Let me go lock my garage so the gov't doesn't take my car.
C'mon!
This is crazy talk; we're talking about spending 10 billion dollars on a bridge and extra lanes, and you're worried the government will take our cars?
Take the tinfoil hat off already.

This is crazy talk; we're talking about spending 10 billion dollars on a bridge and extra lanes, and you're worried the government will take our cars?

No, they wont take your car away. They will limit where you can drive it though. You really dont think in a few years the crazies here could ban cars downtown?

Ironically, many young people don't care that much about cars. It isn't like the 60s anymore, when your entire persona was built around how cool a car you had.

Boy, by 2050 I gotta hope we have plenty of "personal motor vehicle" options beyond what the EU proposal seeks to eliminate in cities -- "petrol and diesel-driven cars," according to the article you link to. Kind of tired of wrecking the environment and going to war for oil.

Take the tinfoil hat off already.

Buh-bye.

It's not just gas-driven vehicles that will be banned from cities, although that may be the initial sales pitch.

They might as well have banned them already. It is so absurdly confusing down there, who would go who didn't have to?

Pete: Kind of tired of wrecking the environment and
JK: Yeah, that why we need to phase out buses and light rail - both use more energy than the new Federal automobile effeciency standard.

Pete: going to war for oil.
JK: Blame the enviro twits for this - we have plenty of energy in this country. Its the green movement that won't let us extract it.

Thanks
JK

Posted by Pete

Glad to see you coming out in support of federal fuel efficiency standards, JK. As for phasing out buses and light rail, I'm cool with that. I hate buses, and light rail seems not really to pencil out.

I don't mind the green stuff, but it doesn't make sense until it is economically viable. That is why gas will be king (or queen) until it is too expensive to sustain. Don't look at me, I don't have a car, I'm just sayin'. The right thing will be a balance of ALL transit modes with no one mode given more $ or more preference than the other. Than you will see the economic and ecological benefits. But oh no, no one thinks that makes sense...

I've got a Brilliant Red Barchetta that my uncle preserved for me in his barn to avoid the Motor Law. Might have to hop the Turbine Freight to his country place and take it for a drive this weekend.

Pete: Glad to see you coming out in support of federal fuel efficiency standards, JK.
JK: Please quit distorting my comments. I made no comment on either side of the fuel efficiency standards debate.

However you show yourself by being “glad” to see support for fuel efficiency standards which, several studies show, trade off people’s lives for energy saving.

Can we justly conclude that you value saving energy more than saving people’s lives?

Thanks
JK

So now they are talking about transitioning from congestion pricing to absolute prohibitions -- beware the slippery slope.

Well it's foolish to take these issues out of the realm of economics and to impose centrally and top-down on others strategies that might make sense for small parts of London or New York City, dramatically denser locales that have public transportation infrastructures which would cost somewhere between tens and hundreds of billions of dollars to replicate elsewhere.

The EU planning speak crowd is out of control; we know the greenies weenies here take their lead from colleagues across the pond.

Much of the economic strength of the US lies in its vastness, the diversity of its decentralized economic system and its relative richness in natural resources (and free trade with our relatively resource richer Canadian friends). The greenies are out to kill to goose that laid the golden egg.

To paraphrase C S Lewis:
A "tyranny" sincerely exercised for the good of its "victims" may be the most oppressive. Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

They might as well have banned them already. It is so absurdly confusing down there, who would go who didn't have to?
Posted by dyspeptic | March 29, 2011 12:12 AM

Downtown is a one-way grid, typical of most u.s. Cities. What is confusing? Be specific.

Europe is well experienced with 'draconian' measures, and this time the reason will be a good one... to save the planet.

Avoid getting on trains, especially into cattle cars.

Look locally for plenty of loony.

Metro & JPACT have manipulated the intended use of infrastructure (feds) flex funds to serve the needs of Environmental Justice.

Instead of sending the money to needed infrastructure, (Sellwood Bridge got not one dime) they are limiting the funds to "active transportation/complete streets and green economy/freight projects".

Metro manages the regional flexible fund program whereby the Metro Council and the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation select transportation programs and projects for federal flexible funds.

Regional flexible funds come from two different federal grant programs.
Regional flexible funds are allocated every two years.
In JPACT in July 2010 decided how to divide the next round of flexible funds. It called for a working group to advise on how the program can address environmental justice concerns. A task force has helped identify transportation needs and priorities in Environmental Justice and underserved communities and helped refine the methodology that will be used.

This resulted in diverting $204 million in future flex funds to Milwaukie Light Rail.

