, but it sounds vague to me. There are no subcategories of Universal values, else they wouldn't be Universal, would they?

Let me be clearer: "Universal" values are those which most (if not all) humans would agree upon. "Cultural" values represent a smaller group, and "Personal" smaller still.

independence is another absolute value

Not at all. In fact, if anything, interdependence might qualify as a universal value. Independence, again, sounds pretty, but doesn't really define well as a value--because it needs a qualifier (independence from what?)

Since life requires us to use our own judgment rather than submissively accept the assertions of others

You and I do that every day. There are ten thousand assertions about the Internet and how it works that you are accepting submissively right now, without question.

Imagine that, Mr. Tee? I don't have to. I did it, but even more severe, like in the 30's snow and ice.

But then, that was Chicago in the 50's.

All adds up to feeling more like oppression than suggestion around here.

Instead of just the basics taken care of, we are paying more and more for city to push plans on our population! . . and push they do! Changing the character of our
city until no longer recognizable. . promoting one thing while doing another.

Next thing you know, we will be monitored as to how many miles we can drive
and charged or even ticketed accordingly.

Has anyone seen the top 100 banned/challenged books: 2000-2009?
Of course, Fahrenheit 451 is on it!

People standing in line to get body scanned!

Mandated to buy insurance from a corporation no matter what the price?

Bit by bit it all adds up to oppression, unless some of you don’t recognize the transition and/or difference anymore!

Oppression has different meanings, one is overwhelming or depressing to the spirit or senses,

Perhaps some of us are more sensitive to these bits adding up than others are.

Sam et al - Suggestion - How about making the roads more drivable so we spend less time in our cars.

How stupid of the city and its army of planner types. Owning a car is a sign of economic prosperity, giving its owner the ability to travel quickly, farther and more cheaply I might add than the bus system. Bikes are ok for short two to three mile trips on dry days, but much beyond this and bikes have their own set of problems (like change of clothing, or using up one's own physical energy when you are going to participate in a sporting event). I once heard you actually burn up more energy (in extra replacement calories) biking than driving.

But like the plastic bag ban proposal where the city posted many incorrect facts, the city finds it easier just to reprint the rantings of the village idiot dressed up some costume like the infamous plastic bag monster.

Erik H -

Samthe scam lives three blocks from the yellow line Kenton stop. Its flat and has sidewalks on both sides of the street, and traffic lights for crossing N. Denver.

Max may not technically be the streecar, but rail mass transit (I won't call it rapid transit, I know what rapid transit is and Portland has none) is readily available top Sam the scam.

That he doesn't use it is telling.

Nonny Mouse,
Some of these who like to control others and how they should live, do not follow their own directives.

How many planners live in the ghetto style housing they approve?

How many beneficiaries of the light rail plan use that light rail, other than the opening day of glory?

How many bike lobbyists use their bikes to buy groceries to take home in the rain, or go to a concert at night, dressed how?

The list is long, as usual.

My family just downsized a car. We traded in our Altima hybrid and VW Golf for a full size Ford pickup. V8 of course.

If some families gave up the 2nd car, they would have to sleep together.

This obsession over bike lanes is sad. You want something to fear or get angry about? Take a look at the rising obesity rates (and the accompanying diabetes and heart disease) in this country, and what the implications are for our health care system and our economy.

What universal, cultural or personal values say it's okay for people to take very little responsibility for the effect that their decisions have on their neighbors?

Is there any point where government should step in and try to prevent the logical conclusion of this trend, or is any governmental intervention on this point to socialist/fascist/communist for the "small government" (except for MY Medicare and Social Security) crowd?

Add environmental concerns and climate change, the widening gap between rich and poor, or perhaps a couple disastrous wars, and it seems that many folks here are missing the forest for the trees. Actually, you're not even focusing on trees. You're obsessing about the minuscule patch of moss on the underside of a little piece of tree bark.

I'm not contending that bike lanes are the solution to all our problems. I just find it depressing when folks obsess over such trivial matters.

Darrell, It does meet the definition of "hectoring" when you remember that the local government demands an extra surcharge on your annual renewal to fix the bridge (that people walk and bike across, no less), segregate certain roads as "bike friendly," which often means "car UNfriendly," and spends millions of dollars in road repair and improvement money on garbage projects that do nothing to actually repair or improve the existing roads.

