Freeways are the solution to congestion and the density mandates of the last 30 years.
Congestion is caused by having too many people in a area with out enough road capasity.
Or adding density with out adding road capasity.

You may not like the word myth, but please do not ignore the message because you do not like a word or two.

Metros density mandates and planning has caused more problems while we were being told it would solve our congestion and infer-structure problems. It has raised the cost of housing and infer-structure and congestion ect. , all the problems we were told it would solve.

If you choose living in a dense area, I support your choice, but please do not force me to make the same choice.

Second, I’m weary of any articles that have MYTH in them, it implies a bias already and we have to be responsible readers and understand that it is an opinion piece. I value your own opinion rather than someone who happens to agree with you, plus that doesn’t automatically validate your view just because someone has the same few, Also there are many flaws with his logic. This is true peoples yards are not taken in account and that is a flaw of measurement and not principle, and the story might be different if we had the statistical precision of counting peoples yards, what about side yards, what about their roof if they have a balcony… etc. Also “Smart-growth” ( a silly name, I agree) is blatant with its loose definition of “Open space,” functionally serves the city in ways that can’t be measured. I don’t want to repeat myself, but the preservation of the area directly adjacent to the city is fundamental the economics, healthy, and well being of the city. Yes most people do favor parks. Because most people recognize growth is inevitable to a certain degree and understand it’ll be very difficult to acquire the necessary land to build a park near their homes, once the inevitable density occurs.
And green belts are means to, not the end. In fact we need to accept that like many things in life there should be no end. Cities are dynamic and trans formative. greenbelts allow that transformation to take place in the future.
” I deal with many businesses that without on site or near by parking, there would not be enough customers in the neighborhood to sustain the businesses.” I’m glad to hear your own experience. Exactly there are not enough potential customers in the neighborhood. why because the horrible density isn’t there. what came first the Chicken or the egg. Dispersion of our neighborhoods and communities or businesses that supported the neighborhood?
If you’d like to respond, kwu111@gmail.com, It getting more difficult to check this article as time goes by.

It is a myth that all walking traffic is local and didn’t mostly arrive by car from out side the neighborhood.

Location, location, location and easy access by car equal success in most business and of course you need a product or service people want.

There is a reason why big box stores are so popular and successful.

———————————————————

cut from
Seven myths about sprawl
Written By: Randal O’Toole

—-CUT——-
The open space myth

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 1997 Natural Resources Inventory, all cities and towns in the U.S. occupy just 3 percent of the nation’s land. Only 4.6 percent of California, the nation’s most populated state, is urbanized, and percentages are similar for most states outside of the Northeast.

The biggest problem with the open space myth is its limited definition of open space. Suburbanites consider their large yards to be an important component of open space. These open spaces are probably used by recreationists more often than public parks are, and they are certainly used more than private farms and forests. Most smart-growth advocates count private farms as open space but deny that private yards are open space. So they advocate conserving farms but want to shrink people’s yards.

Most people favor the public purchase of more parks and other open spaces. But they support such purchases as a way of reducing population densities and the problems associated with density, including traffic congestion and air pollution. By contrast, smart growth calls for “greenbelts” around cities that will force people to live in higher densities within those belts.

I’m glad you denoted area in terms of a percentage and recognize that the world’s is a finite place. That is halfway there to understanding that we inhabitant this world with other people, animals and plants, etc. So that 97%…I’d be cautious of assuming Oregon is a bunch of Open Space (aka vacant aka underutilized lands)… Because I’m sure people of Portland appreciate the fact that we have a pristine water source to drink would not assume the Bullrun watershed is “underutilized” and farmers in the Willamette Valley river basin appreciate that tract homes haven’t covered highly productive agricultural soils or the lumberjack who has enough land that can it be replanted and managed and rotated in hopes of a more sustainable forestry/business practice, or the cattle rancher in southern and eastern Oregon has pastures to let their livestock roam and be healthy don’t see that 97% as “vacant”. and I’m sure all of these good folks of our state, and myself hope that this is not what you are implying by using the term “open space”. The 3% of urbanized areas have a symbiotic relationship with rural areas and the prosperity of both depend on respect how each culture inhabits the land. Rural Oregon residents depend on cities to have the infrastructure to get their goods to larger markets where it has the best chance of getting the best price. and urban residents depend on rural Oregon to keep those goods coming or else we wouldn’t have anything to do, in terms of processing the raw goods to consumable products to ports to ship internationally, or the legal, accountant, etc. that allow this exchange to move as smoothly as possible.

