Attention Tri-Met and all other government agencies:

There is a fairly straight-forward solution to your budget issues- don't spend more than you take in in taxes.

The free ride is over. We are WAY, WAY over our heads in debt and the only way out is to balance the books.

If you refuse to do this, then you are an accessory to the Banksters, that are intentionally trying to destroy the American economy.

Proofing on that doc is careless.

The situation is much worse than TriMet is letting on. According to TriMet's own audits and monthly performance reports, the following trends have emerged:

*Between March of 2004 and March of 2011, vehicle miles of monthly transit service dropped by 12.2%.

*Yet during that same period, TriMet's annual "all-funds" budget went UP by 103.4% (from $494 million to $1.04 billion). Annual payroll tax money went up by 34% and passenger fare revenue went up by 75%.

Question: where did all the money go if service has been declining?

Answer: Employee compensation and new trains.

Average compensation cost per full-time equivalent employee went up from $62,000 in 2001 to $141,000 in 2010-11. Post-employment health care liability is now up to $816 million, all unfunded.

Milwaukie LR will cost $205 million per mile just to build and the average subsidy required for each trip on WES is $19.75 (up from $17.97 on opening day 2009).

But no worries. Over at Metro this morning, Earl Blumenauer enthralled the bureaucrats with tales from the most recent "RailVolution" conference. According to Earl, Ray LaHood (federal Trans. Secretary) says that Portland is the most livable city in America!

Ah, the insidious shift from buses to light rail/streetcars that is taking place, thanks to the people we have in local government...

Trimet should have one overarching goal. One. The same goal that Brisbane advertises on every one of its bus stop shelters.

"Our goal is to have a bus stop 450 meters or less from every home in Brisbane." Brisbane has about 30% more land area than Portland, but roughly the same population, yet somehow they understand that "livability", when it comes to transit, equals buses every 10 minutes, 24/7, accessible everywhere, with a lunch hour/recess between 1AM and 4AM.

In the meantime, there is no end to glossy circulars from Trimet with vague language about goals, which do not give any indication of sensible priorities.

We have a murder and gang problem in Portland. How on earth do we allow a light rail line to go on with essentially unmanaged ridership, no verified ticketing, etc?

"equals buses every 10 minutes, 24/7, accessible everywhere, with a lunch hour/recess between 1AM and 4AM."

At over $100 per hour for the drivers, we cannot afford it.

Besides cars use less energy, are faster and cheaper. Again, what is the social value of mass transit?

Thanks
JK

Why even bother reading that "TIP" advertising supplement?

I got to #1:

"Build the total transit system".

That was enough of that.

JK,

We certainly may not be able to afford it. But that does not mean we cannot have it as a goal. Not being able to afford it also does not mean that it is not the best goal, when compared to light rail and streetcars.

Maybe it will happen that anti-unionists will become a big enough force to drive down these crazy salaries into something approaching affordable.

Social value? Incalculable. People can get around while reading their Kindle, taking a catnap, chatting with a loved one, all the while lowering their risk of loss of life and limb, or loss of sanity related to parking meter and speedtrap BS.

HERE is something you'll surely appreciate too!

gaye harris: Social value? Incalculable. People can get around while reading their Kindle, taking a catnap, chatting with a loved one,
JK: We should pay 80 cents per mile in taxes to run a bus so that someone can read or nap! Simply incredible!

gaye harris: all the while lowering their risk of loss of life and limb
JK: actually light rail is over twice as dangerous as driving.
See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/transit/maxsafetychart.html

Thanks
JK

We certainly may not be able to afford it. But that does not mean we cannot have it as a goal. Not being able to afford it also does not mean that it is not the best goal, when compared to light rail and streetcars.

The funny thing is that even if that particular alternative to light rail isn't cost-effective (or perhaps still more expensive per mile or whatever compared to auto transport) it would still probably be a couple orders of magnitude cheaper than what passes for transit here. This is why the bus rapid transit "alternative" that is usual provided in the DEIS and other planning documents is barely a tenth of the cost of LRT no matter how much the planners try and inflate the projected cost. I think many of TrainMet's frequent bus riders that are feeling all the service cuts would go for a gold-plated BRT line over any LRT any day.

Ray LaHood is daft.

At over $100 per hour for the drivers, we cannot afford it.

The total operating cost of a TriMet 40' bus is just over $100/hour - the driver's salary is about $50 or $60 an hour, all-inclusive. The rest is fuel, maintenance, depreciation, and overhead (Neil McFarlane's and Mary Fetsch's salaries, MAX bond interest, transfers to the City of Portland Streetcar, cost of maintaining MAX park-and-ride lots, etc.)

Much of the problem is TriMet simply has some pretty inefficient bus routes/trips. For example:

Many #12 Barbur/Sandy trips go all the way to Sherwood with just a few folks on board. Sherwood would be far better served by a connector bus that runs from Tigard TC to Sherwood using a smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicle, and leave the big buses on the far more patronized King City or Tigard TC north route.

Many #94 Sherwood Express trips are forced to spend more than 50% of their time deadheading to/from the route rather than actually in revenue service carrying passengers. The bus in the morning has to deadhead all the way from Center Street out to Sherwood, makes a run into downtown, and then often deadheads right back to Sherwood, makes another run to Portland and then returns home. (Some #94s do make just one trip, and then becomes another, regular line.)

The #84 Kelso/Boring route. 'Nuff said.

TriMet runs quite a few MAX shuttle routes that are among TriMet's highest-cost bus routes to operate; yet their existence is tied to MAX.