Joey: Is there any point where government should step in and try to prevent the logical conclusion of this trend, or is any governmental intervention on this point to socialist/fascist/communist for the "small government" (except for MY Medicare and Social Security) crowd?
JK: Well said.
We all MUST obey the laws of GOD to prevent him from getting angry and destroying our society, therefore you MUST start going to your local Christian church twice a week to protect society from this threat. We know the threat is real because GOD has done it in the past so you have no rational reason to object to this decree of government. If you refuse we will throw you in jail.

And that is why the founders wisely limited the power of government To prevent every crackpot idea that comes along (like diet and climate protection) from becoming enforced by government.

Thanks
JK

I'm not contending that bike lanes are the solution to all our problems. I just find it depressing when folks obsess over such trivial matters.

Gosh,

Thanks for sharing your concerns.

I hope you're not too distressed. I can't understand why you would wilfully expose yourself to this inane drivel if it causes you such angst.

Perhaps you should suffer in silence while others pursue their pointless obsessions.

Just a thought.

"How many bike lobbyists use their bikes to buy groceries to take home in the rain, or go to a concert at night, dressed how?"

For crying out loud, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. In the above situations, take the car, by all means. I'm getting tired of people coming up with scenarios (and there are many) where it would be impractical to bike, and then using such as an excuse to never ride. If it's a nice day and you have to go a mile or two to the library, try riding (or walking). Too many people reach for the car keys every single time they go out the front door!

CC - Were you going for irony? Or was it inadvertent?

Take a look at the rising obesity rates (and the accompanying diabetes and heart disease) in this country, and what the implications are for our health care system and our economy.

None of which are correlated with an increase in bicycle use. For example, in Amsterdam, that paragon of bicycling virtue that Portland admires, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease rates are similar to Portland. And, they have about the same basic life expectancy.

I'm not contending that bike lanes are the solution to all our problems. I just find it depressing when folks obsess over such trivial matters.

A trivial matter that (a)could cost over a billion dollars in the next two decades, and (b)for a lot of people, is precisely representative of the "my pet projects are the world's pet projects" mentality that seems so prevalent here now. It's not trivial at all, in other words. It speaks to a lot of citizen views and concerns.

What universal, cultural or personal values say it's okay for people to take very little responsibility for the effect that their decisions have on their neighbors?

What universal, cultural or personal values say it's okay to force adoption of a billion dollars for bicycles, but not spend a fraction of that to end hunger in the region?

For crying out loud, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. In the above situations, take the car, by all means. I'm getting tired of people coming up with scenarios (and there are many) where it would be impractical to bike, and then using such as an excuse to never ride.

Ever read bikeportland.org? Of course you do. Then you'll understand when I say "for crying out loud, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. In the above situations, take the bike, by all means. I'm getting tired of people coming up with scenarios (and ther are many) where it would be impractical to drive, and then using such as an excuse never to drive".

But I don't believe bicycles are any more sustainable, benevolent, or beneficial than autos, and vice versa.

What universal, cultural or personal values say it's okay to force adoption of a billion dollars for bicycles, but not spend a fraction of that to end hunger in the region?

Ok. So I guess we both agree that actively working on ending hunger in the region is time better spent than drumming up fears of Big Brother's social engineering schemes over an innocuous web page.

None of which [obesity, heart disease, diabetes] are correlated with an increase in bicycle use. For example, in Amsterdam, that paragon of bicycling virtue that Portland admires, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease rates are similar to Portland.

The first part of this statement is patently untrue, and your uncorroborated example (even if true) does not actually prove your point. There is tons of data that shows a correlation. There is also significant data that shows that active travel provides health benefits.

About 30 seconds on Google...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20724675
"Together with many other studies, our analysis provides evidence of the population-level health benefits of active travel. Policies on transport, land-use, and urban development should be designed to encourage walking and cycling for daily travel."

And just as a reminder...nobody is forcing you to walk, bike or get out of your car. I am just fine with government providing people with options that could help us avoid a looming public health disaster. Bonus points for easing environmental degradation and making us less dependent on foreign oil, even if it's a tiny amount.

That fact that people are even arguing that being active DOES NOT contribute to your overall health is insane.