"think about where our current eco-fads are leading us"

Honestly, I don't have a problem with helping green stuff, but pols have no clue when to say when. The article doesn't even give exemption for zero-pollution (I understand generating electricity generates some pollution) vehicles like electric cars.

If TriMet can spend $750M with one board vote on the Milwaukie line, Sam/Earl can drop $66M on SW Moody without any vote, G-E can get $10M to rehab a building for Vestas and BETC gets ripped off on a regular basis, there need to be controls.

We can't fund schools and police are the keepers of the mentally ill, yet we can always find money for a streetcar.

Priorities are screwed up - I think it happens to pols that fixing 50-yr out problems is a lot more fund (and requires less rigorous proof) than today's problems.

Think third world. Eventually the disenfranchised will outnumber the privileged and start making raids in beat-up vans and pickup trucks with their Kalashnikovs.

"If TriMet can spend $750M with one board vote on the Milwaukie line"

This is worse than just spending the money because they borrow it all against current revenue streams that have no room for borrowing capacity and added debt service.

It's like a family buying a new car with the intention of paying their car payments with future utility, food or house payment money with full recognition they will already be short on paying for those those essential needs.

That's how whacked TriMet and MLR is.

TriMet is even raiding their own future operations revenue of $100 million to pay off $63 million in MLR debt.

Portland is raiding millions from borrowed PDC-Urban Renewal money that will take property taxes to repay.

The already fully allocated Lottery is being raided for $400 million in lottery profits to repay $250 million in bonds.

As I said above $204 million will be raided from future Metro flex funds.
Leaving other infrastructure to be treated like the Sellwood bridge with years of neglect.

Clackamas County planned on establishing a massive Urban Renewal scheme to borrow their $25 million share of MLR and repay it by pilfering $45 million from county property tax revenue.
A county petition will likely prevent that stunt.

Milwaukie is on the hook for $5 million and is planning to raid their coffers to cover the $8.5 million needed to pay off the $5 million.

Top to bottom the local match financing scheme for Milwaukie Light Rail will plunder 100s of millions from budgets and payrolls needed to continue essential services and the jobs they involve.
And all we get from the "stakeholders" is their group zombie gazing and the blitz of unethical propaganda they seem to enjoy distributing.

All with no public approval.

[several studies show that] fuel efficiency standards .... trade off people’s lives for energy saving.

I'll acknowledge that driving a big tank is safer for the occupants of that particular vehicle. But what about the safety of others on the roadway around it? Looking at the bigger picture, it's often the mixture of vehicle sizes and weights that contributes to fatalities in multi-vehicle accidents.

And here's a study that says that we don't sacrifice safely for fuel economy. Have at it, Jim.

I started driving — illegally — in 1955, at 13 (here's hoping I won't be a casualty in the current war on statutes of limitations) and had my first car, a VW, two years later. I've always been a car enthusiast, and considered the three years I spent trying to live without one (2004-2007) a considerable sacrifice. But there has to be a better solution for getting people where they want to go. Sitting in traffic behind the wheel is just not a quality life.

Dear God,

my life and country for an electric Google car that drives itself, while I read an exceptionally good novel or sample the great satirists, old and new (not literally, of course).

No accidents, no road rage, no emissions, and the ability to read or gaze at the view, or even nap.

Dear God, is it too late? Will the wars of the religious and narco-trafficking cartels make such a really, really good dream an impossibility? If so, I guess art, (or the opium pipe) will be the only refuge from the encroaching twin nightmares of war and ecological disaster.

I'm invoking Godwin's Law on Mr. Grumpy.

Be calm john spartan er gaye harris and use the three seashells!

Anyway, this assumes the EU will still be in existence by 2050 which given economic issues is unlikely.

Whenever I see something planned for 40 years in the future, I laugh and throw it in the trash. Government at that scale can't even plan 10 years in advance; 40 years is 10 regime changes from now.

For proof, look at the past decade of EU environmental policy "inevitabilities", and the past decade of Portland environmental policy "certainties". Planning and policy simply don't survive that long, and anybody that says otherwise better share what they're smoking.

From the article: "Action will follow, legislation, real action to change behaviour."

I'd like government to serve the public rather than hire a bunch of self-righteous egg heads to decide what everyone's behavior should be and then force them to change it.

Why do we pay people to force us to do things we don't want to do? It's like living in an insane asylum.

Why do we pay people to force us to do things we don't want to do?

You mean, like the court system and the police force?

Can we change our city slogan to "Fast And Rapid Transportation".

OWM, the police and courts are there to enforce laws, which generally means adjudicating between one citizen who has harmed another.

The rest of government are there to provide services to us. The people got together and decided to create a municipal body to provide services it wanted. Having a bunch of unaccountable social engineers start dictating how the public will live makes them the boss. We're are supposed to be their boss.

