The state of Oregon secured a $197 million grant from the federal government for greenhouse fuel emissions. According to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, the entire budget spent on the transportation sector, which is Oregon’s largest source of GHG emissions, will be spent on helping other people buy and drive electric cars.
Oregon’s value is part of more than $4. 3 billion distributed through the Biden administration’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grant Program, administered through the Environmental Protection Agency.
Looking at the press release from Governor Tina Kotek’s office and the support materials related to the grant, I was surprised to see that the entire budget given to Oregon would be spent on cars. Regardless of how they are funded, state auto subsidies will increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT), lock more Oregonians into imbalanced monetary relationships with banks and large corporations that gain advantages from others who use the most expensive shipping option available, causing more deaths and injuries. On our roads, they will create more bottlenecks, clog neighborhoods with parked cars, and perpetuate the structure and expansion of roads.
The $197 million will be divided into three areas of spending: residential and advertising buildings, fabrics and waste, and transportation. Of the $66 million spent on transportation, $52 million will be spent on electric car rebates and $14 million on charging infrastructure.
Getting fossil fuel-powered cars and low-income people off the roads is vital, but the lack of balance in Oregon’s investment plans is striking.
Several states and local governments across the country that secured investments from this same grant program split the money and will invest in bicycles and public transportation.
Austin plans to expand public transit and invest in “expanding the local electric motorcycle percentage formula and micromobility options. “Austin will also use the cash to “build large-scale motorcycle garages at 16 mobility centers” and “reduce vehicle miles and build equity by gaining better transit and mobility infrastructure in low-income and disadvantaged communities. “New Orleans plans to dedicate its investment to “transportation access for disadvantaged communities. . . through 148 new shared motorcycle stations, 2,500 new electronic self-service motorcycle stations and incentives for 3,000 new electric motorcycles for residents. “Northwest Arkansas “will build motorcycle and pedestrian lanes to access electric motorcycles, adding vouchers for income-qualified applicants. ” The Nez Percé Tribe will “create a fleet of electric motorcycles for facility personnel on the ground” and Utah plans to “deploy 2,000 electric motorcycles with a focus on low-income communities. “
It’s not that Orepassn doesn’t know that other people need that money to use to cut the TMV and measures that would promote cycling and public transport more. Below is an excerpt from a summary of comments on the ridesharing sector in the Orepass DEQ Climate Priority. Action Plan (the EPA-funded planning document required as a component of the grant application):
Reducing vehicle miles traveled is also a recurring theme in transportation commentary. Suggested moves included selling bikes, walking and public transportation by expanding safety, infrastructure and discounts on micromobility devices like e-bikes. Longer-term moves included designing communities to inspire reduced driving.
The state of Oregon also asked Native American tribesmen what they were looking for after the money spent. According to a table on page 16 of the Priority Climate Action Plan, “priority tribal actions” included:
And Oregon state utility staff who worked on the Climate Action Priority Plan recommended investing in a program called the “Oregon Micromobility Accelerator” that would promote things like bicycles, electric motorcycles, electric scooters and other small mobility devices. provided money for motorcycle and scooter sharing systems in Portland and Eugene, as well as a statewide electric motorcycle rebate program. Unfortunately, those investments in micromobility, which are based on a 2023 ODOT report recommending more investments in electric motorcycles and scooters, were not on the final list of priorities. And despite implementing rebates for electric cars for many years, the Oregon legislature failed to pass a similar program for bicycles last year.
This grant reflects considerations we raised in 2021 that Oregon’s transportation electrification plans tend to marginalize and/or discard e-bikes. Compounding this systemic challenge is the fact that Oregon has a statewide nonprofit EV advocacy group, Forth, that focuses almost entirely on electric cars and charging infrastructure for cars.
While there are many other transportation investment resources and subsidies that come (and will come with) non-driving investments, the way Oregon has chosen to invest this grant exemplifies the continued primacy of car-focused crafting plans in state agencies and continues our Unbalanced Technique for Transportation. Climate replacement, mitigation and electrification of transport.
BikePortland has been serving this network with independent journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your money is essential to keep this valuable resource alive and healthy.
Obviously, the user who buys a $50,000 electric car wants a refund more than someone who buys a $3,000 electric motorcycle. Imagine the immense privilege of being able to spend $3,000 on a great electric motorcycle when the driver can only spend tens of thousands of dollars transporting it. (I hope the sarcasm was obvious)
Many other people consider owning a car to be a default and buying an electric motorcycle to upgrade some car trips is considered an added luxury that only the rich can afford with most of their car expenses. A cheap, or even free, electric motorcycle would eliminate that belief and make it less unusual to upgrade electric motorcycles for short car trips.
The most frustrating thing here is that we no longer have cash for our automotive infrastructure, and yet we do nothing to decrease our needs. Imagine how much world-class transit, pediatrician, and bicycle infrastructure we can build seamlessly with PBOT and ODOT budgets. If their budgets were primarily focused on that, with automotive infrastructure in the background. We would probably have a surplus that we could use simply to pay down our debt rather than proceeding to borrow even more for new automotive infrastructure that will require even more money. maintenance in 30 years, which we cannot afford either.