In fact, you are right, we don’t have a sprawl problem in Oregon, because the good folks of Oregon in 1970’s across political parties, income strata, occupations recognized that there is mutually dependent relationship in land-use. Like a farmer who tries his best to maximize his land, as “city folk” we have an obligation to use our land wisely. And determined to not have Oregon turn into a suburb of northern California and south of Seattle the people demanded and expected our governments to establish growth boundaries.

So the formula of parking = people that spend money, again there are assumption in that formula. It assumes that one would set up a business in a location accessible to people that move exclusively by automobile. I would suspect that business person never heard of the saying, location location location is a component to the success of a business, of course that is not the key to success you have to deliver a good or service people demand, obviously. People don’t demand/ consume parking, unless your in the business parking garages. So why does location matter, because of traffic and exposure to one’s business. What is the nature of that traffic, is it in a car where people unknowingly whiz by or are they pedestrians who window shopping, but might pop in, in case of a restaurant smell your food and get hungry? In essence, pedestrians are more sensually aware of your business than people confined to cars, thus more likely to spend money. So how do you get a critical mass of pedestrians to pass by, well you’d probably want to locate your business in area with higher concentration of people living there, but that’s not all, you’d probably want to locate your business adjacent to other business as well (there will be more competition, but all the better, I myself am a free market kind of guy, But free markets do depend on equitable physical and legal infrastructure), because traffic to their business means traffic by your business. Better yet your business is located along a mode of transportation that doesn’t require peoples full attention, i.e. LTR, Bus, streetcar, that can see your business. Again visibility doesn’t assure success but you have to deliver a competitive good or service. So if your business model is to be isolated from other competition and thus don’t have to compete or you provide a good/service that people highly demand then yes parking is crucial factor.
To only serve people with money or people you think have money… is just not a good business model. For, I would think, an number of reasons, If your a salesman you have to have the mindset that everyone that walks through your door is looking to buy something… maybe not now, but will eventually and will return to you. It is call customer service.
All and all, our collective decisions have to respect the limited space we have on this earth.

Free flowing roads allow for more choices and diversity on how we travel, work and get our goods to market.

As to you jumping to the old debunked sprawl myth, I now see where your coming from. We don’t have a sprawl problem in Oregon, if you add up all the roads, parking spaces, building , RR tracks, houses and building and all the cities in Oregon, you would use up only around 3% of the state of Oregon,

That only leaves 97% of Oregon as open space.

Without parking spaces, it is very hard for businesses to stay in business.
Parking spaces = customers that spend money.

More choices are good, only if people choose it and want to pay the cost of the service. Including capital construction and amenities. Exactly and we do that through taxes. It is why we vote and majority wins (more or less…) There are somethings in government I don’t support, but apparently enough people do so I have to pay for it too. That’s fine because at least I participated. Public works are the fruits of being a democracy, citizens engaged in our nation, states, cities future. Or we could have great cathedrals funded by monarchs, or pyramids for our leaders, instead, we choose to pool are money together and vote on our values. This shows in our great National, state and county Parks, interstate highway, vast military , etc.
“Amenities”, I think this is the root value of opposition that people take against public transportation. It is not an amenity it is an integral part of a transportation network that includes highways/ rail/ transit bike lanes, sidewalks (yes I believe my feet are the first and primal means of transportation), and its effectiveness, like you mention as well, correlate to the regions ability to compete economically. People depend on it and use it on a daily bases to get to work, to get home, not just, to go out see a blazer game etc. or go to the zoo. Transportation, and Public transit is a part of that is like Water and sewer it allows a city to grow and prosper.

Cars became popular because it became a part of our identity. It can do that because we become attached to them, often decorate them, name them and we feed them (gas), put insurance on them like, take them to the doctors when they don’t feel good (mechanic) and of course the hefty initial cost of a car. Its has also been idealized form of mobility and freedom. And they have some wonderful designers to make them look beautiful. I would argue more and more people are finally connecting the dots of the real cost, in terms of our environment, global conflicts and tensions, and detriment to one’s health and our finding new ways to shape their identity, via internet is a big one, but many our tradition means of expression, like wardrobe etc. this is the same Idea for homes too, without ownership of a home, you have to find a way to be who you are, through work, a volunteering, skills, etc. I personally, choose not to own a car… and that is the point of contention. You see transit as an amenity, because you yourself probably don’t have a reason to use it. I see car ownership as an amenity to extend one’s material expression of oneself. But I do understand that it sounds like you drive for work which is reasonable. But I live close enough to where I need to be, so that owning a car is more trouble than its is worth, thus a hassle and pseudo amenity.

