I don't think this flyer is arrogant so much as it's horribly, horribly naive. Not everyone in this city can simply walk , bike or ride mass transit everywhere.

I, for example, have to commute 11 miles from Burlingame to Beaverton every Monday through Friday. Taking Tri-Met would require a trip all the way into downtown and a MAX ride all the way back out to the suburbs. Length of a one way trip, by my estimates: 90 minutes minimum. The time it takes to get to my workplace via a car: 25 minutes.

A three-hour daily commute? Who has time for that?

It's gonna take me about 2 days to get into downtown if I walk. I think those no camping ordinances might prevent me form overnighting along the way. Fortunately I don't have to go to downtown very much anymore.

How about a slogan with the pyramid: "just walk, someone has to"
Ooh, I feel all paternalized.

You bring up a good idea, Jack. I say let's forget about war for oil. The next time we invade a country let's do it for their horses.

Naive? How about wrong? In what sense does my daily bike commute have a larger carbon footprint than that same commute on foot?

The chart doesn't say you have to walk. It shows the carbon footprint of different modes of transportation. Some people need or even want to drive, some need or want to bike. All should be supported.

Ah yes, Carbon Footprint issues today, Radiation Shadow problems tomorrow.

I, for example, have to commute 11 miles from Burlingame to Beaverton every Monday through Friday.

Now c'mon, you know what they are going to say...you dont HAVE to commute. Move closer. Its your responsibility as a citizen. Thats what the condos, MAX, and the streetcar are for.
I saw some condos for sale at the Round.

Whats really creepy is in both of those pics the kids are looking back, as if to say "wont you do it for ME?"

These people are shameless.

And as for "going back in time"...wait until they take out the dams. No electricity, and LNG will become more and more scarce...so what we leave for our kids is candles, horses, and a wood-fired stove to cook on. Oh wait...burning wood is bad for the air.

We're hosed.

I agree that the way the ones who are doing it, do it, is probably at least wasteful, or worse, corrupt. To me, it is debateable whether the 'problem' to '(re)solve' is the leading persons (elected officials) or the leading process (public-required, enacted, rigors and recourse).

I disagree that public policy should ignore or avoid 'telling us' (enforcing) how we 'have to' travel, move around, and transport ourselves. That is, public policy ought to, and must, 'force' us to drive less and walk or ride horses more. (Sure, the wheel is with us, use the wheel; only, rather, drive combustion engines less, transition to electric-motor wheels more.)

Some (worldly) perspective persuades my opinion (and perhaps the opinions of 'City Executives') in this -- down under, by Crikey, they are jealous that the public transportation runs for us ...

... into "gated car camps" ? ! ? ! Sounds like Indignation Village.

Oil and the future - the commuter shift to public transport, posted May 30, 2008, in TheOilDrum: Australia/New Zealand

The McMansion suburbs are likely to fall into disrepair as the price of commuting and mortgage repayments cause many houses to be completely abandoned and stripped for copper wiring and other resources. [Civil unrest! Public disorder! as promoted by loser LIARS listeners blindly without foresight stuck in the intractable-mind mud of going on the way we have been going on driving into transportation collapse ... and gunslinging riotous ruin!] Many formally middle class people who have lost their homes will be living out of their cars, perhaps even in gated car camps as are already being set up in the US. ... [n.b. "formally middle class" a typo for 'formerly? middle class' -- I'm unsure.]

Hey, they forgot skateboards! Where do skateboards fit in on the pyramid?

Seriously, Charlie Hales once commissioned a study of how people get around Portland and tried to assess what percentage went by skateboard or rollerblades.

Horses, Jack, may not have a large carbon footprint, but they do have, ahem, a big methane footprint.

There are a huge number of people like my ex-girlfriend, who would drive three blocks to the Plaid Pantry to buy a pack of cigarettes. Walking further than a block is a foreign notion to many people, which is why bus stops are always two blocks apart.

