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 supporting materials related to the grant, I was surprised to see that the entire budget given to Oregon would be spent on automobiles. Regardless of how they are fueled, state auto subsidies will increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and lock more Oregonians into imbalanced monetary relationships with banks and big businesses. Companies that take advantage of other people, the most expensive transportation option available, will cause more deaths and injuries. on our roads, they will create more bottlenecks, clog neighborhoods with parked cars, and perpetuate road structure and expansion.
The $197 million will be divided into three spending areas: residential and advertising buildings, fabrics and waste, and transportation. Of the $66 million spent on transportation, $52 million will be spent on rebates for electric cars and $14 million on charging infrastructure.
It’s important to take fossil-fuel-powered cars off the roads and help other low-income people, but the lack of balance in Oregon’s investment plans is striking.
Several other states and local governments across the country that have gotten investments from this same grant program have the cash and will invest in bikes 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 bike garages at 16 mobility hubs” 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 build motorcycle and pedestrian trails to access electric motorcycles, adding vouchers for income-eligible applicants. ” The Nez Perce Tribe will “create a fleet of electric motorcycles for facility personnel” 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 put toward cutting TMV and measures that would further promote cycling and public transportation. Below is an excerpt from a summary of the feedback on the ride-sharing sector in the Orepass DEQ Climate Priority. Action Plan (the EPA-funded plan development document that is 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 wanted to spend the cash on. According to a table on page 16 of the Priority Climate Action Plan, “priority tribal actions” included:
And staff at the Oregon state company that worked on the Climate Priority Action Plan recommended investing in a program called the Oregon Micromobility Accelerator that would promote things like bicycles, electric scooters and other small mobility devices. The program would have 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 outlined in a 2023 ODOT report recommending more investments in electric motorcycles and scooters, were not on the final list of priorities. And despite having applied rebates to electric cars for many years, the Oregon Legislature failed to pass a similar program for motorcycles last year.
This grant reflects considerations we raised in 2021 that Oregon’s transportation electrification plans tend to marginalize and/or dismiss e-bikes. Compounding this systemic challenge is the fact that Oregon has a statewide nonprofit electric vehicle advocacy group, Forth, that focuses almost entirely on electric cars and car charging infrastructure.
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 auto-centered development plans. in state agencies and continues our unbalanced technique for transportation. Climate replacement, mitigation and transportation electrification.
BikePortland has been offering independent network journalism to this network since 2005. We depend on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your money is imperative to keeping this valuable resource alive and healthy.
Obviously, the user who buys a $50,000 electric car wants a refund more than a user 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 see car ownership as a default and buying an electric motorcycle to upgrade some car trips is considered an added luxury that only the rich can afford with the bulk of their car expenses. Using those rebate dollars to make that electric motorcycle cheap, or even free, would eliminate that belief and make it more common 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 “$3,000,” they gas me up. But I bought it to get to and from the box, 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 purchased the motorcycle, gave me several regime “checks” to make sure the motorcycle was running smoothly, at no charge. ). 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, don’t we make it an easy or cheap option for more people?
I have a $3,000 “luxury” electric bike, as my colleagues like to joke, and I spend about $200 a year on maintenance. I’ve had mine for a little over 2 years and have traveled 10,000 miles on it.
I had a series of recurring intellectual and physical fitness problems that necessarily came 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 gave up on nutrition because I felt like none of that mattered, so I might as well eat lots of Oreo cookies 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 found that I was feeling better than I had in years and made the connection to the fact that cycling encouraged me to exercise and have to incorporate it into my day.
The electric motorcycle has expanded my diversity (adding displacements) and has expanded it several times. Sometimes I still go to the frames on my analog motorcycle, but any temperature above 65 degrees makes me show up to the frames in a wet, sweaty mess. That’s why I like to be able to move around a bit during the day without breaking a sweat like a pig. I can also ride a motorcycle in civilian clothes. I can transport tons of things uphill without problems. It actually replaced about 99% of my car trips. The only explanation I still have my little 08 is because it’s paid for and the registration insurance is less expensive than what I would pay for a rental every time I drive. If it fails, I probably wouldn’t buy another car.
