Portland traffic (car insurance, maintenance, cost)

[cdelena]

I don't think that many are looking for a large increase in freeway capacity or massive lane additions... what is really obvious is that road planning and maintenance is not a focus. In too many places it is not the traffic volume that is the problem but constrictions where a traffic may be forced from three lanes to two for a segment. IMO the billions planned for the I5 bridge would be better spent improving I5 through the city.

[akgirl37]

My husband and I went to Lake Oswego a couple of years ago to look at property and were very surprised to see that the way the traffic was zipping through the middle of town that is was just an extension of Portland. Are all of the suburbs ie... Beaverton that way

[Venusian_Artist]

I don't think anyone's suggesting that widening existing freeways will solve the traffic problem for all time, just that it needs to be done. The reality is that nothing will solve the traffic problem, unless there's some sort of discussion about population control. Which, by the way, won't happen, because it can't be politicized the way the environment can.

Which brings me to my next point. Those of you who are sold on biking and lightrail need to understand that ignoring cars, and those who use them, in favor of public transportation won't force people to go green. It's been tried, it has failed. You can't push your ideologies onto everyone about how we should live our lives by drying up the flow of money to infrastructure. We're on to you; we won't see it your way; meanwhile congestion increases..

[jack7y]

You get more for your money with mass transit. Also, people driving less means that they spend less on fuel and it leaves more money in Portland to be spent at local businesses rather than the money going to Exxon Mobile or sheiks in the Middle East. Trains are better than buses, imo!

[Venusian_Artist]

Originally Posted by jack7y

You get more for your money with mass transit. Also, people driving less means that they spend less on fuel and it leaves more money in Portland to be spent at local businesses rather than the money going to Exxon Mobile or sheiks in the Middle East. Trains are better than buses, imo!

How do you figure? Maybe 5% of the commuting public uses mass transit in Portland--maybe. If it was economically sound, it would be self-supporting, it's not.

As for driving: do or don't. But at least people buy their own cars and gas. I'm not paying for someone else's transportation. It's their job to get themselves where they want to go.

By the way, Exxon, Mobile, etc. maybe make 11% profit tops. That's less than half of what Yahoo and Google make; it's considerably less than the pharmaceutical industry. Find another pariah to skewer. The "but, but, oil companies!" meme gets old. Even the computer you typed your message on would be technologically impossible without oil.

[roneb]

Originally Posted by Venusian_Artist

How do you figure? Maybe 5% of the commuting public uses mass transit in Portland--maybe. If it was economically sound, it would be self-supporting, it's not.

As for driving: do or don't. But at least people buy their own cars and gas. I'm not paying for someone else's transportation. It's their job to get themselves where they want to go.

By the way, Exxon, Mobile, etc. maybe make 11% profit tops. That's less than half of what Yahoo and Google make; it's considerably less than the pharmaceutical industry. Find another pariah to skewer. The "but, but, oil companies!" meme gets old. Even the computer you typed your message on would be technologically impossible without oil.

Your arguement isn't logically sound. Mass transit isn't self supporting, but neither are the freeways and those who drive on them. If they were the entire freeway/roadway maintanence budget would come solely from car licensing and gas taxes. It doesn't. So by your logic our entire highway transportation network isn't sound. Truth is it would be much sounder if we used more public transit and rail, but we Americans can't even fathom being seperated from our beloved cars.

We all pay for someone else's transportation through taxes all the time, whether it's highway maintenance, public transit subsidies, or airline bailouts. Just because you drive a car doesn't mean you are entitled to choose where the money goes. Feel like you're paying too much? Start taking public transit, it's cheaper!

And Exxon Mobile deserves to get skewered if they makes all time record breaking profits for their industry at the same time they whine about how "It's not them, there's a crisis and their costs are up for crude oil." If it's really a true crisis and their costs are up as well, their profits should be down due to the so-called struggles they keep complaining about. And yes, the pharmaceutical companies deserve to be skewered too!

[tantajo]

Originally Posted by aalverson

That's like saying "I'm getting so fat" so instead of eating less I'll just buy bigger pants. Great solution.

No, that's like saying "I'm getting so tall so I'll just buy bigger pants." Growth is natural as the population grows, and it needs to be dealt with.

[Venusian_Artist]

Originally Posted by roneb

Your arguement isn't logically sound. Mass transit isn't self supporting, but neither are the freeways and those who drive on them. If they were the entire freeway/roadway maintanence budget would come solely from car licensing and gas taxes. It doesn't. So by your logic our entire highway transportation network isn't sound.

