I'm sure the automobile importers using Port of Portland facilities will be happy to hear these comments. But, when they leave town it will mean we'll have more room for coal exports.

Can we stage a "gas guzzler parade" in protest?
I will be happy to lead off with my new 7.3 mpg motor home!
Maybe he will change his tune when he can finally afford a real car on his no doubt greatly increased compensation package courtesy of US, the taxpayers.

Honestly, another stunning lack of big picture understanding. Let's hack these to pieces quickly:

6. Modern American consumerism, characterized by excessive choices and overindulgence, is possible only through the car and its ability to transport large quantities of purchased goods.

In fact, most goods are transported by air, ship, rail, and large truck. But let's keep it simple: claiming that without cars people wouldn't be rampant consumer and overindulgent is, to use an economic term, a fantasy.

Wrong again, and his planning buddies should have disabused him of this notion. Retail centralizes for several reasons. The main reason is because larger corporations have an easy time of squashing distributed retail, and are helped to do so by government--like, say, a Mayor trying to lure a Costco downtown. Oh, wait--did Adams do that because he owns cars? But again, let's keep it simple: Centralization is a key part of density, which is what every modern planning effort seeks to promote.

Oh, and--one of the largest practicioners of "excessive choices and overindulgence" is Japan, where urban auto ownership is the minority. Japanese cities were dense--with concentrated retail--for centuries. I can name dozens of other examples.

7. The car, which was originally a symbol of progress and modernization, has become an obstacle to innovation by preserving outdated work and transportation patterns

He's partly right--if you're talking about America. However, he seems to omit the fact that the street systems of all large American cities existed before there were cars. I'm unclear how he thinks modern urban safety and waste systems would work without a dense street system for transport, though.

stymieing new technologies that threaten the combustion engine and oil dependence

No, that's the companies that own the resources and means of production and who, again, are aided and abetted by government. Blaming cars for that is like blaming Rahm Emanuel for what tie Obama wore last year.

and preventing new thinking in areas such as urban planning and the use of energy.

Cars prevent new thinking in urban planning? Uh oh. You might want to alert Portland planning departments, and PSU's planner factory.

8. The convergence of technological developments, geopolitical realities and renewed awareness about energy consumption make this an ideal time to begin to counter the car’s dominance of American culture.

Start with airplanes and buildings, which are responsible for the majority of pollution in the United States and create the growing necessity for cars in the first place. The PDC is perfectly situated to stop the building of skyscrapers and other mega-plexes that suck up the majority of energy use and spew out the largest percentage of air pollution in the U.S.

So I'm very glad to see he's going to work to eliminate the PDC. It's about time.

This is all fascinating, but it's like over-throwing Saadam, what did Mr Quinton want to offer in its place?

Bikes, pushcarts, ? - I think we went thru that phase 100 yrs back.

I'm impressed that he can live in Portland with three children and survive without a car, though I have to wonder how old his kids are (no buses after middle school in this town) and if his wife works.

Yesterday, my wife took my daughter to gymnastics out near Clackamas Town Center (the only other local gym is similarly non transit located on the west side) and I took my son to soccer at Lincoln. There was no way to do it without two cars, and the drive to Lincoln still takes 25 minutes (about 15 of which are spent getting through downtown.) (Yes, we could have taken public transit to soccer, but this would have added an hour and half to the evening.)

I'm even OK with promoting use of alternative transportation in the City. Density doesn't bother me anywhere near many of the posters here.

My concerns with this appointment are twofold. First, as today's Oregonian oped points out (can't link yet), we now have seen two major appointments (PDOT, PDC) occur without a national search, yet we describe ourselves as a national leader in urban development and transportation. It is awfully hard to avoid drawing the conclusion that prior political support for the Mayor and his policy positions is the main criterion for a heading a major bureau (although Quinton is clearly far more qualified to head PDC than Miller is for PDOT).

We can and we should attract nationally recognized policy makers. And if we do hire our own, they should be win fair and square in a national search.

The second is this: who speaks for the cars? I don't want to start a cars vs. bikes vs. bus vs. Max war, but the fact remains that I can see individuals who advocate for particular transportation modes throughout PDOT and the Mayor's staff EXCEPT for auto transportation. I simply wonder when a conversation starts about creating a new bike boulevard, or adding bioswales, or adding speed bumps, is there ANYONE whose job is to ask "How will this impact the movement of automobiles, which remain the primary mode of transportation for the vast majority of our citizens?"