I believe that e-bikes open up cycling applications to an even wider diversity of frame types, fitness grades, 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 all that they already do. In other words, get moving.
I will end with a repetition of Lois’ point:
Why, in an overheated world, are we NOT making this an easy or cheap option for more people?
Comment if the week! What an amazing story about how cycling can improve your life. Thanks for sharing!
Absolutely inspiring and echoing Stephan’s COW suggestion!
So I like being able to do some movement during the day sweating like a pig. I can also ride my bike in civilian clothes. I can carry tons of stuff uphill with no problem.
Hey, you wrote a guest post about BP.
Why, in an overheated world, do we NOT make it an easy or cheap option for more people?
Because other moderate people conclude that if the risk is as severe as suggested, it’s regular motorcycles that are recommended for subsidies, not anything that requires rare earth mining around the world to be made an ocean away and then shipped back to the other side. That ocean. being connected to your home in a task that happens to be about five miles from your home.
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 other people who use the cordless nail gun report how they are saving the planet? Do you see how ridiculous this is?
No, however, what I mean is that you panic about subsidizing a tool that can decarbonize transportation and improve public health, than you are panicking about subsidizing electric cars that are much more disastrous for the environment and that use terrestrial minerals in an order of magnitude less frequently. And despite the subsidies, they are still far from being within the success of the middle class of runners.
Insulting for riding an e-bike to squares five miles away when the option is driving is so cheesy. Next time, just say you don’t like electric bikes and move on.
The electric motorcycle looks pretty bad because a motorcycle doesn’t need batteries at all. A torque hub can provide lighting and even save a few watts for charging 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. One hundred times more minerals, one hundred times more tire residue, one hundred times more load on the grill. That’s history.
There is cash for heat pumps, energy-efficient homes and buildings, and waste reduction. This does not apply to ALL cars and automotive infrastructure. But I would have liked to see the largest percentage of the cash for transport go to public transport and other services. automotive infrastructure. Investing more money in cars without investing a proportionate amount in transportation other than the car 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 physically powerful research was used to make an investment in infrastructure aimed at gaining advantages for those who own low-occupancy, space-saving electric cars would reduce greenhouse fuel emissions?
Electric cars produce no tailpipe emissions, but the energy that powers them comes from 50 to 75 percent fossil fuels, depending on where you are in Oregon. And the increasing reliance on 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 research 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 vetted. I see that they have calculated the potential emission 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 to get other people on motorcycles and public transportation for decades, and here we are. Will another push be necessary? 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 only compensated by reducing emissions during operation. I’ve noticed break-even estimates ranging from 15,000 to 80,000 miles, depending on assumptions. Of course, the real comparison is for unburned gallons of gasoline. In all cases, the immediate effect is an increase in emissions.
Does this research take into account the similar emission rate to manufacturing gas-powered cars?It’s hard for me to understand that manufacturing an electric vehicle requires 80 kmi ICE of EXTRA emissions compared to making 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 be in the accounts. . . Of course, if incentives for EVs only increase the use of private vehicles in the majority aware of what is already killing us, they are not favorable from a GHG perspective (or not!).
Most replaced gasoline cars are sold to someone other than scrapped, either for a new price-sensitive engine or for the replacement of an even older car with higher emissions. I don’t know if or how this is explained, but I do 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. I 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. This has caught the attention of pro-environmental think tanks and other organizations that carry out this type of analysis.
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.
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 electrical power coming entirely from coal. I wouldn’t rely heavily on either model, but I think they all explain the difference in emissions that come from manufacturing. an ICE vehicle. I perceive that the difference is directly similar to the manufacture of the battery. The larger the battery, the greater the difference.
Look… no one is in any doubt that converting to electric vehicles is meteorologically mandatory, 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 a borderline case. The science is established and 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.
PS Ross, this message to everyone; I’m not targeting you.
Thanks for the reply!
Yes, I have commented before with similar information and main points. The estimate of 80,000 can be rounded up from an investigation of the break-even point of electric vehicle pollutants by the Reuters/Argonne National Laboratory. They estimated 78,700 miles for a situation where all EV charging came from coal-fired power, but no grid region in the United States has about 100 percent coal-fired electricity. The average break-even point in the United States is calculated at 13,500 miles.
