Eh...just looking at transportation, it doesn't look like it grapples seriously with the changes necessary. It looks reassuring and soothing, maybe a little aspirational, but not really digging into the scope of, and response proper to, our actual climate emergency.
|It's interesting they say only 28% from transportation;|
Salem says 53%; they're also big on electrification
(The Active Transportation Plan is sufficient, it seems)
|Beaverton leads with EV tech-utopianism;|
and instead of "driving less"
say "reduce congestion"; active transport is secondary
On substance, they don't think through ways current actions, even if done better, are still insufficient. The plan is consequently still too much an exercise in anodyne greenwash and not enough of a plan for sustained action and transformation.
|If Beaverton's per capita emissions are more than Salem's,|
it's hard to see the relative proportion is less, 28% v. 53%
from Our Salem's analysis in June 2019
|Rather than starting with EVs,|
a Climate Plan needs to start with this - cut driving in half.
|Better land use - like more downtown housing!|
and missing middle housing!- will be
important ingredients for reducing driving