Defending our cars, our freedom
Planning to Mock FreedomBy Aaron Crowley,
Of all the symbols of independence in America, the automobile stands out. Nothing else gives a man the ability to take any road or highway to wherever he wants to go, whenever he so desires.
The Oregonian apparently has a problem with this in a recent article.
In a column about Randy O’toole’s recent seminar on planning, the reporter choses to mock Houston, TX residents as having a “love affair with the automobile.â€
I think it is time to stand in solidarity with our freedom loving friends from the great state of Texas and point out that it isn’t so much the vehicle itself we are in love with.
It is the freedom of unrestricted movement it allows us all to enjoy.
I am assuming that is precisely the problem the reporter has with the unfettered movement the automobile provides…If it doesn’t run on tracks to a pre- selected destination, then it isn’t mass transit.
And that is a threat to her utopian dream of every family in a town home, and a Max pass in every pocket.
It is the freedom of unrestricted movement it allows us all to enjoy.
I am assuming that is precisely the problem the reporter has with the unfettered movement the automobile provides…If it doesn’t run on tracks to a pre- selected destination, then it isn’t mass transit.
And that is a threat to her utopian dream of every family in a town home, and a Max pass in every pocket.
These holier-than-thou types are really bad news.
Another question to ask is why are almost all of the pro-abortion people anti death penalty? I think it because they have not thought things through very well.
Many conservatives are terrified at the prospect of Hillary Clinton as our next president. But without our money Hillary - or any other president - would be just another toothless tiger.
Yes, most of us liberals also own and drive cars, with perhaps a greater tendency to drive smaller ones like that shown on the photo image.
But no...we are not trying to take anyone's "right" to drive a car away. Investing in multiple options: roads, bike lanes, transit, & wider sidewalks and zoning new development to be a bit denser and more mixed use are intended to help save open land and reduce the NEED to drive as often or as far, not to make it impossible to drive at all.
I think in LA the average freeway speed is now about 19MPH. That is only a bit higher than bicycle speed. Hardly the "freedom of the road."
Plus a small politically correct point: don't women also use cars to go where she desires?
Thanks!
Please help me out on this.
Did you ever hear back from Earl?
Who supports government takings? The left.
Who supports limiting economic freedom? The left.
Who vandalizes ROTC centers? The left.
Who talks down and accosts conservative lecturers? The left.
Who has bashed Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas. Michelle Malkin and Larry Elder with racist comments and cartoons? The left.
Who supports putting limits on private property ownership? The left.
Who illegally demonstrates and blocks legal businesses and institutions? The left.
Who's against the second amendment? The left.
Who wants to control what we eat, where we live and what we drive? The left.
Who wants to control our public education institutions? The left.
Liberals are true fascists. The like the idea of a government class controlling the will of the pubic, the redistribution of income and and what we can eat, drive and do.
Plus, your purported "investment" in transportation options has equated to diverting gas and mileage taxes which should have gone to road expansion and maintenance to the construction of light rail and bike lanes -- "options" which have done nothing but cause more congestion, pollution and delays.
Has anyone seen the odd restructuring of the intersection where Glisan branches off from Sandy about N.E 22d? The city has extended an island across the former glisan road entry, and put a mote of weeds inside this concrete island. Even bikers have to go an extra block now just to connect up with Glisan from Sandy. The sunken mote collects wind blown litter, too boot. PDX doesn't need this kind of architecture in my opinion.
Chris...I dunno...I'm old enough to remember the Jim Crow south and the efforts "the right" went through to deny dark-skinned citizens the vote, access to public schools, the front of the bus, service at lunch counters, and so forth. Who shoots abortion doctors and illegally pickets clinics? Who tried to impeach a President over a lie about sex? Who spreads lies about Obama being a Muslim? Who tries to jam their religion down everyone else's throat? Who calls liberals traitors?
I mean...is this a debate worth having? It amounts to a Yo Momma contest. How about sticking to the topic...i.e. cars, and debate the liberals who are actually part of the discussion rather than ones you have to make up?
For the record, I don't want to control what you eat, drive, or do, and I don't care if you have a registered gun stored safely in your home or carried with a legal permit. But we have public policy debates that involve issues that influence what we all eat (USDA inspected, certified organic, etc.), how we get ourselves about (transportation funding and policy), and some of what we do (building and fire codes, property rights, pollution, etc). We all have to live by teh rules that result. Your freedom to shake your fist stops at my nose and likewise for my fist.