Yes, other people ask me how much I spent on my electric motorcycle, and when I say “$3000,” they fill me with fuel. But I bought it to get to and from the frame, and in 8 months, I’ve driven almost 2000 miles. Imagine the 2,000-mile charge for fuel and car insurance, plus parking and vehicle maintenance (SplendidCycle, where I bought the motorcycle, did several regime “checks” for me to make sure the motorcycle was running smoothly, at no cost. ). Oh, and I can grade it in boxes using the same output as my desktop. Plus, I get the intellectual and physical benefits of exercise, rather than the stress of being stuck in traffic and having to find parking. Why, in a rapidly overheating world, do we NOT make it an easy or cheap option for more people?
I also have a $3,000 “luxury” electric bike, as my coworkers like to joke, that I spend about $200 a year on maintenance on. I’ve had mine for a little over 2 years and I’m $10,000. miles.
I had a number of recurring intellectual and physical fitness problems that necessarily boiled down to “lifestyle changes” in preparation for treatment. I went through cycles (no pun intended) where I mastered my nutrition, couldn’t exercise, felt physically unwell, spiraled into depression, and then dropped out of nutrition because I felt like none of it mattered, so I might as well eat lots of Oreos for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
After not riding a motorcycle since I was a kid, I ended up buying a used Craigslist motorcycle from a guy in Tigard for about $100 just because the other people who rode motorcycles in my community seemed to have a wonderful time. It hadn’t occurred to me that a bike could be a useful shipping tool until I knew it could get to Freddies in 10 minutes. I still drove to the painting, but practically every day for a month, before or after the painting, I went out to do all my errands; Going to the supermarket, to the hairdresser, to my favorite coffee shop, to the post office with a package set up on my road motorcycle without a luggage rack from the 70s.
Towards the end of that month, I discovered that I felt better than I had in years and made the connection that cycling was inspiring me to exercise without needing to incorporate it into my day.
The electric motorcycle has expanded my diversity (adding displacements) and expanded it several times. I still ride my analog motorcycle to paint, but anything over 65 degrees motivates me to show up in front of paintings in a rainy, sweaty mess. I would like to be able to move around a little during the day without sweating like a pig. I can also ride a motorcycle dressed in civilian clothes. I can haul tons of stuff up hills without a problem. It has really replaced about 99% of my car trips. The only explanation I still have my little 08 is because it will pay and registration and insurance is less expensive than what I would pay for a rental every time I drive. If it fails, I probably wouldn’t possibly buy another car.
I think e-bikes open up cycling applications to an even wider diversity of frame types, fitness levels, and lifestyles. As a public fitness intervention, I can’t think of a better way to get other people moving than to make it fun, useful, and do everything they already do. In other words, move.
I will end with a repetition of Lois’ point:
Why, in an overheated world, do we NOT make it an easy or cheap option for more people?
Comment if the week! What a story about how cycling can reshape your life. Thanks for sharing!
Absolutely inspiring and echoing Stephan’s COW suggestion!
So I like to move a little bit in my day without sweating like a pig. I can also ride a motorcycle dressed in civilian clothes. I can carry tons of stuff up hills with no problem.
Hey, you wrote a guest post about BP.
Why, in an overheated world, are we NOT making this an easy or cheap option for more people?
Because other moderate people conclude that if the risk is as serious as suggested, it is normal motorcycles that are recommended for subsidies, not anything that requires rare earth mining worldwide to be manufactured an ocean away and then sent back to the other side. that ocean staying connected to your house on a task that happens to be about five miles from your house.
One electric bike battery is roughly equivalent to 2 or 3 replaceable cordless power tool batteries. Should we ban force tools too?
Do those who need them ask for subsidies? Should the taxpayer fund a subsidy for a cordless nail gun while others still have to buy hammers and others who use the cordless nail gun report how they are saving the planet? Do you see how ridiculous that is?
No, though, what I mean is that you’re panicking about subsidizing a tool that can decarbonize transportation and improve public health, than panic about subsidizing electric cars that are far more disastrous for the environment and that use a less frequent order of magnitude of onshore minerals and corridors, Despite the subsidies, they are still far from being within the success of the middle class of runners.
Insulting because they are on a checkered electric motorcycle 8 km away, when the option is to drive, is very old-fashioned. Next time, just say you don’t like electric motorcycles and move on.
The electric motorcycle looks pretty bad because a motorcycle doesn’t need batteries at all. A torque center can provide illumination and even save a few watts to charge a phone.
The article talked about Oregon doubling its 4000-pound cars or throwing a bone at other people who might need a 40-pound e-bike. What is this relationship?
One hundred to one. A hundred times more minerals, a hundred times more tire residue, a hundred times more load on the grill. That’s history.