I think the various modes have generally co-existed well in this City, but I things are getting really bad in some parts of town (driven on MLK/Grand lately?). We really have to have major N/S and E/W arterials to move cars in the city. They are rapidly disappearing in the SE part of the city.

More like GO BY STREETCAR - OR ELSE!

Sounds like he thinks he is a cheerleader for business - at least for those "new" technologies like wind turbines, streetcars, cargo bikes, and home offices.

To make it even more simple, what he's *really* advocating in Jack's excerpt is not an end to rampant consumerism or overindulgence or even pollution, but rather an increase in density (to increase use of public transit and make everything more "efficient").

And strangely, people like him seem to lack any perspective whatsoever on the history of mankind, which is replete with examples of massive environmental destruction and decadence long, long before cars ever existed. Rome denuded millions of acres of forest, exhausted natural resources across the continent, turned millions of acres of open space into cities and production, increased density and *centralized retail*, collapsed under its own decadent weight--all without cars.

This is from the "About" section of the blog:

I don’t really believe that cars are evil. In fact, my wife and I own two cars: a 1997 Jeep Grand Cherokee and a 2001 Honda Accord. We live a typical upper middle class life with three school age kids and the attendant duties that come with this type of life. We depend on our cars for daily tasks and, under oath, would admit that our cars have performed reliably beyond any reasonable expectations.

My issue is not so much with cars themselves – in fact, the invention and proliferation of the automobile have contributed greatly to the growth and economic progress of this country over the past century. My concern is the extent to which we have allowed cars to dominate our lives. After much reflection on this topic, I have come to the conclusion that we live in a culture of increasing isolation, consumerism, poor health and blatant disregard for the environment, and that our obsessive attachment to our cars bears a significant amount of the blame for this culture.

Given the above statement, you might expect to find a website filled with strident rhetoric blasting carmakers and lengthy research papers on the perils of global warming. That is neither my style nor the most effective use of this space. This space is intended to be a collection of personal observations, often humorous, and insights from other sources, about the impact of cars on our lives and thoughts about how to create a less intrusive role for cars in our lives. Let’s face it – most of us depend on cars for certain essential functions on our lives and that will never change. The goal is to return the car to its original role as a practical tool that allows us to do things we wouldn’t be able to do on foot or other non-mechanized form of transportation. We weren’t meant to spend a large percentage of our lives inside a nicely upholstered metal box. We need to step out of the box and start living.

Says in the O piece that he managed the South Waterfront Urban Renewal District or some portion there of...
Like that is a good thing???
Sounds to me like he spent a lot of time on his then $122,000 a year salary (now to be $160,000) making sure he was making the right contacts to move up and over his boss when the time was right.
Watch out Randy...this guy could be running for Mayor next time around!

My issue is not so much with cars themselves

So, he writes at length about how cars are responsible for many of society's evils, then claims he doesn't really hate them and in fact owns two? Why, he's perfectly suited to working in local government. I'd say he's on the fast track to becoming mayor.

Fits right in.

We can see our single family homes with yards (where food could be produced) destroyed (now considered blight) replaced with high-density cells to stay in until needed as worker bees for corporations. To stay fit enough to work; gym work will be mandated and observed in corporation's factories. Only rails will be used to transport from housing cells to worker cells. Factory city here we come. Question is: whom are we working for? Paying our debt to China?

Won't need high salaries, with subsidized affordable housing for most people now (since the housing foreclosure and bankruptcies, empty ones are blight) Every penny saved must be spent for food purchased from corporations, the big agricultural ones.

Why have cars? We can watch nature even have scents to go along with it in our very tiny little cells, with one wall a flat room sized screen to keep all “content.” Once a week, we can go out on our bicycles, too many now since no cars and we have to take turns (on toll paths only for those who can afford them.) The big paved roads will have more affordable housing built on them as more people are needed to come into our factory city and a few roads will be left for "some" with permits.

The elite can have it all, McMansions and estates, the coast and mountains without "being too crowded with the rest". . . is this the picture of the future? Oh, we can assume then that the officials pushing this have "theirs"!!!

you might expect to find a website filled with strident rhetoric blasting carmakers and lengthy research papers on the perils of global warming

You mean like, say, this post?