The Marquam Hill Express buses that run up to Pill Hill only to return empty. Why not run expresses to downtown with convenient transfers to high-capacity buses on the 8 line (or to the Tram station?) OHSU runs their own employee shuttles as does the VA so OHSU and TriMet are effectively competing against each other for riders.

Lewis & Clark College started their own bus line into downtown Portland after demanding TriMet keep the 39 route alive. They even bought a new, full-sized Gillig Phantom bus (identical to TriMet's 1400 and 2100 series, and many C-Tran buses).

Yes, JK, you're right. What I meant to say is that people could be getting useful work done in the bus, even while sitting at traffic lights. Drafting work-related reports and letters and emails. Shopping on their Ipads. Talking their friends out of jumping off of bridges. Making to-do lists of to-do lists, that sort of thing.

And you can't say that tax revenue isn't devoted in some measure to car-related costs, road maintenance, EMS, hospitals bills; reduced productivity while twiddling one's thumbs at traffic lights also has a negative impact on tax revenues.

Whatever, whoever has the answers that make sense, I wish they were in charge.
I know it's not streetcars. Or light rail on the "honor" system. What a scam.
All you have to do is go to a place like NYC, where people would never fall for this kind of baloney, and see their fabulous ***SAFE*** bus and underground and taxi system, and you know there is something very, very wrong with where Portland is headed, with its gangland-express-rail-out-of-hell focus.

Erik H: (quoting JK) At over $100 per hour for the drivers, we cannot afford it.
Erik H: The total operating cost of a TriMet 40' bus is just over $100/hour - the driver's salary is about $50 or $60 an hour, all-inclusive.
JK: Oops, make that over $150,000 per year for drivers. About $60,000 in direct pay and about $90,000 in benefits.

Erik H: Much of the problem is TriMet simply has some pretty inefficient bus routes/trips.
JK: If they cut those routes, would it affect ridership beyond those lines? Or, perhaps it would provide some additional cities with the evidence they need to dump Trimet like Sandy & Canby(?) did.

I wonder if money could be saved by dumping all the buses except express to downtown and filling the rest of the need with jitneys and taxis (with ”transit stamps” for the needy). Or just buying cars for the needy transit users (A Billion per year will buy a lot of cars!)

Thanks
JK

gaye harris: Yes, JK, you're right. What I meant to say is that people could be getting useful work done in the bus, even while sitting at traffic lights.
JK: Nice if you like it (and can do useful work standing up in a crowded bus). My point is that these people (except the needy) should be paying the cost of their transportation, not the general taxpayer.

gaye harris: And you can't say that tax revenue isn't devoted in some measure to car-related costs, road maintenance, EMS, hospitals bills;
JK: Data varies by researcher and location, but nationally it is about $0.80 per passenger mile for transit and about $0.01 for cars. See PortlandFacts.com

gaye harris: reduced productivity while twiddling one's thumbs at traffic lights also has a negative impact on tax revenues.
JK: You are forgetting that transit is slow! On average the transit commuter spends twice as much time commuting as car commuters.

gaye harris: All you have to do is go to a place like NYC, where people would never fall for this kind of baloney,
JK: Keep in mind that NY is very different than the rest of the country. It has the densest city center in the country and is the second densest city. Even their transit is slower than driving and the commute by auto market share is still very significant.

Thanks
JK

JK, your posts are endlessly tiresome. Every link on your website (surely there is a link in there that is the rule-proving exception, so don't bother) takes a narrow view of an issue in order to make a point. Just like Clarence Thomas or any other "common-sense" argument, they ignore real-world complexity.

One complexity your arguments ignore is the future, and its many possibilities. You are just not going to convince certain segments of the human species to quit trying to plan against future threats, real or perceived. Planning for density and transit, etc., all the things you so despise, are sold on the fear of resource limits. Those limits and their consequences are unknowable, and the planning may prove wise. Or, they may prove a wild waste of time and money. The point is, you can't predict the future any better than people who think otherwise. Their approach sells caution, and certain parts of the planet embrace that caution. Others don't. Whatever. Portland is all-in on this experiment. All there is to do now is just see how it plays out over the next 50 years.

Sure, we could save taxpayers' money by ending medicare and mental hospitals and making all school private. Keep dreaming man.

Huck : JK, your posts are endlessly tiresome.
JK: Why is it so many of my critics don’t have a real name?

Huck : Every link on your website (surely there is a link in there that is the rule-proving exception, so don't bother) takes a narrow view of an issue in order to make a point.
JK: Do you have something against real data showing that most of what Portland claims to be doing will not produce the promised result?

Huck : You are just not going to convince certain segments of the human species to quit trying to plan against future threats, real or perceived.
JK: The problem is that the cost of the alleged planning is lowering our standard of living.

Huck : Planning for density and transit, etc., all the things you so despise, are sold on the fear of resource limits.
JK: We both know that is pure BS as there is no proof that density or transit furthers us to the stated goal. They only further us to the real goal, which is to increase the wealth of the crowd around city hall.

Huck : The point is, you can't predict the future any better than people who think otherwise.
JK: If “you” refers to me, I don’t generally try to predict the future, instead I just point out how the planners are either idiots or liars for telling us the things they tell us.

Huck : Portland is all-in on this experiment.
JK: Not really, most Portlanders DO NOT KNOW they are the subjects of an experiment. They don’t know that they are the planner’s lab rats.

Huck : Sure, we could save taxpayers' money by ending medicare and mental hospitals and making all school private. Keep dreaming man.
JK: Why do lefties always trot out the poor and underprivileged when they are trying to cover up their massive waste of money on condo farms, mass transit and crackpot energy schemes?