Back to "Green" and adding to many points here and Ben's 8:27AM list one has to list the absurdity of the local solar panel subsidies. The rest of us taxpayers (the few of us still remaining) pay over 85% of a roof array costing $18,000 on average for an average home. The home owner pays around $3,400. The feds, Oregon, Energy Trust, CoP (that's us) pays the 85%.

How is that really making for a "balanced" incentive to be "Green". It's false, and distorts the process to really become "Green".

But there has to be a better solution for getting people where they want to go. Sitting in traffic behind the wheel is just not a quality life.

Don't you all get it?
We won't "really" be going.
We will be forced to live depending on ones status in subsidized either glitzy or ghetto style "glorified cells" in glitzy or ghetto style "glorified neighborhoods."

Some will paying off our debt and be taking the "trains" to corporate factories, now brought back into the USA and particularly into Portland, Oregon with all our "trains."

No need for a car, we will be provided a screen in our "glorified cells" with all the visuals necessary to see the beach with ocean air scents, or see the mountains with mountain air scents to accompany the visuals.

Won't want to go outside anymore, air not very safe anyway on most days and so exercise units with "good air" if one can afford to pay, will be in the basement. We won't need cars to actually visit family or friends as all done now by virtual reality.

There, that may very well be the "better solution."

Quality of life now?

John Rettig: And here's a study that says that we don't sacrifice safely for fuel economy. Have at it, Jim.
JK: I had a look.
It does NOT SAY “we don't sacrifice safely for fuel economy.” Did you even bother to read the first few paragraphs (that as far as I’m going to waste my time):

A new study released at a major policy briefing by the International Council on Clean Transportation has found that a significant increase in fuel-economy standards for vehicles is achievable without affecting vehicle safety.
.....
Among the study’s key findings is that manufacturers can use advanced materials to increase both fuel economy and safety without reducing a vehicle’s functionality. The study also found that reducing the weight and height of the heaviest SUVs and pickup trucks will simultaneously increase both their fuel economy and overall safety.

It merely claims it is POSSIBLE to make stronger small cars, not as you claimed, that there is no increased deaths from fuel standards. Please learn to read.

Presumably this extra strength comes at greater expense. (Why do the safety nazis and green twits never consider cost and what increased costs do to people?)

Thanks
JK

Godwin's Law? Point taken.

You're right, Jim, that study was rather forward looking. I had read it, and I should said "don't have to sacrifice ...."

But I don't know that it's that high a price to pay. Our Prius, less the hybrid drive and batteries, is considerably lighter than an equivalent car in its class, because Toyota cut the weight of many other components to keep overall weight down once hybrid drive and batteries are added in. This couldn't have increased cost that much, because the base Prius carries about a $3,000 premium over a conventional car - and most of that goes for the drive system premium. Yet, it's a fairly safe car when it comes to crash-worthiness, so I would presume that body shell strength wasn't significantly compromised with the new materials.

Regarding your comment about "safety nazis and green twits never consider cost and what increased costs do to people", I'd point out that cars have gotten considerably safer and cleaner over the past 30-40 years, but not because manufacturers have volunteered to do this - it's only happened because of government regulation. We've received benefits from this that can't easily be measured, and I for one would not want to go back to the cars of 1970.

But I can tell you that one part of the cost equation - insurance - is very much in our favor on the Prius. We're saving about $600/year on premiums compared to my Outback, a somewhat equaivalent car for size and cost, and that alone has evened out the upfront hybrid premium over the five years that we've owned it.

What this all boils down to: look at the big picture, not just one aspect of it.

Mr. Grumpy: Godwin's law implies that the discussion has to go on for a while before the comparison is made. Jim's always that way.

John Rettig: This couldn't have increased cost that much, because the base Prius carries about a $3,000 premium over a conventional car
JK: I keep hearing that it is highly subsidized by Toyota - it is a lot more expensive than the non-hybrid model. (Not something I’ve tried to study)

John Rettig: Regarding your comment about "safety nazis and green twits never consider cost and what increased costs do to people",
JK: I’ll readily agree that government action gave us cleaner air and better safety. I was arguing that in this case they got it backwards - the data shows the course of action the government chose in this case got people killed. Hence my criticism.

John Rettig: What this all boils down to: look at the big picture, not just one aspect of it.
JK: That was my point in bringing up the deaths caused by this particular way to save energy. They never appeared to care about people’s lives when it came to saving energy. Just like they are not now considering people’s lives when they advocate making the cost of energy skyrocket. And raising the cost of gasolene. People die because of this kind of thing. The really sad part of all this is that we appear to have all the energy we need, if only the government would quit blocking exploitation at the beckoning of the green twits.