Touche. But mass transit is a much bigger piece of the special-interest pie, in terms of total cost of maintenance and upkeep vs. number of users. EVERYONE uses our freeways at one time or another, even if they're a passenger in a car! Most don't use our public transportation system. And except for a few radicals, no one wants to see roads fall into unusable disrepair. On the other hand, if the MAX were scaled down, people would still get to work, the grocery store, Johnny's soccer game, just fine.

Now, I don't have anything against MAX. I have something against people ignoring basic by-way infrastructure because they want to force the majority out of their cars, to support the minority's own selfish ideologies. Those, like me, who are opposed to this brand of social elitist fascism, are not necessarily in love with our cars. Sure, it's nice to have public transportation, but at the expense of other modes? Not so much.

Truth is it would be much sounder if we used more public transit and rail...

"Sounder" is obviously subjective. How is a hi-tech transportation system, that carries only 5% of total commuters "sounder" than a freeway? Mile-for-mile, it costs less to maintain and upkeep asphalt than the machinery of a lightrail. Nevermind, that a highway can carry exponentially more people in a shorter period of time over the same measured distance.

We all pay for someone else's transportation through taxes all the time, whether it's highway maintenance, public transit subsidies, or airline bailouts. Just because you drive a car doesn't mean you are entitled to choose where the money goes. Feel like you're paying too much? Start taking public transit, it's cheaper!

It's a matter of degree, fairness, and yield. I use highways and airplanes a lot, so do most people. To pay for them is fair and yields direct benefits. Rarely, however, do I use public transportation, and rarely do most people.

So the problem is not one of being in love with a car, but is more a matter of expediency. I have an annual MAX pass, for example, but it still takes easily twice as long to get anywhere on that system than by car. Dollar for dollar, correlated with function and flexibility, there is no question which mode of transportation is most efficient and cost effective. Even for me, who gets free MAX from my company, it still costs me more in time spent than it's worth. Putting in more MAX stations won't change the fact that there are less people that can fit in a lightrail car than can drive down a single lane on the 26.

And Exxon Mobile deserves to get skewered if they makes all time record breaking profits for their industry at the same time they whine about how "It's not them, there's a crisis and their costs are up for crude oil." If it's really a true crisis and their costs are up as well, their profits should be down due to the so-called struggles they keep complaining about. And yes, the pharmaceutical companies deserve to be skewered too!

Oil companies are making more profit now (in dollars,) because there is more demand--period. They are not making a higher percentage of profit than in the past. Er go, your logic doesn't gist with the facts. Let's explore:

Strategic oil reserves in the East, as well as increased population and user-base, over the last decade, have significantly reduced the amount of readily available crude on the market. This drives up the price of oil on said world market. The price of oil is not set by Exxon, or Mobile, or George W. Bush. It is a traded commodity that is worth only what buyers will pay for it. As supply dwindles, and demand skyrockets, expect prices to go up--basic Econ 101.

Therefore, oil companies can't artificially set the price high to increase profits; they would lose competitive share. Everyone in the industry knows what oil costs and would simply go to another company to purchase, if they were being gouged.

Back in the 90's when the big companies were barely keeping their collective heads above bankruptcy, where were the current whiners to complain that many went under or had to consolidate just to continue to survive? Exxon's profit margin was the same, but the price of oil was down, due to a greater supply, so they took home less in dollars. Maybe BP and others should have been bailed out by the same U.S. government that has conducted over 300 investigations into claims that they price gouge, and yet has never found impropriety--not even once. It's a heavily regulated industry. You so much as sneeze, and everyone knows it.

If any other industry, say, like those selling carbon offsets, had to pay three times it's total profit in taxes, you'd no doubt be up in arms. So it's a matter of selective rage. And oh, by the way, those taxes help pay for public transportation, as well as alternative fuel research. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

[jack7y]

Mass transit such as trains fit more people in the same amount of space, that's why it's called mass transit. A rail line is more expensive than a two lane road, but not necessarily more expensive than bigger highways at all. It's only more expensive initially too, in the long term roads cost more. The important thing to remember is that a rail line replaces many roads, not just one. Rail is a big savings compared to the highways, automobiles and fuels needed to get around a metro without public transit.

[hymalaia]

in my mind rail is kinda like a safe investment. Even if it's not now there may come a time where having the infrastructure in place will make a huge difference. Gas may "only" be 3.50$ right now but what happens when it gets to 13.50$? Ohh sure we'll just invent hydrogen super-hybrid 300mi/gallon personal vehicles, right? Maybe but don't count on it. People may look at rail a little differently then. But people in America don't tend to take the long term view of things. It's just about the "here" and "now", and right now the rails are under-utilized while the highways over-so.

As a side note it's funny how people always frame these topics in terms of "growth". People act like it's inevitable as the sun rising tomorrow. As if there is just no way we can sustain a healthy economic system without it. Unless you are communist scum...