While I’m not selling the use of cars (I only suggest the use of electric cars if they replace the use of ice), the break-even point is much lower than suggested.
It will be strongly influenced by the energy resources that recharge the vehicle. In the northwest United States, more electric power comes from hydroelectric power, while in places like Texas, electric power generation relies more 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 on 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, part of the money in infrastructure is not only allocated to certain modes of transport, but also to the infrastructure needed to use them (solar, wind, geothermal, etc. ). Therefore, they would not work on 50-75% fuel or 0%. Would that make you happy?
They pale in comparison to the benefits that can be achieved if other people completely upgrade car travel.
The modal percentage of cycling in Portland has fallen from 50% in the last decade, to 3-4%, making them incredibly GNORMES.
It is instructive to see how ongoing and worsening ecocide is being used through a subculture or interest organization as an excuse to prioritize their specific agenda.
A car charging station at SW Salmon, owned and operated by Shell, an oil and fuel company.
Let’s just make things up to make our narrative compatible, okay.
The City of Portland, PSU and PGE have twice extended the allocation 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 that location link to the Shell website. And it is indexed as belonging to Shell Sky EV Technology. Yes, it is managed and operated by PSU, PGE and PBOT, but my determination that it belongs to Shell is based on a few factors. I will check it to verify and report what I have discovered. His insinuation that I will make things up according to 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 association when the facility was located near PSU (but I’m sure there was a negative spin).
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, recently acquired through Shell. The real story here is that it is actually disastrous how Murcia’s fossil fuel industry is gobbling up EV charging companies and then deliberately neglecting EV infrastructure to poison this critical aspect of the transition to decarbonisation.
And I still think you saw the “Shell” logo and didn’t bother to spend five seconds googling the long history of this public-private charging hub because of your anti-electrification.
Thanks for looking into this. Then he discovered that Shell owns the company that manufactures and manages the chargers. And we seem to agree that the fossil fuel corporations’ lifestyle in the EV sector is great.
Also, I don’t have an “anti-electrification bias. ” I am concerned about what is accepted as true in 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.
Well done! Keep attacking and fighting against possible allies! This is sure to win the fight.
The lifestyle of fossil fuel corporations in the electric vehicle sector is excellent.
In itself, this is neither bad nor good. I think it would be wonderful if Shell understood that they can make a lot of money investing in renewable energy. It would be a bad outcome if they bought everything just to end it all.
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 something positive about the electrification of that 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 advertise electric motorcycles too much? So yes, I am not against electrification. I’m not here to talk about cars. Cars ruin everything!
Cars of everything!
Fossil fuel cars are ruining the lives of other people in the Global South more than electric cars (of all kinds). Please remind me how many fossil fuel SUVs/minivans your family, Jonathan, owns and uses.
So yes, I am against electrification.
You are categorically opposed to electrification being possible, while being fanatically committed to a fantastical vision that “Murrican narcissists and consumerists 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
You seem to be saying that since there is no revolution, the task of converting to electric cars is urgent. It’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.
PBOT lowered speed limits, particularly in the city. ODOT did this as well (at least in some places).
So that’s what happens.
Except they recently raised it along Naito, inches away from heavy pedestrian (and bicycle) traffic, where coverage is minimal. It seems that an influential motorist has complained to Mapps and users keep the bag (as usual).
It illustrates the difficulty of meeting replacement in the way streets are used. Many of us think that roads are reserved for classic vehicles, so anything smaller or slower is intrusive and deserves no respect. I have met very thoughtful drivers, but also impatient ones. bordering on recklessness.
I mean we want to use existing infrastructure because there is no possibility of building enough motorcycle lanes or independent public transportation to meet the needs. So you have to find a way to share.
It seems that an influential motorist has complained to Mapps and the users are left holding 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 bumped it up 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 hypothesis, for the pattern of behavior, hence the use of the word “seems. ” Before the Broadway scandal, this option had never occurred to me. But I can sense that some may feel like they have inside information, which is not the case. I guess I deserve to have phrased it as a question.