Now c'mon, you know what they are going to say...you dont HAVE to commute. Move closer. Its your responsibility as a citizen. Thats what the condos, MAX, and the streetcar are for. I saw some condos for sale at the Round.

I've got a flip response for that one too: Me? Afford a condo? On my salary? Er, not gonna happen. Plus, everything in Beaverton (restaurants, grocery stores, movie theaters, my place of business) is so spread out and suburban that the only practical way to get around is still by car. Beaverton is hardly bike or pedestrian friendly.

Here in Duh-verse-city, 'spect we can anticipate future mailings to be further inclusive...a Muslim child, a Russian child, an Hispanic child, a child of same sex parents....each looking over his/her shoulder, walking hand-in-hand with his/her parents? How SPECIAL!

Is this a great city that works or what?

pogo sticks? what about pogo sticks?
scooters?
unicycles?
helicopters?
*airplanes*?

it's a poor graphic. the message of the whole thing is unclear and abstract. and as long as we try to change behavior with abstract concepts like "the environment" and "carbon footprint", we're screwed.

and, the flyer is way off for one more simple reason: if all citizens "make walking the foundation" for all their trips, the city would collapse. the city economy and structure (all cities) DEPEND on people moving rapidly from home to work and back, and on goods moving rapidly (via polluting trains, ships, airplanes and trucks) in and out of the city.

in fact, those trains/ships/airplanes/trucks are responsible for a significant part of the whole Portland pollution level.

It sure is poor graphics. The pyramid shape with walking the largest volume at the bottom suggests that it has the largest carbon footprint and cars at the top has the least. If I was vertically dyslectic it might make sense.

I can't wait to see millions of Portland citizens walking sixty foot lengths of rebar from American Steel in NW Portland to SoWhat. That's what it would take to keep rebar deliveries coming for condomania in SoWhat, if we follow the Sam Adam Pyramid Edict.

Now I see why Sam and Metro predict another 1 million people coming soon to Portland. They are needed to walk the steel rebar for more condos.

Now I see why Sam and Metro predict another 1 million people coming soon to Portland. They are needed to walk the steel rebar for more condos.

I think they're coming to steal the rebar for meth.

The other problem is that City planners keep stores used by middle and lower income families out on the ring. Wal Mart, bad! Costco, good, but only on 82nd. WinCo, ok also but not close in.

Result: large empty lots, long car drives for affordable groceries.

If I just shopped all the time at New Seasons, I guess I'd be ok.

I'd love to see the math on Bike v. Walk on carbon footprint. Sure a bike is more efficient, so you have less caloric output per mile (carbon footprint of food creation, delivery, et al.), but it also has its own creation/delivery footprint. But then those shoes you want in have their own. Anyway, interesting math, I'd suppose.

Many of the comments above are shooting the messenger. Is it such a terrible idea to encourage people to walk more? Instead of driving to the grocery store for dinner items, maybe you could walk there? All sorts of benefits, beyond "carbon footprint," exist for exercise. It might help with rising health care costs because of obesity for example. Just because the messenger is bad doesn't mean we should toss out the message.

"There are numerous online carbon calculators online"

Nice editing there. No redundancy or deadwood at all. Oh wait - it's just a metaphor for Portland City Government. Plenty of redundancy and deadwood there too.

Many of the comments above are shooting the messenger. Is it such a terrible idea to encourage people to walk more?

is it such a terrible idea to encourage local government to communicate honestly and effectively, rather than attempting to "market" a poorly thought out concept to it's own constituency?

it's more than just us being jaded--it's a sickness of Government By Marketing. superficial marketing slicks with poorly thought out messages inspire revulsiona dn rejection, not respect.

JK: Sam’s clowns also forgot to tell us:

1. Buses emits MORE CO2 per passenger-mile than small cars (LRT is debatable as only ½ of its energy comes from coal in this region)
2. Mass transit costs several times the cost of a car. (that $2 fare only pays 1/5 of the real cost of around $10)
3. Transit uses oil too.

