In the link you provided regarding EVs, I read: "Having to buy a brand new car isn’t the only way to transition out of an older, gasoline-powered, polluting vehicle..." I agree. One answer to the equity challenge is to extend the subsidies for new EV purchases to older cars, converted from gas to electric. At the level of subsidies provided for new EV purchases, these conversions could be paid for in full, starting with low-income households, and could accelerate the training of a new auto mechanic workforce in deploying and maintaining the new EV technologies. Plus, there would be an environmental benefit from reusing old cars rather than sending them to junkyards.
I read this article and am really saddened by this type of attitude. The author jumps right into the "new rhetoric". Instead of providing answers that do speak to all Oregonians, its the same thing being repeated by so many progressives. In my opinion you effect change by offering those you disagree with solutions that they can get behind. How is stacking people in high density situations a solution? That is the only way walking and biking are viable solutions. EV's are constantly being thrown out as alternatives. Where do you suppose all this electricity is going to come from? Tear out the dams ! is the battle cry! Windmills!!???? As long as they are in arid portions of Oregon where they cant ride their bikes to, or better yet walk to! So I can hear it now, well what are your solutions? I for one, believe solar on all buildings is one. Designing more efficient carbon based vehicles, it is still the preferred form of transportation. Cleaner burning engines. New generation nuclear energy. I believe real discussions of energy and transportation need to be void of social considerations. Engineering is a different subject than social responsibility. I believe discussions of social are needed, but the authors attempt to mingle them is a mistake IMO.
I’d like the hear the author discuss moving freight in more detail. That seems to create the biggest political demand for more lanes. Arguing that getting people out of cars will create less congestion for trucks is problematic when people largely choose their mode of travel by time and ease and there’s no quicker or more convenient way to travel than a less than capacity roadway. Perhaps some lanes on some freeways for some stretches that are dedicated for commercial trucks and buses?
This seems like a continued recipe for Oregons dangerous, slow, and outdated transportation system. Congestion isn't just an urban problem in OR sadly, even rural highways in our state have traffic jams, kill pedestrians and bikers, delay goods transport, etc. Similarly, bikers and pedestrians also travel in private vehicles and often times even own them. This supposed dichotomy between multi modal and vehicle travel is false and manufactured (and OR leaderships blind acceptance of it holds us all back)
Underserved/marginalized communities have historically suffered from highway mega projects, that much is true. However its also true that when asked what their goal is for transportation, most in these communities would say driving a safe and reliable vehicle, not a better bus pass. If folks think moving vulnerable car-less communities back and forth across the Willamette between their dead-end jobs and their inner ring suburban apartments is tough, just think how much tougher it is to get them to the trailhead miles up a dirt road that only expensive, well maintained vehicles can pass. Environmentalism and outdoorsyness have a segregation impact for these folks too, and one that can't be so easily fixed with citywide sharrows and curb bulbs.
Rural OR suffers from such partisan think-tank solutions that our planners repeat back at each other and call consensus. Things that sometimes work in 503 are definitely never working in 541, but you have to leave Multnomah County to see it and learn from it. Congestion creates just as much pollution as efficient travel, if not more, and the idea we can congest OR out of our congestion problem, is even more silly a concept than roadbuilding supposedly creating traffic jams.
Yes, new roads usually get used, but isn't that the reason for their creation and not proof of their failure? New roads/lanes don't exist in a vacuum, they almost always occur alongside and connected with, zoning changes and wider infrastructure development. Blaming our built environment, for the growth of population/congestion in our state, barely makes sense. Portland hasn't added significant vehicle lanes to its network in a generation, yet it continues to get richer, whiter, more segregated and more populated- why aren't we blaming greenways, walkers, and transit for this situation considering those are the infrastructure decisions Portland has made (but not achieved the intended results?) Oregon can't have it both ways no matter how convenient it feels for us.
Oregon roads continue to kill pedestrians and bikers and bus passengers (and car drivers) on sections with speed limits from 20 to 70. Logically the only way to reach zero transportation fatalities is to ban travel altogether, however ludicrous it sounds. Short of that, its time for us to look each other in the eyes and admit that safe, efficient roadways are a good thing. Theres a reason (many) we use fire trucks instead of fire e-skateboards for emergency response, and why plumbers don't uber between jobsites.
I want to move away from this zero-sum method of transportation planning our state uses, where every inch (and dollar) of sidewalk or bike path, is carved directly out of existing road mileage. Grade separation will save a lot more lives than fog lines, and help the economy more, but it requires OR to grow up and start funding the cost increase and eminent domain requirements! Statistically, the safest car trips occur on freeways just like the safest bike trips occur on bike paths and the safest walks take place using sidewalks. Theres a reason our ancestors worked in this direction for centuries even as we seem completely willing to throw it out the window overnight.