JD: God, I so picked the wrong side to be on: if I'd chosen to join the junk science, eco-fascist climate scam, I wouldn't be so worried about what's happening to the global economy. A) because I'd be so rich it wouldn't matter. And B) because I'd probably be quite pleased it was going down the toilet. After all isn't deindustrialisation, the preservation of "scarce resources" and a return to the bracing, back-breaking misery of the Agrarian age what the Watermelons of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the WWF, NASA and Friends of the Earth been campaigning for all along? (By James Delingpole , November 10th, 2011)

Thanks
JK

JK,

1) I use a pseudonym because I don't want to have to explain everything to everyone outside of the internet. I do plenty of public work. I could care less if I knew your real name, as it's your ideas I take issue with.

2) I have no problem with real data. You just manipulate yours.

3) You complain about the effect on our standard of living. My post makes clear that I see ALL legitimate (read: not corrupt) social efforts to address POSSIBLE FUTURE PROBLEMS as insurance. Insurance clearly reduces our standard of living, but sometimes it's a good investment. Sometimes it isn't.

4) Your argument that resource limits are "utter BS" just goes to show how delusional your arguments are. I don't even need any evidence beyond the 7 Billionth human being to be concerned about resource limits and the impact of humans on the environment. Count me with the majority of liberals, I guess.

5) Arguing that one person's predictions are false, is, in itself, to predict.

6) A democracy doesn't care what "most Portlanders" think, believe or care. Only what the majority of voters do.

7) Why do liberals trot out the poor? Well, let's see, because you are arguing that the government could save taxpayer money by cutting programs and expenditures enacted by democratically elected officials. Saving money can come from any variety of places, but your arguments about cutting transit hit home with many in the underclasses that use transit. Your arguments that more efficient use of the money could be used to provide vouchers, cab service, etc., just don't translate to a political majority. The major point you miss, I think, is that many people see transit as a sort of annuity. Annuities are generally terrible investments, except for when they're not! Insurance, it keeps coming up. People will take a less efficient option if it provides insurance, and you just keep hammering away on the efficiency, without acknowledging that people want insurance against unimaginables. THAT is why people continue to support inefficient social services, and why liberals trot out the poor - to emphasize that we could be there and need those services.

8) It's neither A nor Z, JK. That's my whole point. You argue for one against the other, and I'm merely suggesting that antagonism doesn't work. I think you really are right about the efficiency aspect of transit and density, but you're overlooking the human trait to insure against future changes. That trait will pay NOW, real money, to protect against something that may or may not be. Have fun arguing against human nature.

As for back breaking agrarianism, I'm a farmer who chooses not to use any chemical fertilizer or pest/herbicides. My per-acre yields are higher than any of my neighboring farmers because I raise meat right on my vegetable acreage. I use technology, and petroleum, but not applied to the land. I'm not a luddite, but I do believe we need to preserve farmland and reduce fossil fuel consumption.

Now, I've made my point- efficient use of resources ignores the human desire to insure against "ghosts," both real and imagined. You can tell me the ghosts aren't real, but that just doesn't matter if enough people believe in them, does it?

Huck: 1) I use a pseudonym because I don't want to have to explain everything to everyone outside of the internet.
JK: I have no problem defending my position - why do you ? Perhaps because your positions are indefensible?

Huck: 2) I have no problem with real data. You just manipulate yours.
JK: Please point out any errors or manipulations you have found in my data.

Huck: 4) Your argument that resource limits are "utter BS" just goes to show how delusional your arguments are.
JK: Please quit mis representing my statement. I listed a number of provably false claims of planers and called them "utter BS". I did not say anything about resource limits - that is your fabrication.

Huck: I don't even need any evidence beyond the 7 Billionth human being to be concerned about resource limits and the impact of humans on the environment. Count me with the majority of liberals, I guess.
JK: “majority of liberals”, no, deluded liberals who refuse to look at real data, instead believing every lie that comes out of the multinational greenie corporations. I’ll bet you don’t even know that the global fertility rate is projected to drop below replacement by mid-century. That event will mark the start of population decline (of course the alarmist greenies will never tell you this because they depend on scaring people into giving them money. (Global Population Profile: 2002, Page 22, Fig 10, census.gov/population/international/files/wp02/wp-02003.pdf)

Huck: Why do liberals trot out the poor? Well, let's see, because you are arguing that the government could save taxpayer money by cutting programs and expenditures enacted by democratically elected officials.
JK: What does that have to do with our discussion? I do hope you recall that we were talking about transit, city planning etc and you introduced the red herring of “ending medicare and mental hospitals and making all school private”

Huck: Saving money can come from any variety of places, but your arguments about cutting transit hit home with many in the underclasses that use transit.
JK: Another distortion of my position. I advocated people who are NOT needy pay their real cost for their transit and the needy get help with “transit stamps”

Huck: we need to . . . reduce fossil fuel consumption.
JK: Why? We could be energy independent at the stroke of a pen. That would also dramatically improve our balance of payments and improve our standard of living through lower energy costs. The only think holding us back is the green movement.

Huck: You can tell me the ghosts aren't real, but that just doesn't matter if enough people believe in them, does it?
JK: And why do people believe all that nonsense? Much of it is because of massive lies coming from multi-million dollar, multinational corporations like the Sierra Club, the WWF , the Wilderness Society and others. Not to mention the planning and transit industries.