Conclusions:

1. To save CO2, avoid mass transit and use a small car.
2. To save money, avoid mass transit and use a small car.
3. To save energy, avoid mass transit and use a small car.

Want proof? See debunkingPortland.com

My prediction: the current increase in mass transit use will be temporary as either gas prices drop or people get more efficient cars. We can be ceetain that large numbers of people will not put up with transit’s many down sides, unless they are forced to.

BTW: the proposed LRT to Vancouver will cost over $2 per passenger-mile just to build it.

Thanks
JK

I'm not going to defend the flyers or the exaggeration and hyperboles (like walking to Portland, the collapse of civilization). I think the point here is to take a considered approach to transportation depending upon your situation.

For example, I live in Beaverton and used to work about 7 miles away in Aloha. It would take about 25 -30 minutes to drive depending on traffic. It turns out that it took me 30-35 minutes on a bike. And I wasn't riding that hard or fast.

So yeah, it "cost" me an extra 10-20 minutes per day. But overall I actually gained time because I was getting an hour long aerobic workout at the same time as my commute, rather than having to drudge through a workout on top of the commute. Also, this isn't something that has to be done everyday.

I think that public transport, expecially over longer commutes, is an excellent way to gain time by catching up on a book, reading up on the news or other personal interest, or doing email or other work on a laptop or Blackberry (if you have that option). Sitting on the bus or Max like they are time wasters is what will make them time wasters.

FWIW - I actually don't ride my bike to work anymore because I have since changed jobs. I can work from home a lot (zero commute time and gas); and for the days I do go in I ride a motorcycle as often as I can (40 mpg in the city). And I still have a small pick-up when needed.

Oh, sorry for the long post...

To paraphrase Michelle Obama:
Sam Adams will require you to use mass transit. He is going to demand that you shed your vehicle. That you put down your car keys. That you come out of your isolation and that you move out of your comfort zone into the world of carpooling. That you push yourselves to be carbon-neutral. Sam will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual – using MAX only for the occasional game at PGE Park. You have to stay at the seat of your bike with a man like Sam Adams...

Nick says:
I think the point here is to take a considered approach to transportation depending upon your situation.

flyer says:
Make walking the foundation for all your trips...use the car as a last resort.

no, i'd say the point of the flyer was "always walk if possible, and use a car only as a last resort", *not* "think about it and do whatever works best for your situation."

Nice catch, MachineShedFred: "There are numerous online carbon calculators online"
It makes me miss Firesign Theater and the Department of Redundancy Department.
Yes, I was a big fan but I want you to know my college dorm fought early against global warming. We always used a water-cooled bong.

If metal is going tobe stolen for meth in the downtown area, it will probably be the nice new shiny COPPER wires being put up along SW 5th!

We always used a water-cooled bong.

this, my friend, is for you.

Instead of driving to the grocery store for dinner items, maybe you could walk there?

You ever try bringing home a couple week's worth of groceries for a family of five on foot? Then add to it an affordable store being more than several blocks away?
Hell, we shop at two or three different stores to get the best deals, a couple of them are more than two miles away.
Not very practical.

You ever try bringing home a couple week's worth of groceries for a family of five on foot? Then add to it an affordable store being more than several blocks away?

exactly. the arrogant under-30-ness of current Portland planning leaves out so many glaring realities as to be bizarre. the majority of Portlanders--the vast majority--are, in fact, modest income earners not living in the Pearl or in Inner East Portland, and are over the age of thirty.

and the current urban structure is physically and socially engineered (at any density, with any amount of public transit) towards SPEED. and speed requires personal transport.

and isn't it easy to focus on personal transport, when (ironically) the majority of pollution is coming from buildings and commercial transport?

I'm bemused by those who think that providing choices and information about the impact of those choices is "forcing people" to get out of their cars.

We spend so much more of our public space and dollars on cars than biking or walking.

When's the last time you tried to bike across the Marquam, Ross Island, or Morrison Bridges, for example?