The page you link to seems as if it's more of an informational site for people interested in getting around town without a car for every adult, with links to maps of bus lines and carpool sites.

"Informational"? Did you actually look at the site?

“I love bike commuting home each evening with my 10 year old son, says Rachael, a Portland commuter. “(I) pick him up at school after a stressful day of work and we get to ride…home together every night. No traffic, no crowds, no noise except whatever he wants to talk about. Riding with him makes everything right no matter what the weather.”

Obviously, this isn't a resident of SW Portland. No traffic? No crowds? How about steep hills and no roads with shoulders?

The City of Portland and the Metro regional "government" actually pay people good money (and benefits) to do nothing more than pump out idiotic crap.

What if you could lower household costs, become more active, create more quality family time and reduce your household carbon footprint? If your family owns two or more cars, consider becoming a one-car family.

Ooh! We can reduce our "carbon footprint"! All we have to do is quit driving! It's painless! Never mind that a 15-minute car trip takes two hours on TriMet.

Do you have a high school student at home who wants to borrow the car? The City of Portland and TriMet have teamed up to provide every Portland high school student a free TriMet pass.

Golly! And where did these perpetually broke agencies find the money to pay for that?

Oh, they won't pay for it with your tax dollars. That would be wrong. TriMet has curtailed or severely cut bus services across the board. Portland has increased fees across the board, and added new fees in some parts of town. But they haven't raised your taxes.

Of course, the City doesn't stop there - they need to keep the drones employed.

Here's some more pablum:

Global warming happens when we overload the atmosphere with too much carbon by burning fossil fuels for energy. In fact, the everyday choices Portland residents make about food, heating and powering our homes, getting around and buying and disposing of stuff, create more than half of all local carbon emissions.

The Climate 101 Guide is a resource to help Portlanders better understand how our everyday activities create carbon emissions and what can be done to reduce those emissions.

It doesn't appear as though they know the difference between "fossil fuel" and abiotic fuel. Fossil fuel is coal and peat - coal is particularly abundant in the USA, which is why although we aren't to be allowed to burn it here to produce energy, we will be shipping it to China - where it will be burned to produce energy.

To these idiots, it's all good because we aren't burning coal. We're "reducing our carbon footprint". They also consider oil to be a fossil fuel - which clearly is not the case, and they don't consider hydropower to be "renewable".

Regardless of what these highly paid hacks say, global warming happens as a result of solar activity, and human activity is insignificant. What we're seeing today is the influx of a bunch of kids who were all raised with the goal of enhancing their self-esteem.

They truly believe that they are so important, so significant, that by recycling they can Save The Planet™. The egocentrism of these folks is simply amazing.

They truly believe that they are so important, so significant, that by recycling they can Save The Planet™. The egocentrism of these folks is simply amazing.
The New Your Times said recycling does NOT save the planet:

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/30/magazine/recycling-is-garbage.html?scp=1&sq=Recycling%20Is%20Garbage&st=cse

Thanks
JK

Regardless of what these highly paid hacks say, global warming happens as a result of solar activity, and human activity is insignificant. What we're seeing today is the influx of a bunch of kids who were all raised with the goal of enhancing their self-esteem.

They truly believe that they are so important, so significant, that by recycling they can Save The Planet™. The egocentrism of these folks is simply amazing.

Max, I think you're projecting. The vast, vast majority of scientists have concluded that human contribution to climate change is significant. National Academy of Sciences: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

"For crying out loud, it doesn't have to be all or nothing"

Tell that to Sam. Look how they kill to get money for a TriMet bridge yet the Sellwood a half-mile away is the ugly stepchild and languishes for repair money.

Look at what they've done to roads in town for bikes and then tell me what they've done to make traffic flow better for cars.

The over-arching plan is to force people out of cars. This may/may not be a good thing, but shouldn't the individual decide that? I mean its not a crime to drive a car - yet.

Just look who funds the vast, vast majority of scientists you speak of.

The first part of this statement is patently untrue, and your uncorroborated example (even if true) does not actually prove your point.

Joey, It's always a pleasure. From the site *you* linked to:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19164816

Here's the bottom line quote from *that* study:

Although the results do not prove causality, they suggest that active transportation could be one of the factors that explain international differences in obesity rates.