Yes, I do understand Tri-met counts it as trips and not riders/ person. But still trips means they are getting to where they need to be and making economic transactions just the same as some one who drives to work then drives to lunch and drives home etc. but with less sprawl and need for a car and parking 9’x14′ x 3 spaces, at work, at home, at somewhere else equals 378 sq. ft. about the size of my studio apt, probably less dollars because space and time usually means money. That is what I mean by spatial efficiency is crucial to encourage economic and social exchanges, really the main purpose for cities and civilizations.
Again these have been wonderful conversations its really helped me keen in on my own values and measurements in which I use to make decision, I hope you keep commenting your opinion on other topics, personally I think this one has run its course hehe, yeah?

Reducing congestion, saves fuel for all mode of transportation and reduces air pollution because cars, trucks, school buses and transit buses are not running as efficient as they can, in stop and go traffic. Congestion has added costs for customers and businesses.

Miles traveled is a very good way to see what we are getting for our transportation dollars. That is why Tri-Met like to uses trips as their measurement. If you use transit to get to work and back, they count you as 2 trips, if you transfer on your trip to work and back. you are counted as 4 trips. If you work in down town and hop on a bus for a block or two for lunch your 4 trips can move up to 6 trips. But you are one person.

The Portland Metro area is a big area, with most of our transit money spent on downtown Portland at the expense of the rest of the area and Tri Met need the rest of the area to subsidize down town Portland.

Street cars and rail in the past, was used to help people to sprawl away from the dirty down town areas. Garbage, horse dropping, dead horses, and their flies and sewage was a big problem when street cars and rail were popular 90 or so years ago.

More choices are good, only if people choose it and want to pay the cost of the service. Including capital construction and amenities.

Their is a reason why Tri-Met is so deep in the red and do not need to serve it’s customers. Tri-Met has been telling us for 30 years that in the future, people are going to give up their cars and flock to transit. If we only give them the choice.

.

This next thing I’m going to cite, I’m not going to go as far to say its a causation of why miles consistently increases with transit market share. But I just think its interesting that the period of time (1985-2007) real gas prices has stayed relatively the same. Like I said it is interesting and prompt to continue this conversation if desired. its a neat interactive chart that lets you move time frames around.

In addition I looked up the Texas Transportation Institute and they recently released their 2010 urban mobility report, it is quiet fascinating results due to improved data collection processes. There is a lot of data so poke around like I did, I’m sure you will find it to be very informative.

“The congestion reduction benefits of two significant solutions are discussed—public transportation and roadway operations. Without public transportation services, travelers would have suffered an additional 785 million hours of delay and consumed 640 million more gallons of fuel—a savings of $19 billion in congestion costs. Roadway operational treatments save travelers 320 million hours of delay and 265 million gallons of fuel for a congestion cost savings of $8 billion.

Researchers recommend a balanced and diversified approach to reducing traffic congestion – one that focuses on more of everything. Their strategies include:

* Get as much use as possible out of the transportation system we have.
* Add roadway and public transportation capacity in the places where it is needed most.
* Change our patterns, employing ideas like ridesharing and flexible work times to avoid traditional “rush hours.”
* Provide more choices, such as alternate routes, telecommuting and toll lanes for faster and more reliable trips.
* Diversify land development patterns, to make walking, biking and mass transit more practical.
* Adopt realistic expectations, recognizing for instance that large urban areas are going to be congested, but they don’t have to stay that way all day long.”
Again this is from Texas A&M University, I believe a credible institution, much like OSU, and University of Maryland where this professor did his conducted his research.

For me personally, I like looking for information and statistics that are from .edu or .gov sites so I also dug deeper in to Tri-met finances. and I will admit sir/madam (I don’t mean to offend you, but the nickname doesn’t give me a clue, nor is it important) You are right farepayers only pay about 25%. I looked up other cities like new york with all those people and it was a still a little over 50%. Personally, I still think public transportation in urban areas are essential for the growth of a city and a worthwhile investment of tax payer dollars.