RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
BLOG ARCHIVES:
- 2012
- 2011
- 2010
- 2009
- 2008
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Bike Free and Prosper
On the show today Ellen Vanderslice, the project manager for Portland's Bike Plan 2030, said the city is promoting biking in order to be more sustainable, healthier and more prosperous. The first two seem fairly clear: biking has a smaller carbon footprint than driving, and pedalling burns more calories than steering. But more prosperous? If that seems like a leap, here is the paper she had in mind.
-
In addition to the above, the document is inaccurate in my understanding, and is not only inaccurate but misleading---and perhaps downright deceptive. The document surprisingly doesn't actually say how Portlanders are spending less time commuting. It speaks about 'Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel.' What do 'Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel' include? Is this just automobile travel? Or does this include public transportation miles? Or biking miles?
The document says this: "Vehicle miles traveled is a very aggregated measure of travel, expressed as total miles divided by population. Consequently, it reflects the combined effects of shorter trips and the use of alternative modes of transportation." Does this mean 'vehicle miles' include miles using alternative modes of transportation? Or does it mean the 'vehicle miles' figure reflects the savings of using alternative forms of transportation?
The main economic benefit the document is based around is TIME spent or saved based on the miles being commuted. But where does it take into account the potentially longer time spent using public transportation? Or the potentially increased time spent on a bicycle? Without these figures this document is incomplete evidence.
-
Comments are now closed.
The economic gain is really not a gain but a redistribution. More money is not actually being made by an increase in cyclists. People just allegedly have more money to spend in other sectors because they are not spending as much on transportation. The document alleges that is better for us because the money doesn't go out of the local economy (as it might do for transportation). I suppose if you move to Detroit, or an area with an oil based economy, this idea goes out the window? And then the argument doesn't help to make a case for being green.
The document is mainly an irrelevant after-thought. It is unsettling that papers like this are disseminated and used to inform policy. This argument can in many cases actually work against being green. For instance if you apply the documents reasoning to buying a Prius (the document mentions Portland is #1 in ownership) you would potentially end up recommending against it, because a cheaper car would help the local economy by causing you to spend less on transportation. You can't use economic benefits when it suits you or when the benefit is seemingly on your side and then abandon it when things do not go your way.