And as a side note, notice that the study relies entirely on BMI--a measurement that some love, and some ridicule as inadequate.

And for every study like the one you've linked to, there's another that says the opposite is true. In other words, my fact-challenged friend--no, nobody's proven that "active transportation" actually reduces obesity. Is exercise a good thing? Duh. Does it result in a healthier life? No, not necessarily.

That fact that people are even arguing that being active DOES NOT contribute to your overall health is insane.

First, the discussion wasn't about "being active", it was specifically about "bicycling". Second--the fact that you're only willing to focus on one single activity is insane.

And just as a reminder...nobody is forcing you to walk, bike or get out of your car.

Actually, the car part is exactly what's happening all over the world through congestion taxes, tolls, fees, reduction in auto access, and other policies.

And the life expectancy of a US citizen at birth? 78.2. In the Netherlands? 79.8. Death from heart disease in both places? About the same.

In China, where urban active transportation rates put every other country to shame? Obesity rates are about the same as the US.

My point is not that exercise doesn't help health--my point is that focusing on bicycling is not only naive, but based on little real proof other than people like it. That, and the profound idiocy of mis-ordered priorities in local and regional policy.

Actually, the car part is exactly what's happening all over the world through congestion taxes, tolls, fees, reduction in auto access, and other policies.

For the most part, that stuff just removes the externalities involved in driving, putting more of the costs back where the decision gets made.

Ecohuman: None of which [obesity, heart disease, diabetes] are correlated with an increase in bicycle use.

It seems you're moving the goalposts. There's a tremendous amount of data showing a correlation. Admittedly, there's less data regarding "causation" because it's a more difficult thing to pinpoint. But there IS evidence, and it seems more is coming out every year. You may have missed the "related article" along the sidebar of the article I linked to above.

First, the discussion wasn't about "being active", it was specifically about "bicycling". Second--the fact that you're only willing to focus on one single activity is insane.

I'm attempting to widen the discussion to "being active" or "active transportation" but I'm "insane" for focusing on "one single issue"? You're trying to pick nits, and you're tying yourself up in the process. Jack's original post was about the benefits of transportation outside of the car. Other commenters focused on bicycling. I'm responding to both.

Actually, the car part is exactly what's happening all over the world through congestion taxes, tolls, fees, reduction in auto access, and other policies.

When congestion pricing and tolls are done correctly, they actually improve the market efficiency of the system by capturing time-loss value which otherwise evaporates. Every additional driver in a congested area imposes a time cost on all the other drivers in that area. Congestion pricing was designed to monetize that externality and make people pay the true cost of their transportation.

Furthermore, what reduction in auto access? There are more miles of road in this country than ever before. If you're upset about congestion, take a look at the empty passenger seat next to you or the single driver in the car in front of you. Don't blame the pedestrian or cyclist hugging their little bit of space.

Joey:
Max, I think you're projecting. The vast, vast majority of scientists have concluded that human contribution to climate change is significant. National Academy of Sciences

As John notes: Just look who funds the vast, vast majority of scientists you speak of.

Now, have you happened to notice a little thing that the media referred to as "climategate"?

That would be the situation in which the "climate scientists" were caught doctoring data and attempting to suppress dissent. Why would they do that?

Follow the money.

"I don't believe bicycles are any more sustainable, benevolent, or beneficial than autos."

Really? I don't believe that you don't believe that.

Follow the money.

Indeed.

Joey: . . Jack's original post was about the benefits of transportation outside of the car. Other commenters focused on bicycling. .

I don’t recall the post was about the benefits of transportation outside of the car. The post title was "Where the money goes" and asks "How did it become a city government function to hector me day after day about how I should spend less time in my car?" He then goes on to note they don't spend that amount of effort or money on some other matters . . .

outside of the car

less time in my car

Those look pretty similar to me. But the point is beside the point. Joey is describing the city web page that Jack complained about. If anyone has mischaracterized anything in the context of this post, it was Jack in his description of the web page.

Max: Now, have you happened to notice a little thing that the media referred to as "climategate"?

You mean where 4 (FOUR!) climatologists were *alleged* to have colluded or interfered with the peer-review process, but the only official investigations into the incident found these 4 scientists to be at worst rude or dismissive.