There is money for heat pumps, energy-efficient homes and buildings, and waste reduction. It’s not ALL about cars and automotive infrastructure. But I would have liked to see the largest percentage of transportation cash go to public transit and non-automotive infrastructure. Investing more money in cars without investing a proportionate amount in non-car transportation would take us in that direction.
I need the money to be used to maximize emissions relief, keeping in mind that relief now is more than relief five years from now.
Investing in motorcycles and public transportation would not maximize impact. If falsified research showed that to be the case, I would be all for spending money that way. Efficiency is my only consideration.
What solid research was used to show that making an investment in infrastructure to gain advantages for those with low-occupancy, space-saving electric cars would reduce greenhouse fuel emissions?
Electric cars produce no tailpipe emissions, but 50 to 75% of the energy that powers them comes from fossil fuels, depending on where you are in Oregon. And the increasing use of low-occupancy cars will lead to more space-inefficient land use. .
If the incentives for electric vehicles really don’t spark urban sprawl or VMT development, then, of course, they’re greater than those for internal combustion engine vehicles. But the benefits are marginal and pale in comparison to those that could be achieved if other people eliminated the car entirely.
I don’t know what their full investigation was, but I think they thought about it for more than a minute because it’s their job and they know their work will be scrutinized. I see that they have calculated the possible emissions reductions for each line, as well as a charge consistent with the reduction. I don’t know what other features they considered, but I guess the other people who were making the paintings weren’t absolutely idiots.
And yes, Portland’s energy is completely sustainable, but that’s changing. Even without that upgrade, electric cars are far more effective than gas-powered ones, so the conversion is a clear win that will only get worse over time. The benefits of upgrading are only marginal and start immediately.
I agree that it would be better if other people didn’t drive at all. We’ve been looking for other people to use motorcycles and public transportation for decades, and here we are. What can we hope to achieve in the critical era (i. e. , sooner, not later)?
In fact, the immediate effect of an electric vehicle is an accumulation of emissions similar to that of its manufacture. This is compensated only by reducing emissions in operation. I’ve noticed breakeven estimates ranging from 15,000 to 80,000 miles, depending on assumptions. Of course, the real comparison is for gallons of unburned gas. In all cases, the immediate effect is an increase in emissions.
Does this research take into account the emissions rate similar to manufacturing gasoline-powered cars? It’s hard for me to understand that manufacturing an electric vehicle requires 80 kmi ICE of EXTRA emissions compared to manufacturing the dominant cars sold today. Even if the electric vehicle replaces a car that is not at the end of its useful life, some of the emissions from the production of the old car deserve to appear in the accounts. . . Of course, if the incentives for electric vehicles only increase the The use of private vehicles, most of whom are aware of what is already killing us, is not favorable from a GHG perspective (or not!).
Most replaced petrol cars are sold to someone other than scrapped, either for a price-sensitive new engine or replacement for an even older car with higher emissions. I don’t know if or how this is explained, but I know that other people who do this type of research love to publish articles when they find a new angle to include.
I’m not sure many other people buy electric cars and just drive them extra miles while driving their old car. You could see it if they had an exotic sports car, but no one subsidizes Lotus Evijas.
“Or upgrade an even older car with higher emissions. “
Who in turn is going to be a driver.
“People who do this kind of research love to publish papers when they want to include a new angle. “
Only if there is someone willing to pay them to do so. The automotive industry is investing millions of dollars in the sale of electric vehicles. It has widely captured the attention of pro-environmental think tanks and other organizations that conduct this type of analysis.
The automotive industry is investing millions of dollars in the sale of electric vehicles. This has caught the attention of pro-environmental think tanks and other organizations that carry out this type of analysis.
This conspiratorial thinking is what popularized ivermectin and fuels climate denial. “They’re all involved!”
Vote Kennedy!
If I’m not mistaken, the 80,000 mile “estimate” was based on electric power coming entirely from coal. I wouldn’t put much faith in either model, but I think they all account for the difference in emissions from manufacturing. an ICE vehicle. I perceive that the difference is directly similar to the manufacturing of the battery. The larger the battery, the greater the difference.
Look. . . No one has any doubt that conversion to electric cars is mandatory from a meteorological point of view, and the faster, the better.
There are plenty of studies available on the benefits of reducing emissions. Arguing over the main points in an attempt to discredit the company as a whole is like discussing the Covid vaccine on the basis of an edge case. The science is established and it is not controversial. If you think the researchers missed something, publish an article explaining why. But the query is necessarily resolved.
Electric vehicles alone may not save us, but they are certainly necessary if we want to keep warming at a vaguely bearable level.
It’s time to get on board, friends.
P. S. Ross, this message to everyone; I’m not pointing at you.
Thanks for the reply!
Yes, I have commented above with similar information and main points. The 80,000 estimate can be rounded from a balance point investigation of pollutants from electric vehicles by the Reuters/Argonne National Laboratory. They estimated 78,700 miles for a situation where all EV charging was produced from coal-fired power, but no grid region in the United States has around 100 percent coal-fired electricity. The average break-even point in the United States is estimated to be 13,500 miles.