I suspect his appointment has more to do with his handsome Bobby Kennedy-esque looks than his anti-car blog, his unremarkable tenure as SoWa chief, or anything else really.

All management people in the city government should be required to use Trimet for all their family activities and that includes taking junior to Saturday morning soccer, or lil sis to the princess pageant.

Thanks for posting that Miles, I always tend to look into these anti-car whack jobs to see if they really walk the walk. Convenient that this guy articulates on his own smugness and holier-than-thou outlook on other people so well you don't even have to surmise on his underlying motives. Almost everyone one of these people I've come across, in person or on the blogosphere, wants someone else to ride transit for their daily transportation needs, someone else to ride a bicycle instead of drive a car, someone else to live in a crime-ridden apartment bunker on a light-rail line. Whenever it's suggested that maybe they contribute to this strange and nebulous goal of "liberating" Americans from their cars, they quickly backpedal and the argument downgrades to "well if we all just drove a little less" or some similar argument that is a far cry from their original vitriol condemning Americans for choosing to live comfortably and using cheap, convenient transport. And of course because their arguments are fundamentally based on pure emotion and opinions, where you draw the line between "too much" driving and just enough for any given person is also, largely, a matter of opinion.

Portland is run by a religious cult.

I say that in complete seriousness. I am not being facitious.

And this guy is the perfect example of how classist this whole "Portland way" really is. Living within a mile or two of downtown so that you can bike everywhere, or so that a transit ride takes less than 45 minutes - that is a privilege for people who can afford it.

Where does your gardener, or your nanny live, Patrick? Can they bike to your house?

This "Vision" is a white, upper-middle class, college-educated, daydream for people moving here from San Fransisco and the like.

And have you noticed that basically NO local officials are being outspoken critics in cuts to bus service? For all the blather we hear about alternative modes, how often does one of these people step forward to decry reductions in bus service, and propose how to fix them? Hypocrites and liars.

My concern is the extent to which we have allowed cars to dominate our lives.

Ironically, the growth of the automobile is directly tied to the railroad industry and its domination of the lives of those wishing to travel, subject to the whims and schedules of the railroad which would continually raise tariffs, lower service levels, and reduce schedules - with little or no oversight from the government. It was the automobile that liberated milliosn of Americans from having to live their lives tied to a railroad (or streetcar, trolley or tram) schedule.

Today, being that I ride a bus (as my suburban, Tigard family owns just ONE car), my mornings and afternoons are dictated by TriMet and TriMet's ability to provide service. Today, my 94 bus was late and the bus I did manage to catch was crush load - TriMet drivers will often pass up stops, meaning that those wanting to ride - can't. Had I had a second car, I could leave on my schedule, arrive on my schedule - sure, traffic might cause a wrinkle but I can drive around it (provided I'm not on I-5 between downtown and Terwilliger, which I usually am not.)

Over the next couple of days...will my bus show up in the snow? Will TriMet unilaterally discontinue service? Will it re-route buses without notice? With every snowstorm, TriMet has no consistency on what it does...

And this "car hater" has the gall to tell me that automobiles dictate how we live?

Hail Henry, father of mass produced automotive transportation, pray for us drivers now and at the hour of forced public transportation.

Man this city gets worse and worse.

Another useful tool to further the elimination of the middle class.

...and since there won't be autos, will have to move more people from the rural areas into our factory city and into affordable "subsidized" housing...go by streetcar!

When owning a car becomes a felony, Portland will have finally morphed into the Salem Mass of old.

Take it easy folks. At least he says he'll tell the truth under oath.

Portland is run by a religious cult.

Religious cult or a green arm-banded fascist movement brewing here in river city in the heart of what may be the Bavaria of the U.S?

See you at the brewpub putsch, er I mean meeting.

Nick Fish and others who are in that business go for that affordable subsidized housing.

I say more power to him!

Look, if the basic tool you have is an abomination, and you want to lobby for an upgrade, go for it but please realize that if it is the basic tool, you will use it while working to eliminate it.