Thanks
JK

I just did a few calculations and preliminarily conclude that Trimet taxes cost over $8000 to serve each of its average daily ridership excluding those that use trimet by choice, instead of by necessity. In other words, Trimet costs $8000 in tax money to serve each needy person. The average USA annual cost of a car (all inclusive) is about $3000 for most people.

I think there someone could devise a cheaper system to better serve the needy!

We didn’t build a tax subsidized supermarket chain, open to everyone, to serve those in need of subsidized food.

Why did we build a 1/3 Billion transit system, open to everyone, to serve those in need of subsidized transportation? (By Trimets data, 84% of its users are NOT needy.)

Thanks
JK

If tri-met was a private operation and not " public " ? He would still be at the permit / licensing stage. Mustn't encourage private business after all.

Well JK, you never responded to the main issue I have with your analysis - that people think they are buying "mobility insurance." They don't care if it is the most efficient option. Much like many investors prefer the lower yield on bonds over stocks. Transit is, in effect, mobility bonds, and cars are mobility stocks. We want a lower-yield portfolio with more diversity. Get it? Your argument that we should have a higher standard of living goes right past somebody who is concerned about the environmental impact of said standard. It doesn't matter why somebody is concerned about overpopulation and environmental degradation, just like it doesn't matter if somebody believes in certain religious laws. They believe them and they're going to act on them.

You can quit trying to convince me of the facts - I'll concede most of them. You just can't admit that our democracy is choosing a less efficient, more diverse portfolio of transportation options. Even people who don't use it pay for it as a backup, just like people without kids pay for public education.

Let me ask you one question, though. Do you believe that we are drawing down our stock of natural resources at a dangerous pace? Do you believe that modern transportation and agriculture can be sustained in their current form?

As for me mis-quoting/construing you, what exactly did you mean by "We both know that is pure BS..."? If it is that density/planning/transit don't address resource limits, I contend that arable land is one finite resource that is conserved through density. If Portlanders don't know they're lab rats in an experiment, that's their own fault. Turn off the TV and dig around. It's a democracy.

Huck, your claim that "many investors prefer the lower yield on bonds than stocks" is mostly false.

NY Times and WSJ a few months ago had in-depth articles on a study that showed over a longer period of time that bonds had almost the same performance as stocks-only about a 3% difference. The analysis pointed out that if you wanted security, assurance, and a good nights sleep that bonds were better than stocks without much difference. The time of holding your assets is the critical difference. In the past four to five years most bonds and bond funds have performed much better than stocks.

lw, you basically make my point for me. First, 3% is HUGE in investing - many wealthy people have made their fortunes exploiting far smaller discrepancies. Second, I'm more than aware that over a given period bonds may very well outperform stocks. And that makes my point to JK. He just seems convinced that we should not pursue diversity for diversity's sake. Our investments in transit diversity may prove wise (or may not, we don't know yet).

That's fine for him, but to act like everybody else should want to put all their eggs in one basket just because it looks (or is) more efficient now, ignores the entire concept of diversification. He makes valid points about who should pay for things, and about who benefits from public expenditure (hell, so does Jack, tenfold - the reason I love his writing), but he loses SO MANY PEOPLE acting like they're all crazy for liking less efficient means of transportation in the public expenditure basket.

Further, he totally ignores that our experiment is basically a gift to other cities. We are early adopters, paying higher prices and enduring more failures than those who wait. But, things like the rights-of-way that are procured for light rail, new bridges, etc., may turn out to be good investments down the road. Even if the intervening years of light rail are inefficient.

Huck: Well JK, you never responded to the main issue I have with your analysis - that people think they are buying "mobility insurance."
JK: And you never responded to my request that you PROVE your accusation that my data is manipulated, not real data (you said: “2) I have no problem with real data. You just manipulate yours.”)

Huck: Your argument that we should have a higher standard of living goes right past somebody who is concerned about the environmental impact of said standard.
JK: You completely miss my whole point:
The greens & transit lobby are lying to people and people are being tricked into making decisions that will hurt, not help their goal. If one wants to save energy, you DO NOT increase transit usage, you get people into small 50+ mpg cars. AND you do not build fixed rail which will be a huge energy waster for decades compared to modern cars.

Huck: They believe them and they're going to act on them.
JK: You are arguing the we should do nothing about the corporate lies being use to get people to harm their best interest. I think those lies should be countered with accurate data and am providing accurate information to help people overcome the corporate propaganda machines.

Huck: Let me ask you one question, though. Do you believe that we are drawing down our stock of natural resources at a dangerous pace?
JK: Perhaps you have not noticed that resources are keeping up with need. Ever wonder why?

There are several things going on here:
1. We have not yet explored all of the earth’s surface area.
2. We have barely explored the depths. There are thousands of miles of depths. (Area x height is a cubic law function.)
3 We are getting better at extracting minerals..
4. We are using resources more efficiently.
5. Population growth is slowing.
Points 1-4 amount to a rapid exponential expansion of resource availability.

That is why mineral resources will NEVER run out. In the last few years we have seen our natural gas supplies double or triple with new technology. Oil is now adapting the same technologies and we will probably be energy independent in a few years.

The only things likely to cause future shortages is manipulation by corporations or governments. (Like Hunt brothers, Debers, WWF, Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, and OPEC.)

Huck: Do you believe that modern transportation and agriculture can be sustained in their current form?
JK: No. Mass transit is NOT financially sustainable and will probably disappear as driverless cars become practical. Autos ARE financially sustainable and since the new ones use less energy than transit, they are even sustainable by the greenie’s definitions.
As to agriculture, we have huge amounts of land available and modern farming techniques are making land so productive that much of it is being abandoned.