Even if "climategate" were a scandal, which it doesn't appear to be, you still can't dispute that 97% of the 1,300+ leading climatoligists (per the study at the National Academy of Sciences link above) strongly disagree with you.

And in other news, most scientists agree the sky is blue and the earth revolves around the sun.

Clinaman - What's your point? Are you trying to be clever or did you not actually go to the link that apparently prompted Jack to make the original post?

Joey, clinaman quoted exactly the meaning of Jack's post. Going to a link doesn't change the intent of Jack's post. He at least owns that and you own your own opinion.

Joey: The vast, vast majority of scientists have concluded that human contribution to climate change is significant.
JK: Wrong. You really should look beyond Al Gore’s lies, most real scientists have an open mind about the CO2 scare and recognize it, at least, as being vastly overhyped. It is mostly those “scientists” reaping in millions in government research grants that are gung ho. Many leading scientists have come out against CO2 being a problem. For instance here is a list of 450 peer reviewed papers that DO NOT support the Al Gore climate lie: http://www.sustainableoregon.com/450papers.html

Thanks
JK

It seems you're moving the goalposts. There's a tremendous amount of data showing a correlation.

No, you're substituting "correlation" wherever it's convenient for you to do so. I'm familiar with the language of this kind of research; I'm sure you are too.

I'm attempting to widen the discussion to "being active" or "active transportation" but I'm "insane" for focusing on "one single issue"?

We're attempting to focus the discussion on the idiocy of placing a billion+dollars on "bicycles", given the dozen other more critical long-term needs, and you call us "insane"?

When congestion pricing and tolls are done correctly, they actually improve the market efficiency of the system by capturing time-loss value which otherwise evaporates.

You honestly have no clue how ridiculous and irrelevant that long sentence of wonkery is to reality, do you?

Congestion pricing was designed to monetize that externality and make people pay the true cost of their transportation.

No, that's not what congestion pricing is used for at all. In the UK and Netherlands, for example, it's part of their explicit planning that this kind of tool is used to *discourage travel*. You can use your Google skills to confirm it.

Furthermore, what reduction in auto access? There are more miles of road in this country than ever before.

So, you can spout at length about "monetizing" and "externalities", but you're clueless about how charging for use is a regressive tax? Hmm. And I wasn't speaking of the miles of roadway, I was speaking of *access*.

If you're upset about congestion, take a look at the empty passenger seat next to you or the single driver in the car in front of you. Don't blame the pedestrian or cyclist hugging their little bit of space.

The funny thing is, I ride a bicycle and drive a car. The funnier thing is, I bet you think I'm pro-car. I'm not, and I'm not "upset about congestion". You didn't read my post, or you'd see part of what irks me--extremely poor priorities by those spending our money. I'm watching the metro area's children and elderly who are hungry and living in povery *grow*, while City Council makes passionate, masturbatory exercises in funding of--pet projects like more bike lanes.

You might be asking "why not both"? I'm asking "why not spend a billion dollars on the most vulnerable amongst us and the environment we're building roads for those bicycles to ride on first?"

Really? I don't believe that you don't believe that.

I don't. I mean I do. Wait--do I?

Ecohuman - Now you're just playing word games.

Ecohuman: No, you're substituting "correlation" wherever it's convenient for you to do so. I'm familiar with the language of this kind of research; I'm sure you are too.

You were the first person to bring up "correlation" when you said "None of which [obesity, heart disease, diabetes] are correlated with an increase in bicycle use." I then provided links to studies that refuted your unsubstantiated claim, and additionally provided links addressing causation while admitting that the causation data is still emerging but there seem to be more studies every year.

My position: there is a huge inverse correlation between active transportation (including bicycling) and obesity, and a large volume of data to support it. There are also studies that support a causal relationship, and the supporting data seems to strengthen each year. If you disagree, and I guess we disagree.

ME: When congestion pricing and tolls are done correctly, they actually improve the market efficiency of the system by capturing time-loss value which otherwise evaporates.

YOU: You honestly have no clue how ridiculous and irrelevant that long sentence of wonkery is to reality, do you?

If you don't understand it, that's fine. I won't pretend to find economic theory particularly interesting, but that's the economic theory behind congestion pricing. I have no control over how any government body implements tolls or congestion pricing, but the underlying theory is sound.