Frankly, if communications were locked in to the same process we find for transportation, we would still be using spark gap transmitters, albeit refined to the nth degree, and computers would be mechanical or hydraulic and not electronic. The IC engine, with 180° of restraint, using explosions to generate power, running with depressingly small efficiencies, has to be eliminated, will be eliminated, and has to be considered in any planning process, to some extent at least. (Spark gaps are still used to ignite the explosion!).

Whatever else he may be to PDC and City Hall is another matter, but at a most fundamental level, he is more right than wrong.

IMO, anyway.

On a related note, I've been playng around with census data a bit. It seems that in the last ten years basically 3.7 times as many people moved to Portland's suburban cities than moved to the city of Portland.

I'm trying to makes sense of this, because very learned individuals have told me that great hordes of "people" "want" to live in "livable" "urban" environments. I mean, everyone wants to raise their kids in a condo unit above a Quiznos next to the train tracks, right?

Oh well, I'm sure that trimet statistics would bear out that all of these new suburbanites are using transit every day instead of driving. Because I hear that that's what people "want".

The Census must be wrong. I suggest that the City of Portland form it's own Bureau of the Census to conduct its own count to "prove" its planning theories are correct.

Speaking only for myself, it's not so much the issues themselves that aggravate, but more the narrow-minded and wasteful approaches to address those issues that are being employed by eco-zionists and sustainability evangelists so intent on creating and living in a temple the Earth Goddess will smile on that they are willing to raze a once beautiful city that someone else built, lived in, and maintained for generations.

Hey Lawrence, can you name a faster, cheaper, safer, more convenient way to get around that is available TODAY?

The average car is cheaper than mass transit.
The average car is safer than light rail or biking.
The average car uses less energy than mass transit per person-mile
Many small cars even use less energy than light rail.
The car is more convenient than transit.
The car is shields you from the weather, unlike bikes or transit stops.

BTW, global warming it the greatest scientific fraud in centuries, if not the greatest ever!

Too bad Portland (an Oregon) is run by crackpots that are unable to look actually data and realize that cars are good!

Thanks
JK

Lawerence, how does moving back to modes of transport from the turn of the last century count as an "upgrade"?

In the year 2011, don't bikes and trollies represent the exact type of retrograde technology you're describing?

Do these people realize that there is a whole world outside their neighborhood?
What if my family wants to go to Mt. Hood? Or the beach? Visiting family outside the area is problematic without a car. And flying is extremely expensive for a middle class family of five.

Car hater takes over the PDC

Was he the guy driving that TriMet bus on US30 who was tailgating cars and swerving from lane to lane at almost 60mph?

Look, if the basic tool you have is an abomination, and you want to lobby for an upgrade, go for it but please realize that if it is the basic tool, you will use it while working to eliminate it.

It's that kind of logic that gets you on reality TV shows, I hear.

But seriously: what you're saying doesn't even make sense. If I'm working to eliminate domestic violence, for example (definitely an abomination), I'm not going to use domestic violence as a tool until I've eliminated it. I also won't eat junk food while I'm trying to eliminate it from my life, guns while I'm trying to eliminate them from my life, or drugs while I'm trying to eliminate them, or...but heck, I think you get the picture.

The truth is, it's that kind of false logic that got us here in the first place. If each of us decides to use a car while we're working to eliminate it, then...surprise!...no cars will be eliminated.

I feel sorry for him. He's the handsome uber-mensch designated hitter hired to put the final nail in our collective financial coffin by launching new URA's until PPS and basic services fail completely, all while articulately reciting the party line as if he gets up excited by it every day. Hope he's got a good supply of nose clips. He's going to need them.

Stupid analogy, ecohuman, but to each his own.

Besides, where did I say "car"?

As as to logic, if I need a better tool than a hammer, and all I have to fashion it's replacement is a hammer, I best get with it. And you know what? I'll probably be the first to have that replacement, because I did my thinking outside the box. Nobody told me I was thinking false.

Lucky me!

Snards, did I say go back to 19th Century?

Jeeeze!

Mr. Grumpy:...that they are willing to raze a once beautiful city that someone else built, lived in, and maintained for generations.

Some here were more than willing to raze a once beautiful city that someone else built, lived in, and maintained for generations because it was a ripe plum to be picked for oh so much money....and it wasn't the new eco green ones and/or other newcomers who planned this or made that money, but were used by others as part of the plan. Wait until they find out!!

