How’d Oregon do in TIGER II?

I’d be interested to hear if any impressive bike projects elsewhere received major funding.

Bummer to see that the Metro proposal did not make the cut. We could have used those improvements.

So, does that mean Metro’s newest application was also shot down? The article doesn’t make that clear.

I’m wondering the same thing… makes it seem like the newest application will go through in the next round…

I understand the electric cars can have a slow charge or a fast charge. The fast charge damages the batteries. If you want to go somewhere (crater lake?) you can drive for something like 75 miles do a long slow charge then go 75 more miles…. It sounds like a bicycle would be faster.
It’s too bad they want to close down the boardman coal plant, we could use the power. The coal we aren’t going to burn will be shipped to China so they can have power there, and still make smoke in the air.

Re: electric cars.

Electric cars are a step in reducing and eliminating the use of cars.

You’re not going to be able to force enough people to give up their cars through direct energy costs. You have to make the area like Manhattan: people have to think it is their idea.
If the area streets are all but impassible by car, it is excessively expensive to park and lots of time is wasted then people will willingly stop driving there.

Our century long expansion of sub-urban growth anchors the long range ICE car in our list of “needs” and “wants”. As more people have cheap short range electric cars density will increase encouraging less use of longer range vehicles. This will lead to less sprawl and better dense urban planning which will further perpetuate the cycle of tightening our cities back to economically supportable footprints.

This process will likely be slow; on the order of 25-50 years.

In the mean time I think the politicians are only thinking of “jobs first”.

@q`Tzal

It’s certainly one viewpoint on e-cars. However, I see e-cars getting the same sort of massive subsidies that have helped perpetuate the car culture. How does cheap electricity lead to reduced trips? It doesn’t. Especially if pols make a huge effort to install enough charging stations. If a car has a reliable 75 mile radius it really does nothing to reduce sprawl at all. Instead the way to discourage drivers is to shift more of the true cost of driving on to them. (Or extending the tax credits to bikes.)

Essentially the things you’re talking about in terms of contatining sprawl have nothing to do with e-cars, but larger land use plans. And there are plenty of funding mechanisms for cars already. E cars worry me because they seem like an easy out for pols to be “green” while at the same time doing the lazy thing. I do hope you’re right, of course.

#11 Andrew

I agree in theory.
A lot of what I portend depends on driver psychology; in that no one wants to be stranded and dependent on someone else to be able to get where they need to go.
So while a 100, 75 or even 30 mile range may be perfectly doable most drivers they won’t feel comfortable unless they are certain that they can get their (insert energy source here) and get home.

By dint of the current state of the technology of electrical energy storage and the almost complete lack of an electric car recharging infrastructure, compared to the petro refueling infrastructure, auto drivers will continue to be afraid to stray to far away from urban areas.

My particular angle is to undermine every little convenience that gives the modern American auto system staying power. If some of those things are esoteric psychological underpinnings so be it.

I’m assuming that the area between Beaverton and Hillsboro is Aloha. Huge potential for a bike network since its relatively flat and has a grid street pattern for most of it.