tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post8386217641782853491..comments2024-03-25T17:49:41.408-07:00Comments on Salem Breakfast on Bikes: Regional and Statewide Plans Poised to Defer Real Change until 2014Salem Breakfast on Bikeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15618055627843335993noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post-80275533868669894792009-12-18T21:29:45.564-08:002009-12-18T21:29:45.564-08:00Not being a modeler nor a transportation planner I...Not being a modeler nor a transportation planner I must rely on my expert staff, recognized nationally as among the best modelers and planners. The proposal adopted 15-1 was crafted by Metro staff, based on the actual deliverability of data for deliberation by policy makers. It was they, not politicians, that said the analysis asked for by Mayor Adams was un-doable.<br /><br />As to modeling: cyclists and walkers have been "invisible" to transportation models due to their motor vehicle bias. Metro, with help from Portland State University researchers, is creating the first bicycle model in the country. It has taken longer than I'd like but creating reliable tools is more complicated than I know and getting real data, from GPS studies of real cyclists, is giving us great information on how people react to different facilities. <br /><br />As you know, the EPA is not releasing its CO2 emission model until next year. We are doing the best we can and have pledged, in the resolution adopted by the Council yesterday, to continue working on this problem.Rex Burkholderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12527245819946084391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post-79288018063091829822009-12-14T09:56:49.454-08:002009-12-14T09:56:49.454-08:00Councilor Burkholder, thanks for stopping by.
As ...Councilor Burkholder, thanks for stopping by.<br /><br />As you say, there is real disagreement. For a longer discussion of the RTP issues see the bikeportland article, <a href="http://bikeportland.org/2009/11/18/burkholder-responds-to-criticism-of-metros-regional-transportation-plan/" rel="nofollow">"Burkholder responds to criticism of Metro’s Regional Transportation Plan"</a>.<br /><br />As for the vote, the Oregonian characterized the winning approach as "cautious," and Portland Transport, the Mercury, Bikeportland agreed. Earlier the Coalition for a Livable Future had called it <a href="http://www.clfuture.org/publications/RTPGHGInc" rel="nofollow"> "worse than building nothing."</a><br /><br />The science has been known for several years. So as Kyoto & Copenhagen suggest, we might invert your formulation of the problem: since the science is in hand, what we need now are political solutions.<br /><br />Political solutions need not be perfect, and indeed here they can be iterative. According to the Oregonian, the failed (a 5-11 vote) alternative would have generated "a list of $20 billion in planned road, light rail and sidewalk projects into categories, labeling each project for low, moderate or high potential for boosting carbon emissions." It's hard to imagine this as <i>just</i> empty political posturing (though, of course, it might also <i>include</i> posturing, as these things always do).<br /><br />A first order approximation of GHG impact will be replaced in, say, 4 years with a second order assessment, and then a few years later with a third order analysis. A project taken off the list can reappear if it is later deemed worthy - but a road once built is more tricky to unbuild, or if left fallow represents a huge waste of capital. <br /><br />The question that I have for you is this: If we can't trust the model with a fairly simple ternary assessment of "low," "moderate," or "high" GHG impact, why should we trust the model's projections for a $4.2B bridge, a $500M bridge, and a host of other projects?<br /><br />Maus quotes you as saying, “We don’t actually model biking or walking yet… Without actually being able to predict future walking and cycling rates, the models show higher car use than is likely, ergo, more carbon emitted.. this is also why the numbers for future cycling and walking are disappointing." <br /><br />So why are we building road capacity for "higher car use than is likely"?<br /><br />Either the model is good enough to project traffic and likely GHG emission, or the model fails at both. To say it fails at one and not the other is difficult to understand.<br /><br />Thanks again for the visit. The conversation is an important one.Salem Breakfast on Bikeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618055627843335993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post-5062112505007064422009-12-13T21:16:26.420-08:002009-12-13T21:16:26.420-08:00I strongly disagree with both the statement of fac...I strongly disagree with both the statement of facts--the Metro RTP includes several actions and work plan items to address GHG emissions over the next several years, beginning in 2010--and with the characterization that the amendments adopted were "weaker" than the City of Portland proposal. The unanimous vote on the Metro Council and 15-1 vote at the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation in favor of the Metro amendments is a demonstration of the greater likelihood of success pursuing a deliberate, science based approach rather than a political one.Rex Burkholderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12527245819946084391noreply@blogger.com