I agree that speed restrictions are trending downward (which is great). I called Naito an exception (“Except recently. . . “) because that’s precisely what he is. And a pretty big one. To me, the broader trend and ODOT criteria are clever excuses to increase the speed limit in Naito.
If you have no evidence of wrongdoing, why press charges? Expressing it in terms like “seems” is no substitute for what is done. It is immoral to accuse other people without any evidence 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 your calling or yours by making false statements.
If you have no evidence of wrongdoing
I said 0 evidence of behavior.
As an analogy, let’s say one day you see your neighbor’s dog pooping on your lawn and then you clean it up. Then the next day he sees new poop on some other component of his lawn. And 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 maybe it’s your neighbor’s dog. I don’t think it’s immoral to ask the question, 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” are going to use their capital to increase the speed limit on a random street from 20 to 25?It doesn’t even make sense. But go ahead. Mapps told Williams to raise the speed limit to 25 and had made up a wild story about ODOT and the Oregon law because Timothy Boyle or Homer Williams asked for a favor. There is no other explanation.
Meanwhile, drivers continue driving at the same speeds as before the change, since 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 of reducing GHG emissions, as Jonathan mentioned above.
Landfill prices for GHGs are $6 per tonne.
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 is unexpected that ODOT and Oregon have not included VMT rebates as a means of reducing GHG emissions, as Jonathan mentioned above.
Maybe they don’t know a proven, cost-effective way to do it.
Reducing vehicle speed is a proven and cost-effective way to reduce VMT and also reduces emissions. But it’s not popular with certain segments of the public, adding in 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 buying a new fossil fuel vehicle, as it also increases VMT with additional emissions on most of that.
Well, it’s actually a smart thing to do that Paris doesn’t exist, and that even if it did, its mayor of the last decade hasn’t spent much power on cutting VMTs by outright repurposing public spaces for car-free travel and making an investment. strongly on public transport.
“Portland is not Paris. ” Fuck, I wonder how Paris came about here. . . .
I guess you went to París. Si so, you know it’s a very different city from Portland. It’s also a 2,000-year-old global capital, one of the largest cities in Europe, and has resources (financial, political, and cultural) that Portland can’t even dream of. They are hosts of the Olympic Games. Can we do this?
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 leads 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 not bring you any sadness and frustration yet.
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 traveled through Wales, Ireland and southern England over 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. You have to be careful, the road is about 12 feet wide, from hedge to hedge.
And this subway map makes me want Portland Paris even more.
Why do I live in such a small city and such a backward country?
Why do I live in such a small city and 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 not bring you any sadness and frustration yet.
A point that I think is not discussed enough. Well said!
Well said. But I should point out that there are many other tactics to think about in Paris, Amsterdam and similar places. 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 policy makers, leaders and others, that it is indeed imaginable. live differently. Matrix These options are a proof of concept and since much of our combat here is simply convincing other people that another form of life is imaginable, this 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 intercity rail in Europe, but it doesn’t work very well when the distances are so great. I love the wonderful government facilities in Europe, but our country will never settle for the tax levels needed to provide them. I love that they use the metric system, however. . . well, we convert by stealth in many areas, so while I will never do wood with the meter, my decades-old set of Allen wrenches won’t. It has never been used.
Sure we borrowed ideas that would work, but constantly lamenting about ideas that might not work is useless.
We are Portland, Paris, New York or Berlin. Kiss it.
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 couldn’t agree more. I’m almost in 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 have 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 across the board (from production to commuting).
I know that an electric vehicle produces about a quarter of the emissions of a combustion engine vehicle and for this reason we deserve to help others from all income sources 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 safely excluded from this plan is simply confusing.
I also have mixed feelings about this cash for charging infrastructure. I see other people mention PGE Electric Avenue. In fact, I subscribe to this program ($25 a month) because there is a charging station near us. This company has noticed their rates. accumulating 25% in the last two years and aims to increase its rates next year. Meanwhile, the charging station near us, which has four fast chargers in total, had one out of service for over a year and at one point had been out of service for about a month. If you take a look at the EMP for this station, it looks like improvements are being made and will be completed in September. There are no signs that paintings were made at this location.