So, you can spout at length about "monetizing" and "externalities", but you're clueless about how charging for use is a regressive tax?

Am I clueless? This rebuttal is the first time you've brought up the equity of "charging" though you don't specify for what. Right now, anytime you or I get in a car and drive somewhere, we're not paying the true cost of our actions. We pay gas, insurance, maintenance, etc., but we're not charged anything for the environmental harm we do or our contribution to congestion. Charging for the actual cost seems quite equitable, and is no more regressive than a lower income person paying the same amount for gas or insurance as a wealthier person. This is totally off topic, but I'm addressing it because you randomly brought up equity (?).

If you're not "pro-car" (not even sure what that means), they I don't understand why you're going through these contortions to argue with my explanation of an economic concept. If you think I'm misstating the theory, it'd be helpful if you corrected me or actually explained why it's "ridiculous and irrelevant" that we find a way to charge for the externalities, the costs users generate but do not pay.

Wow, this is drifting far of topic. Goodnight and good luck.

Nonny Mouse: Thanks for the info. (I think the Yellow Line MAX seems more like a Streetcar line than a MAX line...)

I guess that being in the "bad, bad suburbs" of Washington County and I can walk my fat rear end to a bus stop 1,915 feet (that's what, seven Portland city blocks?)...really telling of a Mayor who decries how awful the suburbs are, and yet he is within spitting distance of a nice MAX stop and doesn't use it.

The most powerful correlate of obesity is poverty. The most powerful correlate of poverty is lack of education. What if the religious zealots who want everybody to righteously bike cared as much about poverty and our rotten school system?

but that's the economic theory behind congestion pricing.

You can say it several dozen times, but you're still wrong, and the proof is in writing all over the globe.

I then provided links to studies

No, you provides *one* link to *one* study.

that refuted your unsubstantiated claim,

One study "refutes" my claim? Nice try. Can Jim Karlock use that logic to "refute" your views on global climate change?

and additionally provided links addressing causation while admitting that the causation data is still emerging

Joey, you can rewrite your comment history to sound better, but your basically making things up. You first said:

"There is tons of data that shows a correlation."

*Then* you say:

"while [I am] admitting that the causasion data is just emerging"

"but there seem to be more studies every year."

There seem to be more studies every year that show that building roads for cars and bicycles (yes, bicycles need roads) are financially and ecologically bankrupting us, too, but we still build them. There are more studies every year that show that "active transportation" is one of a myriad of ways that a human *might* get more exercise.

The underlying point is that what you're describing is all basically bulls*it. The *real* problems in the local area receive lip service from local and regional government, but in reality are ignored for pet projects:

(1) Sam Adams tries to strong arm a billion dollars into bike lanes for "health and the environment", while he supports and lobbies for converting hundreds of irreplaceable acres of wildlife area on Hayden Island for--shipping of coal and cars.

(2) The Willamette River and other waterways are incredibly dirty and getting more so every year.

(3) The number of children and elderly living in poverty in the region is exploding.

(4)Local public transit consistently seems to be in financial trouble and needs to be improved--but we spends millions on a "tram" that serves--one corporation.

(5)Buses are cheaper, more efficient, and more flexible than light rail-but we're going broke trying to build light rail.

(6)Superfund sites in the Portland area...

But I could make this list all day, and these are only a few of the problems. There are much worse.

Still not getting it, Joey? The priorities are all screwed up.

I think you're trying to find disagreement where there is none, or at least very little. I would agree that certain priorities are screwed up, but I guess I don't think the City putting up a webpage touting the benefits of trading one of your cars for active transportation is a valid reflection of that.

On the other hand, though it's barely germane to the original post, I agree that cutting bus service while building a light rail line to Milwaukie in the middle of a horrible economy reflects poor priorities. But I'm not going to demagogue and jump to the conclusion that ALL city government is filled with social engineers hellbent on finding ways to steal your $$$ and flush it down the toilet. While you may not hold that view, I think some commenters here do.

One study "refutes" my claim? Nice try. Can Jim Karlock use that logic to "refute" your views on global climate change?