Huck: I contend that arable land is one finite resource that is conserved through density.
JK: No need to decrease people’s standard of living to conserve land - it is in plentiful supply and farmland is being abandoned.

Huck: If Portlanders don't know they're lab rats in an experiment, that's their own fault.
JK: Oh really, are you seriously saying it is OK to experiment on people with out their knowledge? That tells us a lot about your beliefs and standards of behavior. But I do get the impression you are a planner or green.

Thanks
JK

Huck: And that makes my point to JK. He just seems convinced that we should not pursue diversity for diversity's sake. Our investments in transit diversity may prove wise (or may not, we don't know yet).
JK: We don’t know if it its wise, but spend several BILLION!!! That is money that could give us better schools, cure all traffic congestion in the region, greatly increase our water supply or a whole host of benefits.

Huck: That's fine for him, but to act like everybody else should want to put all their eggs in one basket just because it looks (or is) more efficient now, ignores the entire concept of diversification.
JK: Given transit’s cost and energy waste, exactly what are we trying to get with this diversity? It is not saving money. It is not faster commute times. It is not solving any imagined energy shortage. What is your alleged benefit of this diversity? What event are you insuring against?

Huck: But, things like the rights-of-way that are procured for light rail, new bridges, etc., may turn out to be good investments down the road. Even if the intervening years of light rail are inefficient.
JK: We already had most of the right of way for the toy trains. They just took road space (Burnside, Interstate) or road expansion space (Banfield, I205). Maybe you are thinking we could widen the tunnels under the west hills to provide more road capacity.
What bridges?

Thanks
JK

Oh my, JK, you are way further out there than I thought. But credit to you, on your second post there you finally acknowledged my point, though you appear completely baffled by it. What are we buying with billions wasted on transit? Diversity for its own, glorious, inefficient, sake. A different kind of transit that might prove useful given a set of assumptions coming to fruition. Counter that with your "manipulated data." Your manipulations are to use accurate data, and then extrapolate a point by using a set of assumptions. It's the exact same thing as the people you call liars are doing.

You get what I'm saying? I'm not accusing you of massaging the numbers. I can't point to faulty numbers because that's not what I'm accusing you of. For example - above you point to four reasons why resource availability is expanding exponentially. Even if your points 1-4 are accurate, your conclusion is still wrong IF there end up being OTHER REASONS we cannot extract those resources (like natural gas fracking, which may get banned IF it causes harm).

And my god, your opinions about agricultural land are just pure lunacy. Technology has not made land more productive - it has only substituted fossil fuel for human energy. That is not a long term solution - we're mining productivity out of the soil now, depleting it for future generations, just like every other resource. It also isn't healthy for the complex web of soil life that creates fertility organically.

You accuse green organizations of being involved in a conspiracy to trick the electorate - to what end? Yet you stand in defense of the auto/air/sea/fossil fuel companies that exploit populations around the world so we can entertain ourselves (our "standard of living"). Talk about lunatic hypocrisy.

I do believe it is OK for a democratically elected government to experiment on its citizens in this way. Anything a democratically elected government does is implicitly endorsed by the electorate, or else they can overturn it and vote them out. I believe the American standard of living is an experiment. While I disagree with it, I accept it as the will of the people, albeit helped along by manipulation of the fossil fuel industry.

This is why you hate greens and why I find you so exasperating. You believe your set of assumptions is reasonable because you have valid data. Well, I can sit in rush hour traffic and watch the MAX train fly by the Sunset Parking Lot, and I can work my farm and double the yield of my Monsanto neighbors while avoiding petro chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and I still leave natural areas surrounding my riparian property, providing habitat for wildlife, while the neighbors farm right to the property line. I see MAX and my farm as superior, and you see them as too expensive. You're such a good American.

Huck: Your manipulations are to use accurate data, and then extrapolate a point by using a set of assumptions.
JK: Give an example.

Huck: For example - above you point to four reasons why resource availability is expanding exponentially.
JK: I gave no numbers, therefore I was not misusing numbers. Got any real examples?

Huck: Technology has not made land more productive - it has only substituted fossil fuel for human energy.
JK: Then how come we are feeding more people with less land?

Huck: You accuse green organizations of being involved in a conspiracy to trick the electorate - to what end?
JK: To make money. To increase the power of their multinational multimillion dollar corporations. To keep up the lavish lifestyles of some of their leaders. Look at AL Gore’s income. Michael Moore. Many others.

Paul Ehrlich (buddie of Obama’s science advisor, John Holdren) has spent a lifetime making failed doomsday predictions. He even suggested putting sterility drugs in food! (NYT,Nov 26, 1969) Yet people like you keep sucking up his BS.

The Geenies are falling all over themselves to shut down fracking because it could make energy cheap and plentiful - something that leading greens have publically opposed. They want energy expensive. They oppose people being well off.

Huck: Yet you stand in defense of the auto/air/sea/fossil fuel companies
JK: Those companies are supplying the essentials of YOUR modern lifestyle. Without autos you would be on a horse, dropping shit all over the place. Without fossil fuel you would be freezing in the dark. Greenies are too naive to understand what life was like without these inventions (or maybe they do and just want to hurt people.)

Huck: that exploit populations around the world so we can entertain ourselves (our "standard of living").
JK: Oh, give me a break. The oil companies are only going overseas because the Greenies have blocked oil exploration and extraction in this country. The classic example is playing out now as we are on the threshold of being energy independent and the greenise are pulling out all stops to oppose it. So if you think the oil companies are doing damage overseas - blame the greenies. And their supporters like you.