Not a mention of motorcycles anywhere on that pyramid. The best part about motorcycles, of course, is that you're always just a mohawk and a pair of bondage pants away from you and your droogs getting all the gas you want from your fellow motorists. (And no mention of composting the manure from your horses to make methane? For shame.)

"you know what they are going to say...you dont HAVE to commute. Move closer."

No what "they" are going to say is stop whining about the consequences of a decision you made. If you chose to live in an area where car ownership is mandatory pay the sheiks and shut the &%$# up. Anyone with a pulse (not counting the ever fragrant and nutty Karlock) knows what the future holds.

http://postcarboncities.net/node/3061

pmsherwood: (not counting the ever fragrant and nutty Karlock)....

JK: Always good to get the ad hominem -- it shows you have no rational criticisms of my positions.

BTW: Any comment on transit costing more than driving a small car, using more energy and emitting more CO2? (Not to mention it being a crime magnet and being welfare for the downtown workers?)

Thanks
JK

Don't mind me...I'm just waiting for the bus to take me on the 112 minute commute from Parkrose to Milwaukie while I munch on my soylent green crackers.

I will not question our government officials. They are only looking after my best interest after all. Once they price food and gas out of all our reach, at least we'll have government provided wi-fi... doh...wait, nevermind.

If you chose to live in an area where car ownership is mandatory pay the sheiks and shut the &%$# up.

Wait, "choose" to live in an area? Nice to see that you're willing to overlook things like available rentals, practicality, income limitations, inability to purchase property in a city with ridiculously overpriced real estate, etc. A lot of us don't get to choose where we live in Portland, we go with what our income allows and what's available. If I had a choice in the matter, I'd buy a house in inner SE and ride my bike to my nonexistent, six-figure-paying job in the city's core.

I'm more concerned with the cancer that killed my mother and the heart disease that killed my father. With the obesity in this state, and country, and the fact that most americans do not get enough exercise, I'm happy to leave my Ford F150 at home and ride my bike or walk or take transit, and even pay slightly more for locally grown, fresh and closer to organic meats and cheeses, fruits and vegetables, and grains at new seasons because I know it makes me feel 'way' better!

The food you buy at winco or walmart might be cheaper, but it's cheap food, and lacks many of the true minerals and important nutrients our bodies crave, and help us feel well and live pain free lives. Yes, a lot of those pains and aches many folks complain about and feel are from not getting enough activity, stretching and lubricating your many muscles, and eating unnaturally grown foods on industrial farms. Now that's progess!

Jim,

It was not an ad hominem (god I wish someone at Fox had never found a dictionary). It was a good old-fashioned insult delivered in a patronizing fashion. Having seen you take on Sam, I know you’re used to being patronized.

You’re not starting to worry about CO2, are you? I thought that was all a myth. It wouldn’t be that all your other “arguments” got too trashed. Anyway, welcome to 1997.

As was discussed a while ago, electrified rail uses a fraction of the energy to move people and, depending on the energy source (over which we have some choice) can produce little CO2. The crime argument is ridiculous and, let’s be honest, racist. I guess it is a subsidy to the people that use it downtown. Again, as we have discussed many times, transit gets the tiniest fraction of welfare when compared to autos. And, although it’s getting tiresome typing it, this is much more about shaping a city in the long-term in a ….drum roll…sustainable way.

I agree completely that that pyramid perfectly encapsulates the nonsense in the city.

The transportation department, which is run with our tax money for OUR benefit, looks at the 90% of us who use cars and says that we're making the last choice we should make.

Their project priorities will reflect that they want us to choose among 4 different modes of travel before they get around to making the streets work for cars.

This is the Portland way. People in govt really believe that we elect them to tell us what's best for us. They believe it 100%.

electrified rail uses a fraction of the energy to move people and, depending on the energy source (over which we have some choice) can produce little CO2.

given that the largest fundamental source of electricity used to move Light Rail is coal, I strongly disagree.

you see, there is no "good" way to move people around in mass quantities, ecologically speaking--only "slightly less bad."

