|
LAYING IT ON
THE LINE The alignment selected by the region will make North/South fast and reliable. It will help relieve traffic congestion. It will provide 42,000 rides per day and reduce air pollution by 485 tons per year and greenhouse gas emissions by 20,000 tons per year. South/North will reduce auto trips by 6.3 million per year in one of the region's most congested corridors. It's important to note that the region's elected governments, in consultation with their citizens, decided where to locate the line. After long deliberations--including consideration of Mr. Polani's proposal--the city of Portland and Metro decided to locate North/South MAX across a new Willamette River bridge and down the Transit Mall. Mr. Howell and Mr. Polani participated in these processes. Why not bypass the Mall and use existing track on 1st Avenue? Because it won't work. The number of trains that will serve Downtown from all four directions in the rush hour simply can't be accommodated on a single 1st Avenue alignment. That's why a second line, running north and south through downtown, has been part of the City's plan from the beginning. Putting that second line on the Transit Mall carries out the Downtown plan's vision of having the highest level of transit service where the most people are. Why not eliminate the new light-rail bridge and instead use the Hawthorne Bridge for South/North? First, because such an alignment would bypass North Macadam, Riverplace, PSU and the entire south end of Downtown, eliminating an estimated 4,000 rides per day from the line. Second, the Hawthorne Bridge opens for river traffic more than any other bridge--as often as 20 times a day, for eight minutes at a time--making the light-rail schedule unreliable. Third, the Hawthorne Bridge would need substantial seismic strengthening at significant cost. Ray Polani and Jim Howell are longtime supporters of transit. But MAX's supporters shouldn't have to wait for sailboats. MAX shouldn't miss 21,000 students at PSU or Downtown's high-employment spine along the Transit Mall. The region has made a wise and considered alignment choice that will provide the best service to the most people. Bob Stacey POWER IN THE
HANDS OF FEW Social considerations will take a back seat, as they do in most deregulated areas. Low-cost, reliable electricity may not be available to everyone. There may be no incentive for the electric companies to provide low-cost electricity to everybody. Because the cost per customer will be higher in rural and low-income areas, electricity may be more expensive there. Also, there may not be an incentive for the distribution companies to maintain lines in difficult areas. The result could be rural and poor ratepayers may face frequent outages. Current thinking is the "Three Sovereigns" will govern the Columbia River and the dams. They will be unelected representatives from the 4 States, the Tribes, and the Federal Government. That leaves Oregon only a small voice in the governance of the Columbia River and its dams. We will have a powerful new governing body that is not responsible to the voters in any reasonable way. They will be responsible to the people that APPOINT them. Our electricity prices will probably be bid up by electric utilities from other parts of the United States that have higher electricity costs. The Department of Energy estimates our electricity will increase over 20% because of competition with other areas of the country (DOE/EIA-0614, "Electricity Prices in a Competitive Environment," August 1997). Both Washington and Idaho have had "Power Summits." It may be time for Oregon to have a similar conference, open to the public. This might spur citizen involvement in the "Northwest Chapter" of federal legislation now being drafted to restructure the electric power utilities. It might also emphasize the role of the Northwest Power Planning Council's Northwest Energy Review Transition Board and the possible fate of Bonneville Power Administration. And, of course, who will pay the stranded costs? (Hint: It won't be the utilities.) Anyway, based on Mr. Feit's article, I have bought some shares of Enron. It seems like a pretty good bet they will get their way. John Broderick TWO-STROKE HARMONY Although the author of this article does express the fact that personal watercraft do use 2-cycle engines that are significantly less efficient than their 4-cycle cousins, I believe singling out PWC as a major source of the pollution in the Willamette River is a gross exaggeration. We are all aware of the raw sewage dumped into the Willamette River during rainstorms. Toxic waste resulting from dredging is being dumped into the lagoon at Ross Island as an inexpensive alternative to trucking this waste to a site better suited for disposal of such waste. I am certainly not advocating polluting our environment, rather simply pointing out the PWC are not the major contributor the author charges. As the author indicated, there are many "conventional" boats on