Meet the new gridlock, worse than the old gridlock. (closing, to live)

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

Statistics Library - Health Statistics Archives | PeopleForBikes

There is a lot of research on this topic if you care to learn more about it. So you don't have to take my word for it..

There's just as much research that suggests otherwise.

Air Pollution | Cycling in Cities

I'm not sure I said that driving was my only option. I think you're misunderstanding something, or twisting things again.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

There's just as much research that suggests otherwise.

Air Pollution | Cycling in Cities

I'm not sure I said that driving was my only option. I think you're misunderstanding something, or twisting things again.

All that says is that if you are biking in high traffic volumes, then you received more pollutants than biking in low traffic volume. Most bike routes in Portland are along low traffic volume.

That study doesn't say anything about taking in more pollutants than other people that commute other ways. When you sit in traffic in a vehicle you are also breathing in those pollutants from the traffic.

[Metlakatla]

It says this:

Active transportation is a non-polluting form of transportation, and is increasingly encouraged by public health agencies as a way to improve air quality as well as physical fitness. While exercise is promoted as healthy behaviour, cyclists may experience high doses of air pollution due to their elevated breathing rates and cycling in proximity to traffic, especially during periods of elevated air pollution.

I don't sit in traffic in a vehicle, and I don't bike, so I'm not too worried about damaging my lungs during a commute.

[Metlakatla]

Oh, and thanks for the rep, whoever you are. I know what you mean.

Hopefully, Portland and the rest of Oregon will implement a bicycle licensing system soon.

Anyway, urban, you've done a lot of projecting and twisting throughout this thread. Some of your claims simply aren't true, such as the one about driving being my only option. I never said that. I don't know if it's deliberate, or if you've got reading issues, or what, but I'd rather have this sort of conversation with someone who didn't get so many things wrong. Have a great day.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

Oh, and thanks for the rep, whoever you are. I know what you mean.

Hopefully, Portland and the rest of Oregon will implement a bicycle licensing system soon.

Anyway, urban, you've done a lot of projecting and twisting throughout this thread. Some of your claims simply aren't true, such as the one about driving being my only option. I never said that. I don't know if it's deliberate, or if you've got reading issues, or what, but I'd rather have this sort of conversation with someone who didn't get so many things wrong. Have a great day.

Sorry you think I am doing that, I can only go off what you type. Clearly I am wrong, you must commute via foot and don't sit in traffic. Good for you, I bike and also don't need to sit in traffic, nor do I bike in heavy traffic so it doesn't effect my health level.

I have yet to see a bicycle license pan out where the cost covers the program as well as produce enough money to pay for bicycle infrastructure, I would rather it be an option on our state taxes.

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

Sorry you think I am doing that, I can only go off what you type.

No, you can't, obviously, because you don't. Again, nowhere did I type that commuting in a car was my only option, yet you chose to make that claim. There are plenty of other examples in this thread of the same type of thing. You were going to report someone for mentioning that you used to live in New Jersey? Really? Maybe it's a game, maybe you really do have reading difficulties. I'm not sure anyone here really cares anymore.

I have yet to see a bicycle license pan out where the cost covers the program as well as produce enough money to pay for bicycle infrastructure, I would rather it be an option on our state taxes.

I'm sure you would. However, I'd rather see bike licenses, especially for those of you who think everyone else should fund their bike paths. Oh, and so if someone "on a bike" commits a crime, LE has at least some chance of tracking them down. It would also be great if they had to have an actual license to operate the bike on public roads that required a both a written and physical riding test.

[karlsch]

Originally Posted by VTHokieFan

You refuse to see Portland through anything but optimistically biased and rose colored goggles don't you?

Urbanlife's way of seeing Portland is the right way - don't believe your lyin' eyes - believe that nothing is bad about Portland.

[JXBC]

Having moved here from San Francisco last November... the traffic in the Portland area is nothing compared to California's metro areas. That's all I'll say.

[Yankeemama]

Originally Posted by JXBC

Having moved here from San Francisco last November... the traffic in the Portland area is nothing compared to California's metro areas. That's all I'll say.

Yes, that's true. San Francisco Bay Area's population is over six million. What is Portland Metro's population? Yes, for a medium sized metro... our traffic is bad.

[colganc]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

The solution for traffic isn't always more roads. If that is the case the Portland metro would be filled with interstates carving up everything that people love in Portland that makes the city a very bikeable city.

Do not assume that this means I think there should be no cars in Portland and everyone should be on bikes. That is not what I am talking about.

No where did I accuse you of thinking that. Please address my core statement(s) revolving around transportation resource allocation in Portland currently being non-optimal and too focused on bikes and light rail. Your viewpoint as far as I can tell is very similar to what politicians and transportation planners in metro and the city of Portland are currently. It is hampering the growth of job options and increasing the cost of living.

I will try to help you focus even if you don't like these questions maybe it will help you communicate your position more clearly so I can understand the logic behind it:
- are you saying the current resource allocations away from road infrastructure is appropriate?
- do you want the balance even further from roads?
- are more roads going to help or hurt economic growth?
- are less roads or same roads along with more bikes and light rail going to help or hurt economic growth?
- can we build more roads and more bikes and light rail infrastructure (currently this is not happening)?
- is an increased cost of living a concern?
- if more bike and light rail infrastructure increases cost of living is it an ok trade off?
- does it matter if people of lower economic means are unable to live in Portland?