You know, the structure of the pyramid seems to be inversely related to speed (and hence usage).

"...this is much more about shaping a city in the long term in a ...drum roll...sustainable way."

You forgot the [rim shot].

What was that web link again?

Thank you, barcincka, for laying out the equation in perfectly logical and succinct terms:

Driving a motor vehicle = obesity, higher risk of cancer and poor dietary choices. you left out alcohol, tobacco and drug use, but I'm sure that's all caused by driving, too.

Kind of presumptuous, huh? But typical. Note your first paragraph is all about you. The next is all about the rest of us pathetic slobs. Some of us work in our gardens, have been walking for pleasure and health long before it was part of an agenda, go to health clubs, take part in sports, exercise at home, etc., and we DRIVE a car, too! And in the future we will continue to transport ourselves and our families and our goods in some type of vehicle, because human beings are real good at solving problems! We're being jerked around here for a while, paying a lot for gas - which is a tax by the way. We had a "gas shortage" in the 70's when we all put a brick in our gas tanks next to the tiger, and progress was being made at that time with fuel efficient autos. But guess who stepped on that idea? It will happen again. Alternate means of transportation will be developed, and we can still ride our bikes like we always have for either fun and enjoyment, or as our primary means of transportation. Study a little history. But don't be so condescending to the rest of us "unenlightened," please.

"you see, there is no "good" way to move people around in mass quantities, ecologically speaking--only "slightly less bad."

Thank you, thank you, thank you..... This is my point: moving people is expensive. This insulting claptrap about small cars being cheap (not counting the trillions of inconvenient dollars) etc is pointless. Avoiding the problem instead of "solving" the problem is the only choice. That will involve planning/thinking (I just typed the word planning so will be banned from here by Thursday). Having said that, electricity in these parts is 50/50ish coal/hydro, which could easily be hydro/nuclear/wind/solar/tidal/thermal so rail wins over the next few decades by a country mile.

PDX,

You're wrong about everything but I like the "we all put a brick in our gas tanks next to the tiger" line.

By the way, who stepped on that idea?

electricity in these parts is 50/50ish coal/hydro, which could easily be hydro/nuclear/wind/solar/tidal/thermal so rail wins over the next few decades by a country mile.

close: i think coal's about 45% overall, then nearly all the rest is hydro (

and, converting mass transit electricity to more "renewable" sources is incredibly difficult. even if Portland tomorrow vowed to demand it, renewables would only make up a fraction for quite a long time.

so, the choice still seems to come back to oil (autos) or coal (electric), both being bad choices for transit.

JK: Any comment on transit costing more than driving a small car, using more energy and emitting more CO2?

Yes - your stats are bunk. (Note this is not ad hominem. I criticize your stats - not you.)

Let's assume that your general stat that on a per-rider basis, one "mass transit per-rider" mile pollutes more and is less fuel-efficient than a single car driver. This stat is ridiculous because it presumes that all mass-transit miles are the same.

I take the bus every day. During my evening rush-hour commute home, there are around 30 people on the bus - the seats are full and usually a few folks have to stand. Assume the bus gets 6 miles per gallon. That's 180 miles per gallon on a per-rider basis. Convince me that the single-car driver in the sedan next to me on the road gets better mileage than that or is polluting less on a per-rider basis. Now convince me that Hillary's going to get the nomination.

You will no doubt respond by stating that I'm failing to take into account such things as the late-night buses that have a handful of riders at most.

But this response ignores the basic premise that when the buses are full, they are more fuel-efficient and less polluting than a single-car driver. Plus, every rider on the bus is one less car on the road, dramatically easing congestion. Try to convince me that adding another 30 cars trying to make the same turn onto Naito Parkway at 5:45 pm would not increase congestion. I double-dog dare you.

Plus, this is all based on per-rider calculations. The vast majority of rush-hour drivers I see are single-car drivers. If more single-car drivers took the bus, it would increase the per-rider mileage and reduce per-rider pollution of mass transit. So if you solely rely on per-rider metrics, the best answer is to increase mass transit ridership, not do away with it, right?