the Willamette River utilizing 2-cycle engines, adding to the pollution problem. Although the 4-cycle engines utilized by boats are more fuel-efficient, they also contribute to the pollution problem. A sideline to the article indicated that, although the EPA has passed a rule to force PWC manufacturers to build more efficient (and less polluting) engines, PWC manufacturers are not working toward that objective. This is not the case. Major PWC manufacturers are currently working to design and test new engines that will work more efficiently, yielding less pollution. The author was also concerned about the noise level of the PWC. PWC manufacturers have also been working to reduce the noise level of PWC. There is also a noise restriction imposed while operating PWC. If you've ever heard a high-power conventional boat roaring down the river with "uncapped headers," you know the noise level from PWC pales in comparison. With regard to restriction, PWC are already severely restricted on most rivers in Oregon. The Willamette and Columbia rivers are two of the last rivers where PWC operators may enjoy our sport. We are also severely restricted on lakes, reservoirs and bays--restrictions not shared by users of "conventional" boats. Further restriction of only PWC is unfair and will not solve the noise or water pollution problems of the Willamette River. Willamette Park and Sellwood Waterfront Park are some of the more popular sites for PWC users. With this in mind, if PWC bother you that much, there are many other areas of the Willamette where PWC are seen much less often. There's enough area for us all to share in the river experience and coexist in harmony. David Potts, WAR BY DESIGN The story behind the leaf is a rather limited, yet sincere analysis of Ballot Measure 67, otherwise known as "The Oregon Medical Marijuana Act" (OMMA). The Antiprohibition League supports M67 and urges everyone to vote yes on it. In fact, we and other groups have already registered and informed thousands of voters not only about M67, but also about our opposition to Measure 57 (marijuana recrim) and Measure 61 (property crimes mandatory minimums). Our collective goal is to register 100,000 antiprohibition voters in time for this November's election. The League's contribution to this effort, limited as it may be, is all volunteer as usual. Please remember this last point when M67 detractors try to tell you it has no grass-roots support. Defeating M57 and M61 and passing M67 are important League priorities right now, yet they should be kept in perspective to the bigger drug-policy disaster. Our government--at all levels--is waging an insane and duplicitous "war" which cost us over $17 billion a year at the federal level alone. Yet, according to Richard L. Harris, director of Hooper Detox, which is the largest public treatment provider in town, we don't even have enough slots in Portland to handle 10 percent of the heroin-addict population seeking help at any given time. Some of them, as we recently saw, reach the end of their rope...around their necks hanging from a bridge. But most hardcore addicts (a minority of all users) just go on committing petty crimes, going in and out of jail, buying and selling dope to an ever younger clientele. All at the expense of our collective security and freedom today, while ensuring yet another generation will propagate America's "drug problem" well into the next millennium. Ironic that the only groups who benefit are the drug cops and the drug cartels. I suggest that is more by design than accident. Floyd Ferris Landrath, Director SMOKE THIS,
SHERIFF What a callous, horrible thing to say. The man is clearly an idiot, but that is no excuse to be completely without compassion for the millions of people who suffer from the many forms of this terrible disease. No, Sheriff Dan, bourbon and cigar smoke only help if you're a politician with your head up your ass. Many of the drugs I'm given to deal with the pain and nausea of this disease and its treatments are far more addictive and potentially dangerous than marijuana. If safe and legal pot was made available, I, and many others, would be grateful for the option. Steve Sandoz THE PRICE OF
LEMONS IS UP After 30 years in law, I have found very few consumers who are even aware of the existence, let alone the critical effects, of mandatory arbitration clauses. Many young lawyers who represent consumers are also surprised to learn that the private arbitration system designated by car dealers has some serious process flaws. One clarification, however: The quote attributed to me about costs reaching $600 per party was meant to be the amount a consumer might pay just to get an arbitration started. It is not unusual--by the time an arbitration is completed--for a consumer's portion of the fee to exceed $2,000. For example, one of my clients was billed $2,118.75 while proving that the new car she bought was a "lemon." Edward J. Benett, past chair
originally published August 26, 1998 |