Huck: I do believe it is OK for a democratically elected government to experiment on its citizens in this way.
JK: How about Ehrlich’s plan to put sterility drugs in food - do you think that would be OK?

Huck: Anything a democratically elected government does is implicitly endorsed by the electorate, or else they can overturn it and vote them out.
JK: I get it - you believe the Tuskegee syphilis experiment was OK because it was done by the government. And you believe it is moral to return runaway slaves because it was done by the government? And of course segregated schools are OK because the government did it!
There is name for that set of beliefs: fascist.

Huck: I believe the American standard of living is an experiment.
JK: It is NOT a government created experiment. It is not even an experiment in any normal usage of the word.

Huck: While I disagree with it [American standard of living],
JK: Are you saying that you want us to live like we did before industrial society?
Are you saying the average life span should be under 30 years?
Are you saying people should routinely die of a cut finger?
Are you saying people should routinely die of starvation?
Are you saying that most of the Earth’s population should die?

Huck: This is why you hate greens and why I find you so exasperating.
JK: Greens are promoting policies that will hurt billions of people. Already thousands to millions have died because of the greens: starvation from diverting food to ethanol; DDT ban (as opposed to more strict controls); global warming.

Huck: You believe your set of assumptions is reasonable because you have valid data.
JK: Then counter it with real data and calculations (you can handle grade school math & logic, can’t you?)

Huck: Well, I can sit in rush hour traffic and watch the MAX train fly by the Sunset Parking Lot,
JK: What does that prove? Only by looking at all trains and all costs do you get the real picture. Good news! They have done that for you. All you have to do is look at the data that they provide. It is really simple.

Thanks
JK

All day, JK, all day, until Jack shuts it down.

JK: Give an example.
H: You said "That is why mineral resources will NEVER run out." My point continues to stand - you may be technically right, but it doesn't matter. People are voting to preserve certain aspects of nature not related to standard of living. This is decidedly a first world behavior.

JK: I gave no numbers, therefore I was not misusing numbers. Got any real examples?
H: Exactly! It was not your "giving" of numbers, it was your conclusion that resources will never run out that is misleading. Sure, there's resources all over the universe, but we can't use them all because our planet is an ecosystem. Changing things has effects that enough people don't like. Those people vote in ways you don't like, but you act like they're crazy. See the next point...

Huck: Well, I can sit in rush hour traffic and watch the MAX train fly by the Sunset Parking Lot,
JK: What does that prove?
Huck: EVERYTHING! People's perceptions are just as real as your facts, JK!

Huck: You believe your set of assumptions is reasonable because you have valid data.
JK: Then counter it with real data and calculations (you can handle grade school math & logic, can’t you?)
H: I don't need to. I'm not arguing that you're wrong. How long is it going to take you to get that your facts can be right, and you still won't convince people to take your position. Trust me, I know how that feels. It happens all the time. People don't make decisions on logic, they make it on emotion.

Huck: While I disagree with it [American standard of living],
JK: Are you saying that you want us to live like we did before industrial society?
H: Right, the old A to Z argument. B through Y are just figments of our imagination. Weak sauce, JK.

Huck: I do believe it is OK for a democratically elected government to experiment on its citizens in this way.
JK: How about Ehrlich’s plan to put sterility drugs in food - do you think that would be OK?
H: Did you see the HUGE QUALIFIER in my statement - "in this way." More weak sauce JK, you're like a can of red herrings.

JK: To make money. Look at AL Gore’s income. Michael Moore. Many others...
Huck: Yet you stand in defense of the auto/air/sea/fossil fuel companies
JK: Those companies are supplying the essentials of YOUR modern lifestyle. Without autos you would be on a horse, dropping shit all over the place. Without fossil fuel you would be freezing in the dark.
H: Right, the essentials of my modern lifestyle. Like "reducing" is the same as "eliminating. All I want is for people who use fossil fuels to pay the true cost. Sound familiar?

Huck: Technology has not made land more productive - it has only substituted fossil fuel for human energy.
JK: Then how come we are feeding more people with less land?
H: The answer is right above your question. I don't deny that fossil fuels in ag produce temporary yield spikes. Temporary and unsustainable. You should try working in agriculture before you act like you know thing 1 about it. Ag provides numerous examples of just how wrong you are. Here's another irrefutable example of resource depletion: fish. Your beautiful technology in ag and fishing has decimated the world's supply of seafood. Dead zones in river deltas. Dying runs of salmon. Nearly extinct bluefin tuna. Whales chased to near extinction before the terrible Greens got involved. We've fed more people by extracting from our aquatic capital bank and introducing aquaculture. We've fed more people by reducing diversity in the animal sciences, and treating animals like crops. We've diverted foodcrops to fuel because we are sick of resource extraction at home, and sick of trying to dictate to resource rich countries abroad. The whole thing is unsustainable, and people want options that make them "feel" like they're doing something.

You're right about most of the numbers. That's the saddest thing. I'm one of the rare liberals that agrees with your numbers, and instead of recognizing that, you can't stand that I don't agree with your conclusions. You're like one of the people who make great arguments in favor of the legalization of drugs (which are about as solid as yours, with even more philosophical justification). People hear it, say "yeah, that makes sense, but I wouldn't vote for it." You keep thinking the facts will set you free, but Americans are too busy enjoying the ignorant comfort of their "lifestyle" to give a rip about what you have to say. You're right, it would be cheaper to get people into smaller cars than to provide Tri-Met, except you already convinced them that the small car is a death-trap. It would be cheaper to build more roads and allow people to build single-family homes wherever they want. But if you like that, why don't you move to Atlanta? We young folks like Portland with trains and no jobs. I know several that moved here from Atlanta and won't ever go back. Huh, wonder why?