Nobody I've ever talked to has said that mass transit is there solely for fuel efficiency. It's there for various other things such as night-shift workers and students who can't afford their own cars, or (and I'm speaking from personal experience) people who had one IPA too many on Saturday night and don't want to drive back home. Isn't it in society's interest to allow lower-income folks to get downtown safely and affordably? Isn't it in society's interest to keep intoxicated drivers off the road?

Many people can't afford to drive to work downtown. I estimate I save at least $750 per month by not having a car (including the prorated cost of the car), and I provide benefits to drivers by not being on the road or occupying a parking space. You presumably want to subsidize everyone getting a car instead of mass transit (plus gas, parking, and insurance) - I don't. GM doesn't need more government subsidies, neither do the parking lot owners, Exxon, or State Farm.

I tried figuring out your stats on how mass transit is more expensive than driving a car - sorry, I couldn't make heads or tails of the data.

When the buses are full, they are more fuel-efficient and less polluting than a single-car driver.

it's not that simple, though Tri-Met would like you to think so. pollution output for a bus varies widely, depending on a host of factors, *and* there are pollutants other than CO2 to consider (such as particulates, which are magnitudes higher for diesel buses.)

Plus, every rider on the bus is one less car on the road, dramatically easing congestion.

congestion continues to rise sharply, despite all mass transit options, increases in # of buses, and build-out of light rail.

you see, wonkish spreadsheet calculations are, in my opinion, the wrong way to even see the problem. it's a human problem, an ecological limits problem. the wonks have already failed us.

in other words, as I've posted before--the problem's much bigger than tha--and we already have examples of how density and mass transit ultimately don't solve the problem.

and neither do suburbs, sprawl, and building freeways.

Ecohuman - so sprawl is bad, density is bad, the suburbs are bad, mass transit doesn't work . . . any ideas in there?

Do you believe that mass transit reduces congestion - as I do - or makes it worse - as JK does? I really can't tell from your post.

Reduce the population of our planet to well under one billion over several generations...by any means necessary...end of problem. I'm 36, no kids, and I've had plenty of opportunities to make them, too. Putting a condom on isn't exactly rocket science, nor is a visit to the abortionist.

Once upon a time, about 35 years ago by my reading, "Zero Population Growth" was a solid plank in the Environmentalist platform...nowadays, the topic is virtually taboo, due of course to who is practicing this behavior, and who is merrily doing the exact opposite in all of their fecund, dysgenic imbecility.

I mean, come on...usage of simple, stupid birth control doesn't require that many excess IQ points...and yet people like me are expected not only to endlessly pick up the tab for the irresponsible, but to modify our behavior in order to accommodate the ever worsening crowding and congestion, as well.

What I say might sound cruel and harsh, but just wait 25 years, and take a look around before you call it ignorant. Hell, wait FIVE years and take a good, long look at the exponentially multiplying horde of humans...you might just start to agree.

Ecohuman - so sprawl is bad, density is bad, the suburbs are bad, mass transit doesn't work . . . any ideas in there?

yes. for example: we need new standards. not based on what technology is capable of providing but, as Wendell Berry says, standards derived from “the nature of places and communities.” Those standards must place human and ecological health first, always. Not fads, not efficiency, not cost, but health.

Do you believe that mass transit reduces congestion - as I do - or makes it worse - as JK does? I really can't tell from your post.

i'm interested in a third way. the false polarity of issues these days is a waste of energy and doesn't interest me. but, to answer your question, mass transit is a temporary fix for a symptom of a deeper, more fundamental problem.

in other words, i believe we've got cancer but we're arguing about whether to take aspirin or advil.

Once upon a time, about 35 years ago by my reading, "Zero Population Growth" was a solid plank in the Environmentalist platform...nowadays, the topic is virtually taboo

Sierra Club's on it, for example, though they've softened their stance somewhat. i don't think it's taboo at all.