While I sell car use (I only suggest using EVs if it replaces the use of ice), the break-even point is much lower than you suggested.
It will be strongly influenced by the energy resources that recharge the vehicle. In the northwest United States, a larger percentage of electrical energy comes from hydroelectric power, while in places like Texas, energy production is much more dependent on fossil fuels. This Reuters study, an Argonne National Laboratory-style study calculated (for an example scenario comparing a Tesla Model 3 to a gasoline-powered Toyota Corolla) that the break-even point for carbon emissions occurred between 13 and 500 miles for the average fuel mix in the United States. and 8,400 miles. miles if the electric vehicle is charged with hydroelectric energy. The estimate for a fully coal-powered electric vehicle is 78,700 miles, however, there is no grid domain in the United States where coal-fired electric power accounts for approximately one hundred percent of generation. There is also no region with a 100 percent hydroelectric grid, but for regions with maximum hydropower and renewable energy, the break-even point would be well below the national average estimate of thirteen,500 inhabitants. They thought about the effects of GHG pollutants on all life cycle effects, adding mining/manufacturing/etc. related to electric vehicle batteries.
There’s a lot of data out there about the longevity of existing EV models, but some EVs have traveled 500,000 miles or more on one or two battery replacements.
There is a lot of data out there about the longevity of existing EV models.
There are reasons to be optimistic. Electric cars are much simpler than traditional cars and have much less wear and tear on many parts.
Even the batteries last longer than expected.
Therefore, some of the infrastructure money goes not only to certain modes of transportation, but also to the infrastructure necessary to use them (solar, wind, geothermal, etc. ). Therefore, they would not run on 50-75% fuel or 0% fuel. Would that make you happy?
pale in comparison to the benefits that can be achieved if other people upgrade the car completely
Portland’s cycling mode percentage has dropped 50% in the last decade, to 3-4%, making them incredibly GNORMES.
It is instructive to see how the ongoing and worsening ecocide is being used by a subculture or interest organization as an excuse to prioritize their specific agenda.
A car charging station in SW Salmon owned and operated by Shell, an oil and fuel company.
Let’s just make things up so that our narrative is compatible, that’s fine.
The City of Portland, PSU and PGE have twice extended the assignment of Electric Avenue to its original location. . . The allocation partners agreed to relocate Electric Avenue rather than close it.
https://wtcpdx. com/ElectricAvenue/
If you take a look at a Google map, this location is indexed as a “Shell charging station” and the URLs for this location link to the Shell website. And it’s indexed as property through Shell Sky EV Technology. Yes, it is managed and operated by PSU, PGE and PBOT, but my determination that it is owned by Shell is based on those factors. I will review to verify and report what I discovered. Your suggestion that I’ll make things up based on my story is juvenile and inappropriate.
The electric vehicle charging stations are owned by PGE and operated through a long-term public-private partnership. If I’m not mistaken, your blog reported on this partnership when the facility was situated near PSU (but I’m sure there was a negative twist). ).
https://portlandgeneral. com/energy-choices/electric-vehicles-charger/charger-your-ev/charger-your-ev-on-the-go
The electric vehicle chargers were manufactured and controlled through Greenlots, which was recently acquired through Shell. The real story here is that it is actually disastrous to watch Murcia’s fossil fuel industry gobble up EV charging companies and then deliberately neglect EV infrastructure to poison this critical detail for the transition to decarbonization. .
And I still think you’ve noticed the “Shell” logo and haven’t bothered to spend five seconds Googling the long history of this public-private charging center because of its anti-electrification bias.
Thanks for researching this. Then he discovered that Shell owns the company that manufactures and manages the chargers. And it turns out that we agree that life for fossil fuel companies in the EV sector is not good.
Also, I don’t have an “anti-electrification bias. ” I am concerned about the acceptance as true of our leaders and in their decision-making. But instead of spending five seconds understanding what I think and discussing all the facts, percentage in the story, you go straight to criticism of a caption that was actually not that far from reality.
Good job! Keep attacking and fighting against potential allies! It’s safe to win the fight.
The lifestyle of fossil fuel corporations in the electric vehicle sector is fantastic.
In itself, this is neither bad nor good. I think it would be wonderful if Shell understood that it can make a huge amount of money investing in renewable energy. It would be a bad end result if they bought everything just to kill everything.
Shell is a reality. Having them painting with us would be a result.
Thanks for looking into this.
As the owner of a used electric vehicle with a recycled battery (impossible!!!), I had nothing to do. PGE’s ownership of those chargers is public knowledge.
Also, I don’t have an “anti-electrification bias. “
When was the last time you wrote anything positive about the electrification of that damn car, Jonathan?Given that electric cars will almost in fact be the main mechanism for decarbonizing transportation in this consumerist society, your biased policy smacks of scientific denial of the temperate climate (in my opinion). ).
When was the last time you wrote anything positive about electrifying the damn car?
Haha, that’s not what I do. I don’t care about cars of any kind and I don’t cover them.