To the extent formerly highway only funds are now used for other forms of transportation, it is because elected legislatures debated that issue and came down on the side of using the funds more broadly. Your side had what...12 years of Congressional control, nearly 8 of the white house, and the state legislature for the entire 90s, and you were not able to prevent that from happening. I would say that battle is over, and we are not going back to a car only world. You can rant or whine about it but I don't hink you are going to substantially change it.
Bob...the curb extensions make it way easier for pedestrians to cross to the other side of the street. If we are going to make it easier and safer to walk around cities, they make sense, but yes they can slow traffic a bit and squeeze cyclists. Its all a tradeoff.
I have not seen the end result of the glisam-Sandy project. Could the sunken mote be there to contain stormwater that would otherwise contribute to sewer overflows?
Too bad that's not the outcome.
Among other evidence, census and declining school enrollment shows how families are moving further out and driving further so they can afford a home.
The blind obsession with saving open land ignores the abundant supply of land and the effects of prohibiting it's use.
It's misinformation to claim that these policies dean touts are resulting in a NET reduction in driving. With rising population and increased car and truck use congestion is worsening region wide.
That means more driving while policy makers deliberatly ingore it.
dean, apparently doesn't view this as any indication of any problem.
We just need more money diverted to the same policies?
And that's why he is here.
To undermine this discussion and pile on more of the agenda we get from the government agencies and the Oregonian every day.
That's bad enough but his favorable portrayal of the ACLU should get him booted off this blog.
Why allow a Metro/TriMet operative to taint, with their propaganda, every major discussion here?
Heck why not turn over the blog to Rex Burholder?
Or Patty Wentz?
If the owners of this quasi-libertarian site want to boot someone off for praising the American Civil Liberties Union (if that is what I did) then that would be and interesting statement.
For the record...again....I don't work in the transportation arena, and have never worked for tri met. For Metro, I have done consulting on park and open space planning and design.
If people are moving to the burbs for cheaper housing, doesn't that suggest that policies to keep the inner city healthy and attractive have worked?
If everybody drove a khaki colored yugo, the libs wouldn't mind one bit.
Boy dean that was classic.
Driving young families with children out of the inner city is now a success of smart growth?
I've pointed out time and time again your distributing goverment misinformation here.
Your bias and conflicts of interest are secondary to your distributing propaganda.
The fact that you are flooding this thread by repeating tax funded Metro flasehoods etc. makes it beyond free speach or exchange of ideas.
I would indeed block you from posting.
But then I would like to see a full audit of PDC, for starters.
While you provide cover for them all.
No one is "driving" anyone out of anywhere. The subsidies you hate include subsidies for below market rate housing. The higher densities you hate help hold costs down. But yes, keeping the inner city attractive and desirable has displaced low income renters to less expensive points east. That is in large part a free market consequence isn't it?
To Dave....I'm a liberal, I don't hate cars, and have no use for Yugos. Try a new theory.
Also, when we talk about reducing driving, are we talking about the number of miles driven or the amount of time people spend in their cars. I came to Portland a couple of years ago for a medical emergency. Because of traffic congestion, it took me only about a half hour less to drive from the I-5/217 intersection into NW Portland than it did for me to drive 165 miles to get to that freeway off-ramp.
The new housing in Portland is by necessity rowhousing, apartments, and condos, both low and high rise. In square footage terms much of the new housing is equal to the older single family housing, though without the private yards.
The burbs have larger houses and somewhat larger lots...so yes, some families opt for these. But I don't see where Portland has the space to do this, and even if they did the land prices would make large lots unaffordable for most.
Portland is maturing, and part of that is geting denser and more urban. Seattle has similar issues, even more expensive housing, and far heavier traffic minus light rail and minus an urban growth boundary until very recently.
All things being equal extra space is picked by most. But all things are definitely not equal, so people make tradeoffs.
Reducing driving can mean both fewer car trips and shorter car trips. At a density of 8 homes per acre (like older Portland neighborhoods) the market will provide a full service grocery within walking distance (1/4 mile) of most homes. at 4 units per acre (typical suburban density) a grocery is within 3 miles of homes.
Please remember that, Dean.