John Rettig: Mr. Grumpy: Godwin's law implies that the discussion has to go on for a while before the comparison is made. Jim's always that way.
JK: Jim does not like to see so called liberals and progressives dictating how people should live. Do you think they should dictate how you live? Do you think the Christians should dictate how you live? Or the greens? The Moslems? Buddhists?

But perhaps fascists would be a better description until the body count is above a few hundred-thousand. BTW, what is the current body count from the DDT ban? And the recent food price increases, partly due to the green’s ethanol campaign?

BTW, how’s your belief in global warming doing after about ten years of stasis and recent falling temperatures accompanied by record cold winters? Especially after most of the major scientists in the field have gotten caught fudging data or keeping quiet about it?

Thanks
JK

I keep hearing that it [the Prius] is highly subsidized by Toyota.

What they've said is that they'll never get their upfront R&D investment back. They've said nothing about per-unit cost, and I doubt that they will.

the data shows the course of action the government chose in this case got people killed.

But the data doesn't show increased deaths over the years that cars have gotten smaller - to the contrary, the long term trend is that fatality rate per vehicle mile has significantly decreased. You'll have to cite the proof, Jim.

And raising the cost of gasoline. People die because of this kind of thing.

Likewise, the cost of health care. And of food. And of housing. But it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be regulation for any of these items.

Do you think the Christians should dictate how you live? Or the greens? The Moslems? Buddhists?

Three of the four on this list involve the practice of religion, and no, I don't believe religious practice should be dictated by any one religion. And neither does the Constitution. But for transportation, health care, food, and housing, yes, I believe that government has a role here, and when government has a role in something, we well know that interest groups - both fascista like me and also groups that more represent your laissez-faire viewpoints - will be at the table.

what is the current body count from the DDT ban?

High, of course, because Malaria has been persistent. This one I'll give to you.

how’s your belief in global warming.....most of the major scientists in the field have gotten caught fudging [Global Warming] data or keeping quiet about it?

It's here to stay, and the scientists I follow have no such issue with their data.

Buildings contribute about as much to the world's pollution as cars--as much as 40-45% of CO2 emissions, for example.

Interestingly, I don't see local government enacting bans on skyscrapers, condo towers, or similar constructions, all of which are amongst the worst offenders. How odd. In fact, the opposite is happening--Portland is *encouraging* the building of the spaceship-on-life-support approach that is skyscrapers.

In other words--not building out South Waterfront would be a good start, easier to enact, and would have immediate benefits.

But instead, we enact the half-billion-dollar absurdity of creating "bike paths" between the skyscrapers. We build like we've lost out mind, then decry the resulting problems--as if they came down from space, or God, or from some other vacuum.

Do you think the Christians should dictate how you live?

They already are.They're on the Senate and House floor right now.

But hey, at least in Oregon we've got the Cowboy Code to live by. I think we got that one right--our code of living has been "Yee Haw!" for a long time now.

John Rettig: But the data doesn't show increased deaths over the years that cars have gotten smaller - to the contrary, the long term trend is that fatality rate per vehicle mile has significantly decreased. You'll have to cite the proof, Jim.

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety: “Overall, a 100-pound reduction in the average weight of passenger cars is estimated to result in 302 additional fatalities,”

JERRY RALPH CURRY ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION:

The smaller cars had a higher injury rate in non-rollover crashes and rolled over much more frequently, resulting in a substantial increase in rollover fatalities . The studies estimated that, on an annual basis, about 1,340 fatalities and 6,300 injuries in single vehicle crashes could be attributed to the reduced size and weight of new vehicles

JK: More at: http://www.portlandfacts.com/bloodforoil.html

John Rettig: Do you think the Christians should dictate how you live? Or the greens? The Moslems? Buddhists?

Three of the four on this list involve the practice of religion, and no, I don't believe religious practice should be dictated by any one religion.
JK: Wrong. ALL FOUR are religions. Green departed science years ago. Global warming is the prime example. Also recycling. (Fortunately, as the whole global warming fraud is exposed, more people will finally realize most of the green movement is a about money, not the environment.)

John Rettig: how’s your belief in global warming.....most of the major scientists in the field have gotten caught fudging [Global Warming] data or keeping quiet about it?