Do you realize there are other people here who think I’m overselling electric bikes? So yes, I am not against electrification. I’m not here to talk about cars. Cars ruin everything!
Cars of everything!
Fossil fuel cars ruin other people’s lives in the Global South more than electric cars (of all kinds). Please remind me how many fossil fuel-powered SUVs/minivans your family owns and uses, Jonathan.
So yes, I’m against electrification.
You are categorically opposed to possible electrification, while fanatically committing to a fantastical vision that “narcissistic, consumerist Murricans will trade in all their monstrous SUVs for electric bikes. “
Well, whoever you are. I don’t need to participate in this exchange anymore. Thanks for the feedback.
“Given that electric cars will almost in fact be the main mechanism for decarbonizing transportation in this consumerist society,” we are not going to spare them a climate catastrophe. Without challenging the way of life of the rich and powerful, this will not happen.
We are not going to spare you a climate catastrophe.
Climate disaster is already here for many millions of human beings who do not have the privilege of living in this incredibly (and unjust) society.
Without asking about the way of life of the powerful, this will not happen.
I would like to “question” the way of life of the rich by expropriating their wealth. However, I realize this is unlikely, which is why I vote progressive/liberal because alleviating the harms is more vital than my subcultural/political purity. Similarly, the purity policy of constantly following a mandatory but insurmountable mitigation path just because it’s not as good as “everyone deserves to just ride a bike” is the kind of position that only someone who lives in a wealthy society and protected from “climate catastrophe” might get it. have.
We are not going to spare you a meteorological catastrophe
It seems that you are saying that since there is no revolution, the task of converting to electric cars is urgent. That’s right?
I like that Lois pointed out that quality of life benefits compatibility with micromobility. It’s only worth avoiding the car to relieve stress. I think the citizens of Oregon would need a share if the state had the support to advertise street protection in a functional way. Lower speed limits have to be part of this, but no one I’ve spoken to likes the idea. If we are not willing to make concessions (Bush Sr. quote: “the American way of life is non-negotiable”), we will not be able to reap the rewards.
There have to be lower speed limits, but no one I’ve talked to likes the idea.
The PBOT lowered speed limits, particularly in the city. ODOT has done so too (at least in some places).
So that’s what’s happening.
Except they’ve recently raised it along Naito, just inches from heavy pedestrian (and bike) traffic, where coverage is minimal. It seems that an influential motorist has complained to Mapps and users have been left holding the bag (as usual).
It illustrates the difficulty of adhering to replacement in the way streets are used. Many of us think that roads are for classic vehicles, so anything smaller or slower is intrusive and doesn’t deserve respect. I have met very thoughtful drivers, but also impatient, on the verge of recklessness.
I mean we want to use the existing infrastructure because there is no possibility of building enough motorcycle lanes or independent public transport to meet the needs. So you have to find a way to share.
It seems that an influential motorist has complained to Mapps and users keep the bag (as usual).
Do you have any evidence that this is the case or are you just making an unfounded accusation? Naito most likely doesn’t meet ODOT’s criteria for a 20 MPH street (which it doesn’t), so they increased it to 25.
Whatever the reason, a single counterexample does not negate the broader fact that speed limits in Portland tend to be transmitted.
I have no evidence for this assumption, for the behavioral tendency, hence the use of the word “seems. ” Before the Broadway scandal, this option had never occurred to me. But I can sense that other people would possibly have the impression that they have privileged the information, which is not the case. I guess I deserve to have phrased it as a question.
I agree that speed restrictions tend to be transmitted downwards (which is great). I called Naito an exception (“Except recently Array. . “) because that’s precisely it. And a rather big exception. To me, the broader trend and ODOT criteria are not smart excuses to increase the speed limit in Naito.
If you don’t have proof of wrongdoing, why press charges?Framing it in terms like “it seems” doesn’t replace what you do. It is immoral to accuse other people without any proof or indication of their guilt.
Mapps will leave the government in a few months (he will be elected mayor). There is much to be gained by tarnishing his or her calling by making false statements.
If there’s nothing wrong with you
I said 0 evidence of behavior.
By analogy, let’s say one day you see your neighbor’s dog pooping on your lawn and then you ignore it. Then, the next day, you see new poop on some other component of your lawn. And then now you suspect, “it looks like my neighbor’s dog pooped on my lawn again” or in the form of a question “did my neighbor’s dog poop on my lawn again?” Maybe not, you know? Maybe it’s some other dog? But it might have been your neighbor’s dog. I don’t think it’s immoral to make the consultation, especially to public figures.
What is the driving style? A style demands more than one incident about which we have assumed a lot, we know less.
Do you think “influencers” will use their capital to increase the speed limit on a random street from 20 to 25?It doesn’t even make sense. But of course. Mapps told Williams to raise the speed limit to 25 and asked him to make up a crazy story about ODOT and Oregon law because Timothy Boyle or Homer Williams asked for a favor. There is no other explanation.
Meanwhile, drivers continue to drive at the same speed as before the replacement because no one takes the 20 MPH restriction on this street seriously.