This company does not have monetary difficulties and, however, does not have the existing infrastructure. I do not accept at all that they use this money wisely.
“Seeing the electric bikes excluded from this plan is just confusing”
How many CO2 emissions would e-bike rebates reduce?What is the load consistent with the ton? No one knows, but they have to enter anything into the spreadsheet to sort and compare. This could possibly 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 given travel categories if they had an e-bike and kept it in good working order, but maybe they would just buy one at a discount. I’m sure that number is rarely very zero, but I suspect that many other people who don’t have an e-bike will find a way to get one.
Are motorcycle teams 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. ” I suspect many other people who would buy one at a discount are not the right threshold. 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 isn’t that they’d buy one, but that they’d systematically use it in their car if they did. This requires a radical change in habit and this, we know, is difficult.
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 bike garages at 16 mobility hubs” 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 build 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 number of environmental plans. We can assume that his program may simply derive from Biden’s. If she is elected, everything will depend on how Congress is seen.
What does Kamala have to do with Teslas?
It’s probably true that nearly every single Oregon legislator spends many hours in a car each year. We can’t be surprised if our police officers and legislators have a serious case of 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 she reviews her political documents, but they have no genuine global importance. She spends more time convincing her Qanon relatives in the Midwest that voting is a waste of time.
I don’t notice your reaction. How did I insult someone? I think the reference to qanon is a bit dated and actually innocuous. I don’t see as much qanon in those days, however, other people were unashamedly interested in it and wouldn’t get mad if you pointed it out. Do you remember all the flags from January 6? I point to a correlation between right-wing conspiracy theories, which have enjoyed a golden age since Republicans learned how to use the Internet, and political opposition to any kind of emissions mitigation policy. Since this will be a high turnout election, I hope the qanon types stay home and all the girls dust off their hats and go out and elect the first female POTUS. Otherwise, we will have a Republican-led climate policy. Many Nader/Green supporters here will tell you that there is no difference between the primary national parties (“ecocidal democrats”), but they are wrong.
The component he omitted from this long explanation is the one discussed via Jakeco969: location (his “Midwest,” his “overflight of certain parts of the country”).
Why mention the “Midwest”? Because everyone knows that this is where all the QAnon bullies who rigged the election live?That’s what it looks like.
Hey. . . 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). Electoral College). Thank you for pointing out the origin of the crime. 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 maximum desires with the least amount of damage and waste is a segment of humans that move at a speed of 15 to 20 mph.
Five to 20 mph translates, in practice, to more than five miles in 20 minutes, stop and go.
By traveling at a speed of 15 to 20 mph, other people can use the smallest parking area, create the least risk, require the least individual investment, the least public investment, and access the maximum easily.
However, we are getting to that point and prioritizing this type of transportation is important.
But it turns out that electric motorcycles and motorcycles do that, and cars and cars do not. In fact, cars and cars mess everything up 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, Hong Kong has the highest or near-highest fuel costs in the world, yet Hongkongers spend less consistently with the user on fuel than other populations. Their society is oriented toward public transportation and autonomous shipping, such as walking and cycling. They also design neighborhoods around accessibility to work, living, and commerce, 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 whose land has department stores adding 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 level 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 the draconian enforcement of laws; 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 speak about such concepts. 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 in places we try to emulate.
I struggle to see the difference between “endless informational trips to Amsterdam…” and “planners spend time in places we… emulate. ”
I get it, and that’s part of the challenge when we talk about density. If you need genuine density, you should look at Hong Kong, Singapore, parts of China, and similar urban areas, very dense but functional. vacation, then you deserve to go to Amsterdam, etc. So far, it does not appear that PNW or any component of the United States should make or perceive the sacrifices necessary to create a dense urban environment.
This is expected given Portland’s liberal nature and its inability to stand up to Democratic climate agitators. Google 2023 HB 5005, in which $10 billion in highway cash was slipped in in the final days of the year without any public debate or comment allowed.
I have ridden 27,000 kilometers on an electric bike in the last ten years and I have to prevent because protection is a greater threat every year.
Additionally, Data Table 1 presented through Jonathan comes from this document, which I was unable to locate in its history. 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.