It's here to stay, and the scientists I follow have no such issue with their data.
JK: Ok, I understand. Its your religion and mere facts like hiding the decline (which shows that their poster child temperature record is a fraud) and AL Gore lying about the CO2 and temperature in the ice cores (actually temperature leads CO2 by 800 years) don’t matter. Also the head of the CRU admitted warming stopped 15 years ago. Hansen’s 15 year old predictions of large amounts of warming didn’t occurr. But that’s OK after all it’s a religion now.

ecohuman: Buildings contribute about as much to the world's pollution as cars--as much as 40-45% of CO2 emissions, for example.
JK: CO2 is NOT a pollutant. AL Gore lied. Mann lied.

ecohuman: How odd. In fact, the opposite is happening--Portland is *encouraging* the building of the spaceship-on-life-support approach that is skyscrapers.
JK: Its all about money for the politically connected class.

Thanks
JK

Your link, Jim, is to a study done in 1990, for vehicles that were built at least 21 years ago and mostly off the road at this point. Cars now have more safety features such as front and side curtain airbags.

And you are correct that large passenger cars still are safer than small ones, albeit not with quite the bias of the 1990 study (mid-size SUVs, however, are another story, mostly because of rollover problems). But that doesn't address one of my original points above - that fatalities result from a mix of vehicle types, but not necessarily to the occupants of the larger vehicle - see for example this study, figures 17-27. A significant number of fatalities are from multi-car crashes, and your prospects are much worse if you are in a smaller vehicle that is struck by a larger vehicle.

Regarding global warming, Al Gore is not a scientist, he's a politician. Naming one non-scientist doesn't establish the validity of your assertion "most of the major scientists..."

By the way, please don't put my name in front of your words. Anyone can determine who said what by following the thread up.

John Rettig: And you are correct that large passenger cars still are safer than small ones,
JK: Thank you for finally admitting this truth and, I assume, my claim that fuel standards are getting people killed.

John Rettig: But that doesn't address one of my original points above -
JK: My original claim was “trade off people’s lives for energy saving.” Period. Not interested in pursuing your distractions.

John Rettig: Regarding global warming, Al Gore is not a scientist, he's a politician.
JK: NO, he is a premeditated, intentional liar. Lying to make money.

John Rettig: Naming one non-scientist doesn't establish the validity of your assertion "most of the major scientists..."
JK: How many of those climate “scientists” called out Al’s lies?
How many kept silent about Mann’s fraudulent “hockey stick” temperature cure that Al flouts? Answer: all of the inner crowd of climate alarmism and the mainstream media and the IPCC leaders. None of them are credible because of their keeping silent as the greenies pushed to kill our economy with carbon controls to “save the earth”.

How many instances of scientific misconduct were disclosed in the “climategate” emails?
Ans: Hiding data. manipulating data. misrepresenting data. Criminally subverting FOI. Tampering with the peer review process.

Thanks
JK

We just has the latest first 60 degree day on record.
The East coast and Europe had another severely cold winter.
Same for South America.
And winter storm warnings have just been posted for parts of Massachusetts | Vermont | New Hampshire | Maine. Strong winds and the wet, heavy nature of snow may lead to power outages in the area covered by the winter storm warnings.

The IPCC didn’t predict this. Neither NASA’s Hansen, nor other leading climate “scientists” predicted this, but they now know cold is a result of warming.

Yeah, right - the way to keep cool in the summer is to build a fire in the fireplace.

Thanks
JK

Thank you for finally admitting this truth and, I assume, my claim that fuel standards are getting people killed.

Single occupant vehicle accidents only is what I admitted to. Let's face it, if we happened upon the scene of an accident where a big car hit a small one and the small car had a fatality, you would say that it was because that person was in a small car. I would say it was because he was hit by a big car that didn't have to be on the road. Since I don't think that you're disagreeing with the data source I cited, this is an argument about causation. You're going to stop when you get to the numbers you believe prove your assertions, and claim everything else is a distraction. I'm going to take it further and get to the root cause.

Small cars are here to stay, at least until we're out of oil. I drive them because it's the more environmentally responsible choice. Many drive them out of economic necessity. Given they're here to stay, my response is to continue to impose government regulation to economically squeeze out big cars.

John Rettig: Given they're here to stay, my response is to continue to impose government regulation to economically squeeze out big cars.
JK: Given that you now admit small cars get people killed, it is simply amazing that you advocate getting people killed through government policy.

You are truly a progressive in the mold of those who imposed segregation on Washington DC and that fool of a progressive president that got us into WWI.

Too bad you don’t care about how many people get killed because of your crackpot priorities.

Thanks
JK

Ok, John, now I get it: you are a city planner!

Explains everything:
Don't care about people
Value nature above human life.
Tell others how and where to live.
Ignore real world evidence in favor of crackpot theories.
Don't care about wasting people's money.
Will do anything to save the earth. Except study science.

Thanks
JK