Meanwhile, they will spend $41. 897 million on car and charger rebates for 6,200 cars ($5,000 rebate per car x 6,200 cars = $31 million).
Donating $15. 5 million for 3,100 cars and $2,500 for 6,200 electric motorcycles would give 9,100 families the opportunity to reduce their GHG emissions in time.
It is unexpected that ODOT and Oregon have not included VMT rebates as a means to reduce GHG emissions, as Jonathan mentioned above.
Landfill prices for GHGs are $6 per ton.
Very reasonable compared to anything else. But there’s a lot you can do before you run out of landfills and have to move on to other, more expensive projects.
It’s unexpected that ODOT and Oregon didn’t include VMT rebates as a way to reduce GHG emissions, as Jonathan mentioned earlier.
They may not know of a proven, cost-effective solution to achieve this.
Reducing vehicle speed is a proven, cost-effective way to reduce VMT and also reduces emissions. But it is not popular with certain segments of the public, adding many of the current ones who commute to Salem from Portland every day.
Is there any evidence that electric cars increase VMT? Because virtually all analyzes of its climate benefits seem to assume that it REPLACES the miles that would have been traveled with a fossil fuel vehicle. If they only increase kilometers, their maximum production emissions footprint This is a net increase in emissions, not a decrease.
Of course, this is still more than just buying a new fossil fuel vehicle, as it also boosts the VMT with additional emissions in most of that.
Well, it’s actually kind of smart that Paris doesn’t exist, and that even if it did, its mayor of the last decade hasn’t spent much power on cutting off VMT by absolutely repurposing public spaces for car-free travel and making an investment. heavily on public transport.
“Portland is not Paris. ” Damn, I wonder how Paris came about there. . . .
I guess you’ve been to París. Si you’ve been, you’ll know it’s a very different city than Portland. It is also a 2000-year-old global capital, one of the largest cities in Europe, and has a lot of (financial) resources. , political and cultural) that Portland can’t even dream of. They host the Olympic Games. Can we do that?
Just take a look at their metro map: by comparison, we have no metro lines and we have five exercise overhead lines, plus the orange line that goes nowhere and is vastly underused.
So yes, Portland is Paris. Not even close.
I love Portland for what it is. Wishing it were Paris, Amsterdam or some other ideal will still not bring you any sadness and frustration.
P. S. Paris “came into being this way” because Napoleon, monarch and emperor, razed much of the city and rebuilt it in its modern form. It wouldn’t work here.
Having travelled through Wales, Ireland and the south of England for the past three weeks, I think Portland would gain advantages on those routes. No shoulders, no “open areas,” hedges about two inches from the passenger side, oncoming traffic two inches from the driver, and everyone drives a manual transmission. Be careful, the roadway is about 12 feet wide, from hedge to hedge.
And this metro map makes me want even more than Portland Paris.
Why do I live in such a small city and in such a backward country?
Why do I live in such a small city and in such a backward country?
A wonderful consultation that I hope you seriously ask yourself and your options.
Telling those who disagree with you to leave the United States is just one example of how the United States is the largest and most tolerant “democracy. “
It’s a valid question: if you viscerally hate the position you’re in, why stay?
Wouldn’t it make more sense now to move to one than to be depressing waiting for Portland to have one for decades and decades (if it ever does)?
I love Portland for what it is. Wishing it were Paris, Amsterdam or some other ideal will only bring you sadness and frustration.
A point that I think is not discussed enough. Well said!
Yes, well said. But I should point out that there are many other tactics to think about in Paris, Amsterdam and others. Yes, it makes me unhappy and frustrating, sometimes we are not them. . . But I also find it inspiring to know that humans really can Live like this and I think it is vital to remind policymakers, leaders and others, that it is indeed imaginable live differently. These statements are evidence of concept and since a large component of our combat here is simply convincing other people that If another form of life can be imagined, it may be useful.
But just because I think it’s useful to communicate about other positions doesn’t mean I don’t notice the structural/contextual/historical differences that save us from adapting them.
It is to communicate about other places
Absolutely, but those concepts are only useful to the extent that they are feasible. I love the intercity train in Europe, but it doesn’t work very well when the distances are so big. I love the wonderful government facilities in Europe, but our country will never settle for the levels of taxation needed to supply them. I love that they use the metric system, though. . . well, we stealthily convert in a lot of areas, so while I’ll never make wood with the subway, my set of English Allen wrenches from decades ago won’t. It has never been used.
We definitely deserve to borrow concepts that would work, but it’s dead to complain about concepts that won’t work.
We are Portland, Paris, New York or Berlin.
We are Portland, Paris, New York or Berlin.
A greater globality is imaginable, which is why I vehemently reject your offer to adopt the unequal and ecocidal prestige quo.
A greater globality is possible
As a positive resident, I absolutely agree. I’m almost on this forum thinking that humanity’s most productive days are yet to come.