If our modern state economy is going to be so laser focused on rural culture stays, ecotourism, and farm-to-table dining: it only follows we need rural transportation options that work, to move the laundry and tourists and heirloom produce that now keeps us all alive. Until we build a ferry to Brookings or a train to Mt Bachelor, roads appear to be our only option (gasp.) Its just not that easy for some folks to bike from PDX to Ashland no matter how beautiful it is, and requiring private vehicle use to enjoy almost all of ORs massive rural appeal, while simultaneously making private vehicles unattainable for marginalized urban dwellers, is the height of ableist segregation and exclusion. Not to mention our rural workers themselves are often from underserved communities yet drive more while being paid less; turning rural OR into a pristine impoverished museum experience does nothing for vulnerable populations and arguably hurts them.
I support lower emissions and impacts with mass transit, and I support better health outcomes by driving less and walking more. Somedays I walk places, somedays I ride, and somedays I drive. Somedays I do all three, and I know I'm not alone. Its time we had a transportation system that reflects this reality and acknowleges the interconnectedness of our modes, admitting that some people drive to the bike park or trailhead as part of their excercise routine not despite it.
I'm thankful folks like you are researching these issues but I really worry when I see us being pushed in to an either/or decision about our transportation modes, when the reality is just so much more diverse and complex, like most days in Oregon.
As more people begin operating EV’s, do we know how much more electricity will be required? How will we power the grid to meet that demand? Are we expecting less pollution than gas engines are now emitting? Is there a complete plan?
Lots of good points, Sarah, and thanks for the shout-out to the Clean and Just Transportation Network we helped found! The throwaway line attacking electric vehicles is really out of place here, though. Transportation is complex, as is its history of reinforcing inequality. We need every tool in our toolbox - electrification of everything that moves, more transit and active transportation, smarter and more equitable transportation finance, strong land use, and more. While our different organizations have different focus areas, we need to work together to counter decades of focus on single occupancy gas cars and big diesel trucks. CJTN was founded explicitly to help bring us together, and to fight the kind of "circular firing lines" we see too often between different arms of the transportation reform movement. We look forward to continuing to work with you and your team on that effort.
In the link you provided regarding EVs, I read: "Having to buy a brand new car isn’t the only way to transition out of an older, gasoline-powered, polluting vehicle..." I agree. One answer to the equity challenge is to extend the subsidies for new EV purchases to older cars, converted from gas to electric. At the level of subsidies provided for new EV purchases, these conversions could be paid for in full, starting with low-income households, and could accelerate the training of a new auto mechanic workforce in deploying and maintaining the new EV technologies. Plus, there would be an environmental benefit from reusing old cars rather than sending them to junkyards.
Here's what I posted recently about this idea:
https://theoregonway.substack.com/p/thoughts-from-the-slow-lane-how-to
Since posting this, I've found a broad subculture of mechanics (more than 140 in Oregon alone) undertaking these projects.
I read this article and am really saddened by this type of attitude. The author jumps right into the "new rhetoric". Instead of providing answers that do speak to all Oregonians, its the same thing being repeated by so many progressives. In my opinion you effect change by offering those you disagree with solutions that they can get behind. How is stacking people in high density situations a solution? That is the only way walking and biking are viable solutions. EV's are constantly being thrown out as alternatives. Where do you suppose all this electricity is going to come from? Tear out the dams ! is the battle cry! Windmills!!???? As long as they are in arid portions of Oregon where they cant ride their bikes to, or better yet walk to! So I can hear it now, well what are your solutions? I for one, believe solar on all buildings is one. Designing more efficient carbon based vehicles, it is still the preferred form of transportation. Cleaner burning engines. New generation nuclear energy. I believe real discussions of energy and transportation need to be void of social considerations. Engineering is a different subject than social responsibility. I believe discussions of social are needed, but the authors attempt to mingle them is a mistake IMO.
I’d like the hear the author discuss moving freight in more detail. That seems to create the biggest political demand for more lanes. Arguing that getting people out of cars will create less congestion for trucks is problematic when people largely choose their mode of travel by time and ease and there’s no quicker or more convenient way to travel than a less than capacity roadway. Perhaps some lanes on some freeways for some stretches that are dedicated for commercial trucks and buses?