I too lament the loss of our once beautiful City of Roses. I suspect that name just had to be changed to the City that Works so they could work us over. FYI am not against change, only wanted better and not have our nice city or people taken advantage of.

Patrick's time as SoWhat's head PDC Staffer was relative short, even compared to the fact that almost every year there has been a new one directing SoWhat and it's URAC.

In his brief time what was notable was his appearance of listening to contrary concerns about issues, budgets, projects, etc. But in following meetings many issues raised were merely forgotten or glossed over, but politely so. Possibly a great communicator.

But I think time for appearing to listen then not responding except in the framework of his own "cars are evil" is going to be contrary to his supposed "economic goals". Of course he'll be liked by City Hall and the Bike Lobby. And his hypocrisy really is mind boggling.

Snards:On a related note, I've been playng around with census data a bit. It seems that in the last ten years basically 3.7 times as many people moved to Portland's suburban cities than moved to the city of Portland...

Could it be the people of Portland moving out to suburban cities because they were trying their best to get away from Portland City Hall and their plans? Me thinks there is a whole bunch who made that move and more are ready to do the same. One can only take so much!

The biggest issue with the two polarizing groups of "car haters" and "pavers" is that they reject the notion that there is anyone else in the world except them.

There's nothing wrong with using your car, but there's also nothing wrong with building and supporting communities where walkable amenities are available by foot and bike.

There's also nothing wrong with promoting transit in your city. And when I say transit, I mean people-movers; not this slow and expensive streetcar junk. Grade separated rail and frequent bus networks.

I don't want to live in a world without cars, but I also do not want to live in a world where my only way to get around is a car. It's called balance.

It would be nice to see a moderate represent such a stance. Maybe Tom Hughes will be that voice? Who the hell knows?

clinaman:

Only by a little bit, but good enough to be concerned.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/04/migration-moving-wealthy-interactive-counties-map.html

(Click Multnomah Co. then select any other county in the US. It shows inbound and outbound migration).

...not this slow and expensive streetcar junk...

A balance would be nice. An incentive to use mass transit would be if it were a time saver, and fast and efficient such as the subways or express buses or express rail. Having bus shelters at each bus stop in our rain would be nice too...and what I object to is that it really isn't about transporting people around in our city efficiently as it is about tax abated housing along the light rail. Housing and real estate deals are what it is about in our city, not efficient mass transit.

Transit can work for a decent amount of trips for people. It doesn't work when it's slower and less convenient.

We need fast and frequent transit.

My only issue is even if we did try and build a faster and frequent transit system - which we could -- the Cascade Policy Institute wonks would come out of the woodwork.

And then when we try to logically add a single lane of highway capacity, the 1000 Friends of Oregon come out and ruin the party.

What the hell, man? Can we be any more bipolar?

Lets build all the mass transit that the riders are willing to pay for.

Just like cars pay for almost all of their construction and operation. (Approx 1 cent/mile subsidy vs 60cents for transit)

Thanks
JK

Snards for Mayor. We need someone of this sensibility running this place for a change.

ws,"hell" one second. It is Cascade Policy Institute that is responsibly noting that in the three options for Lake Oswego transit service (most of the pols/planners pushing trolley)that express bus service is faster, more frequent, more flexible, serves more people at better convenience, but better yet 1/8th the cost of a slow trolley. And astonishingly, there's less environmental impact. And most of that is based on the Portland/LO Transit Committee's own work.

What's wrong with Cascade pointing that out?

Stupid analogy, ecohuman, but to each his own.

We're in agreement, then.

As as to logic, if I need a better tool than a hammer, and all I have to fashion it's replacement is a hammer, I best get with it.

To apply your logic, that would mean the fellow uses cars to create a replacement for cars. What he's really doing is decrying the impact of cars and calling for their demise, while he uses a car to create the impact and postpone their demise.

And you know what? I'll probably be the first to have that replacement, because I did my thinking outside the box. Nobody told me I was thinking false.

You're "thinking false".

You're "thinking false".

Horsepucky!

Unfortunately guys like that seem to try and fulfill every stereotype we have of the overly educated enviro who peddles around town with a sneer and attitude about the rest of societies "materialism" all the while collecting a government check or working for a non profit. I am sure that all of the thousands of dollars they spend in gaudy accessories for their overly priced cycles isn't a sign of materialism.