This is a wonderful opportunity for you to explain your concepts about how a more wonderful world is possible, where it is possible, and what it takes to make it happen. I hear you criticize things and I’m very curious to know how you think we, as a city or as a nation, can access the most wonderful world you can imagine. I’d even love to hear you mention what a more wonderful world is for you. Most of us are on this site to share ideas and reports and, if you need to, give some input, I’d like to hear from you.
I have very mixed emotions about this. My spouse and I own a mid-90s Toyota pickup truck, a 2022 Nissan Leaf, and two electric bikes. I’m a little obsessed with calculating emissions from our transportation functions at all levels (from production to commuting).
I know that electric vehicles produce about a quarter of the emissions of a combustion engine vehicle, and for this reason, we deserve to help others of all income levels switch from gas/diesel to electric. However, I also know that e-bikes produce 1/10 of the emissions of electric cars for commuting, so to see them absolutely excluded from this plan is simply confusing.
I also have mixed emotions about this money going toward charging infrastructure. I see other people mentioning PGE Electric Avenue. Me I sign up for this program ($25/month) because there is a charging station near our house. This company has noticed that its costs increased by up to 25% in the last two years and aims to increase its prices next year. Meanwhile, the charging station near us, which has four fast chargers in total, had one out of service for more than a year and another for about a month. If you take a look at PGE’s online page for this station, it looks like updates are being made and will be finalized in September. There are no signs that any paintings have been made at this location.
This company has no monetary difficulties, and yet it does not own the existing infrastructure. I do not accept at all that this money should be used wisely.
“Seeing the electric bikes excluded from this plan is just confusing”
How much CO2 emitted would discounts on electric bicycles reduce?What is the charge per ton? No one knows, but they have to enter something into the spreadsheet to sort and compare. This could be one of the reasons why it is not part of this package.
I don’t know how many other people would actually stop riding for limited travel categories if they had an electric motorcycle, kept it in good working order, but would only buy one at a discount. I’m sure that number is rarely zero, but I suspect that many other people who lack an electric motorcycle will find a way to get one.
Do you think motorcycle teams are wringing their hands over the lack of subsidies for electric motorcycles?
“Maybe I’ll just buy one at a discount” is not the right threshold. The correct answer is “I wouldn’t buy one without a discount, but I will with one. ” They wouldn’t get an electric bike without being invited, they would if someone gave them $500 to buy one.
Incorrect threshold
But the problem is not that they would buy one, but that they would consistently use it in their car if they did. This requires a radical change in behavior and that, we know, is difficult.
Austin plans to expand public transportation and invest in “expanding the local electric motorcycle percentage formula and micromobility options. ” Austin will also use the cash to “build large-scale bike garages at 16 mobility centers” and “reduce vehicle miles traveled and build equity by improving transit and mobility infrastructure in low-income and disadvantaged communities. ” ”. New Orleans plans to focus its investment on “transportation access for disadvantaged communities… through 148 new motorcycle percentage stations, 2,500 new electric motorcycle percentages, and incentives for 3,000 new electric motorcycles for residents. ” Northwest Arkansas “will construct motorcycle and pedestrian trails to access electric motorcycles, adding vouchers for income-eligible applicants. ” …and Utah plans to “deploy 2,000 electric motorcycles with special attention to low-income communities. ”
Oregon rightly rejected those types of red state communist infrastructure projects that would only meet the Dear Leader’s timeline for draining the swamp and shortening the length of federal and state governments, and instead embraced President Harris’ progressive timeline for a California. Tesla is manufactured in each and every garage. Ordinary people don’t want options, they want the government to tell them the most productive way to live safely, so that each and every task and each and every business is more safely available through of the automobile, in an unlimited manner. roads, and not on small painted bike lanes and narrow sidewalks. If Oregon were looking for more than just electric cars in each and every one of them, why would it be a patriotic blue state? Would the democratically elected state legislator announce a multibillion-dollar, 20-lane highway bridge for cars, not a new subway formula and a highway tunnel under the Columbia River with motorcycle lanes and rail tracks? Portland, Oregon’s major city and advertising center, has fully embraced a car-centric culture like no other American city: even allowing drivers to drive through motorcycle lanes and urban parks with impunity!
Kamala Harris did not participate in a series of environmental plans. We can assume that her agenda may simply derive from Biden’s. If she is elected, it will all depend on how Congress views it.
What does Kamala have to do with Teslas?
It’s probably true that almost every single legislator in Oregon spends many hours in a car each year. We can’t be surprised if our cops and legislators have a serious case of a car head.
I expect more information about their weather platform for 2024.
Joe Biden is the weather president we need. Kamala Harris will continue her legacy. I hope you read your political documents carefully, but they don’t matter in the real world. It’s more productive to spend your time convincing your Qanon friends and family in the Midwest that voting is a waste of time.