JK: Why? We could be energy independent at the stroke of a pen. That would also dramatically improve our balance of payments and improve our standard of living through lower energy costs. The only think holding us back is the green movement.
H: Then aren't we just sitting on a nice, fat national bank account? Why are you jonesing to spend it now? Why don't we wait until the price of oil and gas go even higher and technology gets improved elsewhere? Isn't our standard of living good now? What do we need more of, in your opinion?

My e-mail is huckleberrya0@gmail, if you want to spare Jack. I thought that my email was viewable, as I keep putting it in each comment, but I can't see it.

Huck: JK: Why? We could be energy independent at the stroke of a pen. That would also dramatically improve our balance of payments and improve our standard of living through lower energy costs. The only think holding us back is the green movement.
Huck: Then aren't we just sitting on a nice, fat national bank account? Why are you jonesing to spend it now?
JK: Like I said to reduce our balance of payments and improve our standard of living. Also to employ thousands more people, quit sending money to terrorists.

Huck: Why don't we wait until the price of oil and gas go even higher and technology gets improved elsewhere?
JK: Because high prices hurt people. I’m surprised that a liberal does not care about hurting people. Also the price of oil and gas will be dropping dramatically due to new processes (unless the greens succeed in their efforts to stop progress)

Huck: Isn't our standard of living good now?
JK: Why do you choose now? Why not say the standard of living was good enough 100 years ago?
I can’t believe that any responsible adult would ask such a question while many Americans still suffer. Raising our overall standard of living will also raise their standard of living. More people will be able to afford cars to stop wasting time on transit. They will be able to afford BOTH food and fuel to heat the house. They could afford a bigger house with a little land!

Huck: What do we need more of, in your opinion?
JK: Things that improve people’s lives and satisfies their needs and wants. Why do you have a problem with that?

Thanks
JK

JK: ...to reduce our balance of payments and improve our standard of living. Also to employ thousands more people, quit sending money to terrorists.
H: We could do the same by choosing to buy more local goods.

Huck: What do we need more of, in your opinion?
JK: Things that improve people’s lives and satisfies their needs and wants. Why do you have a problem with that?
H: Happiness is not necessarily correlated with consumptive quantity - quality has much to do with it. The Amish, a group I by no means wish to emulate in entirety (remember, I advocate something between A and Z, Jim, don't bring that up again!), are perfect examples of a healthy, low-energy society.

Huck: Isn't our standard of living good now?
JK: Why do you choose now? Why not say the standard of living was good enough 100 years ago?
H: I choose now because our society faces problems of overconsumption. 100 years ago people truly were in need of medicine, food,education, and shelter. Now they're in need of a diet, priorities, and a work ethic.

JK: Because high prices hurt people. Also the price of oil and gas will be dropping dramatically due to new processes (unless the greens succeed in their efforts to stop progress)
H: Bullsh*t squared. High prices hurt developing nations in real ways, but high prices are a factor of supply and demand and overpopulation right now, let alone the 8.5B we may level out at. Fracking, oil shale, those are perfect examples of how there is NOT an abundance of energy and mineral resources. The mere fact that we need to use secondary levels of fossil energy indicates the fallacy of your argument that they are not scarce.

By the way, I'm impressed you witheld the obvious mistake I made above. My point about seafood had no bearing on your point about *mineral* resources. You are correct there, the earth is a closed system - there is plenty in this rock.

Huck: (quoting JK) JK: ...to reduce our balance of payments and improve our standard of living. Also to employ thousands more people, quit sending money to terrorists.
Huck: We could do the same by choosing to buy more local goods.
JK: You need an economics lesson. We buy things from around the world because they are cheaper or better. To produce everything we need locally will reduce our standard of living by driving up the costs of most things. How many example of closed societies being prosperous can you name? North Korea?

World trade lets regions and countries specialize and become more efficient. Too bad the greenies don’t have a clue about this.

Huck: H: Happiness is not necessarily correlated with consumptive quantity - quality has much to do with it. The Amish,...are perfect examples of a healthy, low-energy society.
JK: You are advocating fascism - telling others how to love. That is NOT YOUR CHOICE. (Are you willing to let George Bush dictate how you live?)

Huck: H: I choose now because our society faces problems of overconsumption.
JK: And your solution is to dictate how people should live.

Huck: ... high prices are a factor of supply and demand and overpopulation right now
JK: BS. High energy prices are due to 1) OPEC (a cartel) 2) Inefficent nationalizedoil industries 3) Greenies stopping development.

Huck: Fracking, oil shale, those are perfect examples of how there is NOT an abundance of energy and mineral resources. The mere fact that we need to use secondary levels of fossil energy indicates the fallacy of your argument that they are not scarce.
JK: You sure need a history lesson. Fracking is just another in a long line of improvements that provide more resources. The doomsters have always assumed no new discoveries to make their projections, and ALL of the doom projections have failed, mainly because of new techniques.

Thanks
JK

JK: You need an economics lesson.
H: Right. My degree in economics isn't enough? I didn't ever say we should have a closed society. I merely said we should buy more local goods. This would be where a close analysis of value and externalities PROVE that price is not the final arbiter of value. I'm very, very pro free-trade. It is the consumer's job to determine value. Consumers, however, are idiots. Specialization is not good for democracy, only capitalism.

JK: You are advocating fascism
H: You're confusing fascism with democracy. Yes, George Bush got to tell us how to live for 8 years, where the other 2 branches agreed with him. That's fair.