This seems like a continued recipe for Oregons dangerous, slow, and outdated transportation system. Congestion isn't just an urban problem in OR sadly, even rural highways in our state have traffic jams, kill pedestrians and bikers, delay goods transport, etc. Similarly, bikers and pedestrians also travel in private vehicles and often times even own them. This supposed dichotomy between multi modal and vehicle travel is false and manufactured (and OR leaderships blind acceptance of it holds us all back)
Underserved/marginalized communities have historically suffered from highway mega projects, that much is true. However its also true that when asked what their goal is for transportation, most in these communities would say driving a safe and reliable vehicle, not a better bus pass. If folks think moving vulnerable car-less communities back and forth across the Willamette between their dead-end jobs and their inner ring suburban apartments is tough, just think how much tougher it is to get them to the trailhead miles up a dirt road that only expensive, well maintained vehicles can pass. Environmentalism and outdoorsyness have a segregation impact for these folks too, and one that can't be so easily fixed with citywide sharrows and curb bulbs.
Rural OR suffers from such partisan think-tank solutions that our planners repeat back at each other and call consensus. Things that sometimes work in 503 are definitely never working in 541, but you have to leave Multnomah County to see it and learn from it. Congestion creates just as much pollution as efficient travel, if not more, and the idea we can congest OR out of our congestion problem, is even more silly a concept than roadbuilding supposedly creating traffic jams.
Yes, new roads usually get used, but isn't that the reason for their creation and not proof of their failure? New roads/lanes don't exist in a vacuum, they almost always occur alongside and connected with, zoning changes and wider infrastructure development. Blaming our built environment, for the growth of population/congestion in our state, barely makes sense. Portland hasn't added significant vehicle lanes to its network in a generation, yet it continues to get richer, whiter, more segregated and more populated- why aren't we blaming greenways, walkers, and transit for this situation considering those are the infrastructure decisions Portland has made (but not achieved the intended results?) Oregon can't have it both ways no matter how convenient it feels for us.
Oregon roads continue to kill pedestrians and bikers and bus passengers (and car drivers) on sections with speed limits from 20 to 70. Logically the only way to reach zero transportation fatalities is to ban travel altogether, however ludicrous it sounds. Short of that, its time for us to look each other in the eyes and admit that safe, efficient roadways are a good thing. Theres a reason (many) we use fire trucks instead of fire e-skateboards for emergency response, and why plumbers don't uber between jobsites.
I want to move away from this zero-sum method of transportation planning our state uses, where every inch (and dollar) of sidewalk or bike path, is carved directly out of existing road mileage. Grade separation will save a lot more lives than fog lines, and help the economy more, but it requires OR to grow up and start funding the cost increase and eminent domain requirements! Statistically, the safest car trips occur on freeways just like the safest bike trips occur on bike paths and the safest walks take place using sidewalks. Theres a reason our ancestors worked in this direction for centuries even as we seem completely willing to throw it out the window overnight.
If our modern state economy is going to be so laser focused on rural culture stays, ecotourism, and farm-to-table dining: it only follows we need rural transportation options that work, to move the laundry and tourists and heirloom produce that now keeps us all alive. Until we build a ferry to Brookings or a train to Mt Bachelor, roads appear to be our only option (gasp.) Its just not that easy for some folks to bike from PDX to Ashland no matter how beautiful it is, and requiring private vehicle use to enjoy almost all of ORs massive rural appeal, while simultaneously making private vehicles unattainable for marginalized urban dwellers, is the height of ableist segregation and exclusion. Not to mention our rural workers themselves are often from underserved communities yet drive more while being paid less; turning rural OR into a pristine impoverished museum experience does nothing for vulnerable populations and arguably hurts them.
I support lower emissions and impacts with mass transit, and I support better health outcomes by driving less and walking more. Somedays I walk places, somedays I ride, and somedays I drive. Somedays I do all three, and I know I'm not alone. Its time we had a transportation system that reflects this reality and acknowleges the interconnectedness of our modes, admitting that some people drive to the bike park or trailhead as part of their excercise routine not despite it.
I'm thankful folks like you are researching these issues but I really worry when I see us being pushed in to an either/or decision about our transportation modes, when the reality is just so much more diverse and complex, like most days in Oregon.
As more people begin operating EV’s, do we know how much more electricity will be required? How will we power the grid to meet that demand? Are we expecting less pollution than gas engines are now emitting? Is there a complete plan?
Lots of good points, Sarah, and thanks for the shout-out to the Clean and Just Transportation Network we helped found! The throwaway line attacking electric vehicles is really out of place here, though. Transportation is complex, as is its history of reinforcing inequality. We need every tool in our toolbox - electrification of everything that moves, more transit and active transportation, smarter and more equitable transportation finance, strong land use, and more. While our different organizations have different focus areas, we need to work together to counter decades of focus on single occupancy gas cars and big diesel trucks. CJTN was founded explicitly to help bring us together, and to fight the kind of "circular firing lines" we see too often between different arms of the transportation reform movement. We look forward to continuing to work with you and your team on that effort.