I don’t perceive your reaction. How did I insult someone?I think the reference to qanon is a bit old-fashioned and in fact innocuous. I don’t see that much qanon in those days, however, other people were blatantly interested in him and wouldn’t be angry if you pointed him out. Remember all the flags on January 6th? I point to a correlation between right-wing conspiracy theories, which have enjoyed a golden age since Republicans learned to use the Internet, and political opposition to any kind of emissions mitigation policy. Since this will be an election with a lot of participation, I hope that the qanon guys stay at home and that all the girls dust off their hats and go out to choose the first female POTUS. Otherwise, we will have Republican-led climate policy. Many Nader/Green supporters here will tell you that there is no difference between the national primary (“ecocidal democrats”) parties, but they are wrong.
The component he omitted from this lengthy explanation is the one analyzed through Jakeco969: location (his “Midwest,” his “flyover of certain parts of the country”).
Why mention the “Midwest”? Because everyone knows that’s where all the QAnon bullies who rigged the election live?Here’s what it looks like.
Uh. . . I talked about the Midwest because the tipping point in our next election will most likely be in the Midwest (or at least if the Democrats lose Pennsylvania, in particular, they will have a hard time winning the election). University). Thank you for pointing out the origin of the offense. In fact, I was surprised by jakeo969’s response.
Hi Jakeco969, I regret the offensive stereotypes about Midwesterners in my comment.
In the middle of the ideal curve of human transportation that satisfies the greatest number of desires with the least damage and waste is a segment of humans moving at a speed of 15 to 20 mph.
5 to 20 mph is, in practice, equivalent to more than 5 miles in 20 minutes, stop-and-go.
By moving at a speed of 15 to 20 mph, other people can use the least amount of space to move and park, create the least amount of risk, require the least amount of individual investment, the least public investment, and more easily.
However, we are reaching that point and prioritizing this type of transport is important.
But it turns out that motorcycles and electric motorcycles do that, and cars and cars don’t. In fact, cars and cars ruin everything because they take up too much space, are too expensive and cause too much damage.
Metro, the legislature, the governor, the city don’t seem to perceive this and it’s incredibly frustrating and disappointing.
@SD FTW COTW!!
As an existing example of the benefits of non-urban sprawl, fuel costs in Hong Kong are the highest or nearly the highest in the world, yet Hongkongers spend on fuel less consistently with the user than other populations. Their society is oriented towards public transportation and autonomous transportation such as walking and cycling. They also design neighborhoods around work, living, and retail accessibility, so other people are generally less than a few miles away to work, shop, etc. It is not unusual to live in an apartment building where the ground floor comprises businesses and grocery stores.
Do you think a small number of Americans need to do it this way?
I don’t think they really do. It turns out that even in BP other people enjoy the ability to leave the city at will and live in houses. Actual density, as in Hong Kong and Singapore, does not allow for any of those things for the vast majority of residents. Even those who boldly call for greater density at the local point do not seem to be aware of the sacrifices this entails. I appreciated the ease and success of public transportation and the calm order felt through draconian law enforcement; It took me a while to get used to the constant tension of the law. ‘humanity. Living in such density means giving up some personal freedoms to do what you want when you need to, something most of you here have proven you are simply not in a position to do. To begin with, we deserve to defend Singapore’s automotive policies, where a license to buy a car costs thousands of dollars before you can even buy a car. Dents or other injuries will need to be ticketed and the license only lasts a certain period of time and the car is removed. It may easily be amended to mandate electric vehicle use on the population, but Oregon can’t even mandate parking or update license plates for fear of discrimination. Singapore does not and cannot talk about concepts like that. We’re communicating a clever game about density expansion, but that’s just communication for now. Instead of endless research trips to Amsterdam, Paris, Norway, etc. , planners deserve to spend time in places we deserve to try to emulate. Match our stated goals with places that somewhere have achieved those goals, but in those places self has given way to community, which is why we are not in a position to live at high density here.
Instead of endless research trips to Amsterdam, Paris, Norway, etc. , planners spend time on places we try to emulate.
I have a hard time seeing the difference between “endless informative trips to Amsterdam. . . ” and “planners spend time in places that we . . . we emulate. “
I get it and that’s part of the challenge when we talk about density. If genuine density is needed, look at Hong Kong, Singapore, parts of China and similar very dense but functional urban areas. If you need a great vacation, then you deserve to go to Amsterdam, etc. So far, it does not appear that the PNW or any component of the United States should make or, indeed, perceive the sacrifices involved in coming. a dense urban environment.
This is to be expected given Portland’s liberal nature and its inability to stand up to Democratic climate agitators. Google 2023 HB 5005, into which $10 billion in cash was slipped for roads in the final days of the year without any public debate or comment being allowed.
I have traveled 27,000 kilometers on an electric bicycle in the last ten years and I have to take precautions because protection is a greater threat every year.
Also, knowledge table 1 presented through Jonathan comes from this document, something I couldn’t find in his story. It’s in paragraph six of Kotek’s press release.
https://www. oregon. gov/deq/ghgp/Documents/cprgImpGrant. pdf
BikePortland is a production of PedalTown Media Inc. The original photographs and content belong to Pedaltown Media, Inc. They can be used without permission.