You apparently didn't see that the page I linked to had a sidebar with links to 5-10 other peer-reviewed studies. Again, there not so much "my views" as the views of 97% of leading climatologists. Comparing peer-reviewed studies to JK's plethora of nutty links to random websites, oil-backed studies, etc is dumb. And I don't believe you actually think the two are equivalent.

Regarding correlation and causation, it appears that you're trying to indict me for stating (at various times):

"There is tons of data that shows a correlation."

*Then* you say:

"while [I am] admitting that the causasion data is just emerging...but there seem to be more studies every year."

These are not contradictory statements. I assume you understand the difference between correlation and causation. I honestly don't understand why you're trying so hard to refute this point.

To me, it seems the better counter argument (though it's drifting off topic from the point that a passive city web page is "hectoring" Jack) would be: "yes, there seems to be a correlation between active transportation and obesity, etc. BUT I think we should spend tax dollars on other priorities."

GREAT! It's a tangent, but I don't necessarily disagree. To the original point, I think it's perfectly appropriate for the city to provide information online about the benefits of active transportation.

You apparently didn't see that the page I linked to had a sidebar with links to 5-10 other peer-reviewed studies.

And you seemed to conveniently ignore the evidence (and especially the lack of evidence) for the same topic.

These are not contradictory statements.

Wow. Just wow. Saying there's "tons of data" and "I admit the causation data is just emerging" aren't contradictory? I'll leave the remedial grammar lesson for you to figure out later.

To me, it seems the better counter argument (though it's drifting off topic

Again, my publicly employed friend, you can try and say what the "topic" is a hundred times, but it's still not the one you choose.

To the original point, I think it's perfectly appropriate for the city to provide information online about the benefits of active transportation.

And Jack doesn't. Except that he took about 2,000 less words to make his case.

But I'm not going to demagogue and jump to the conclusion that ALL city government is filled with social engineers

That's not demagoguery, it's presumption about the several thousand people that comment here. And you're wrong, though, and I'd invite you to ask around the planning program at PSU, for example. Ask them if this quote is true:

"Urban planning is behavior modification".

Because ultimately, it is; what's alarming is the ideology and profoundly faulty, unquestioned assumptions that go into city planning decisions. If you don't agree with this, then notice that most of urban planning is, in fact, the business of undoing past mistakes. those roads and cars that many love to hate were carefully thought out and designed around by planners who deemed themselves wise.

If none that makes sense to you, let me drop the bomb of truth on your claim that "nobody's forcing you to ride a bicycle".

Here's Ray LaHood, the nation's transportation secretary and a vocal proponent of light rail and the "bicycle infrastructure":

"About everything we do around here is government intrusion into people's lives," he said. It is a way to coerce people out of their cars. Yeah."

And here's the source:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/05/lahood_defends.html

The truth, as LaHood so aptly put it, is that urban planning policy is, in fact, largely about behavior modification to accomodate a particular ideology. And I think the ideology that's pervading amongst the cesspool of mediocrity that we cal local and regional government is really, really messed up.

As someone who enjoys bike commuting to work in Portland, I still wonder why the F*%$ does the city put that slippery brick across a lot of downtown intersections, literally right where you are angling to make a turn? I'll tell you, that's one really good way to lay down a bike...

Ecohuman - Fine, we disagree on the overall point. You dismiss the peer-reviewed studies I present, while not providing any evidence for your assertion that there's no correlation between active transportation (such as bicycling) and obesity.

But your insistence on selectively cutting and pasting what I'm saying to score rhetorical points indicates you 1) either don't understand the difference between correlation and causation; or 2) think your time is well-spent playing anonymous rhetorical games online.

Again, for the 3rd or 4th time now - get ready, it's my last try - I said:

There is tons of data that shows a correlation...Admittedly, there's less data regarding "causation" because it's a more difficult thing to pinpoint. But there IS evidence, and it seems more is coming out every year

And you respond (with a selective cut and paste): Wow. Just wow. Saying there's "tons of data" and "I admit the causation data is just emerging" aren't contradictory? I'll leave the remedial grammar lesson for you to figure out later.

Wow. Just wow. You're going to pretend that there's no difference between "correlation" and "causation"? I guess I'll take that remedial grammar lesson (pompous much?) after you learn the difference between these two basic research concepts.

You're either playing games or don't understand what you're talking about. Either way, there's no point in engaging with you any further. Thanks.