JK: And your solution is to dictate how people should live.
H: That's what democracy is, right? The Constitution protects certain things, but that's it.

JK: BS. High energy prices are due to 1) OPEC (a cartel) 2) Inefficent nationalizedoil industries 3) Greenies stopping development
H: OPEC is just acting in it's own interests, good for them. Same with nationalized oil. Good for the greenies, tough for you.

JK: You sure need a history lesson. Fracking is just another in a long line of improvements that provide more resources.
H: Fracking is not an improvement. It is proof that we are burning through mineral resources. If you were right, we'd never run out of the easiest possible extraction. I don't need a history lesson, you need one in common sense.

This is getting obvious. You've failed to acknowledge the easiest points I've made. We're fat in the developed world. Until we're thin, nobody will buy that we need a better standard of living. Major resources are shrinking. Seafood. Sweet crude. Arable cropland. Clean water. Who cares about new technology for extracting mineral resources if those are compromised? While air and water quality have improved over the last 40 years, there are still major problems (which, I'll acknowledge, you admitted in the recent post on coal exports to China).

You accuse me of being ignorant. A fascist. Not applicable. I'm pro-markets, pro-capitalism, pro-democracy. I take my lumps when the R's win. I take my lumps when the supreme court is 5-4 against me. I'm cool with it. You're the one who believes in the global green-conspiracy, but with all your facts, you can't prove that one.

I've been reading links all over you site for days now. I've read many others in the past. Despite the fact that many of them are accurate, they're not convincing of the larger philosophy. I'm open minded though, so I'll continue to give you chances to make your point.

Transit remains a democratic policy of long standing, supported not because it is efficient, but because it provides a safety net. Efficiency arguments will only make marginal changes (which I support), but will not eliminate the policy. Planning is a different beast. Voters get sick of one kind of inefficiency (unchecked growth, sprawl, traffic congestion, etc) and governments attempt to fix it. Sure, the planning will be inefficient, and developers will figure out ways to grease the system, but rich, connected people always grease the system, whatever system it is.

Another point, JK - you say you want us to be energy independent. Well, so do I, I just choose to increase my energy portfolio allocation of more expensive, renewable. It doesn't mean I'm crazy, it just means I want more balance, and less cable TV, cell phone, and automobile. Back up the renewables with coal and natural gas and nuclear. That's fine. But the investment will result in the same technological evolution you seem to believe in.

I agree with you, that technology will yield not a mass transit system, but a personal automobile system driven by electricity, hybrid engines, and fuel cells. I agree that we should strive towards individual auto as the mainstream model. But I also agree with a public transit backup. If you want to charge more for it, I can get with that, but maybe means-test it? We're not that far off, JK, you should try harder to convince me of your model than of my deficiency.

Here is why we will not run out of fossil fuel for centuries if ever:

From: http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/11/15/the-bottomless-well-how-energy-consumption-creates-more-energy-2/

Though he was prepared to go quite a bit deeper when he turned on his steam-powered drill in Crawford County, Pennsylvania, in 1859, Colonel Edwin Drake struck oil at 69 feet. The first “deep water” oil wells stood in 100 feet of water in 1954. Today, they reach through 10,000 feet of water, 20,000 feet of vertical rock, and another 30,000 feet of horizontal rock.

Yet over the long term, the price of oil has held remarkably steady. Ten-mile oil costs less than 69-feet oil did, and about the same as one-mile oil did two decades ago. Production costs in the hostile waters of the Statfjord oil fields of the North Sea are not very dfiferent from the costs at the historic Spindletop fields of southeast Texas a century ago. There have been price spikes and sags, but they have been tied to political and regulatory instabilities, not discovery and extraction costs.

Thanks
JK

Sorry it took so long to read about that link. I have several critiques of the general theory, but the Amazon page reviews for the book lay out both sides pretty well.

Of course resource and extraction costs don't prevent energy use. The best point I can make on topic (transit, planning), is that even if your argument is right (techno-optimism), the planning/transit crowd is merely wasting/investing billions trying to prepare for any gap or lag in time between expensive energy (global wars fought over fossil fuel deposits) and technological salvation. This goes straight to the point I tried to make at the outset: we're coming off two world wars last century, the species is easily convinced to buy insurance against potential interruptions in the regular flow of commerce (the "spikes and sags" you mention have not only been due to regulation, but to weather, global conflict such as war, or local disputes over resource extraction).

There is no question that transit/bike/planning is less efficient if you only consider the present, or if you only consider best-case scenarios, or if you discount health benefits, or if you attribute zero value to insurance. Some people do, some people don't. That's micro-economics.

It's an experiment. Prohibition was an experiment. It failed, but so what? Live and learn, or try to anyway. Same with the leaf clean up, the new garbage service, voter-owned elections, etc. I sometimes agree, sometimes don't, but we're allowed to try bad ideas as a society. If we don't mobilize and vote for change, then we really don't disagree enough.

Finally, I'll address your concern about who is really making money on all this stuff. Look, there are winners and losers to almost every decision by government. Where to place I5 and I205, whether a development is approved, court decisions regarding compensation, etc., all had winners and losers. The one consistent theme is that rich people have more access during the planning process for any government policy, and therefore tend to profit at the expense of the masses. That is no different for urban planning and light rail. The same profiteering would happen with alternative decisions about which roads to expand, etc.

That said, the urban transit/density thing does seem to be rife with corruption. No question. Our lazy society does nothing about it. It's our own fault. I'm a firm believer in the "government you deserve" theory.