I know there will be advancements in technology (automobile wise as well as others like solar/renewable resources) that will help those who are early adapters and our older technologies (70’s-90’s vehicles) will be fazing out as they need to be replaced. This will help reduce the carbon footprint of all residents here, not just the new ones moving into the area.

Air quality will always be an issue when you have a metro area nestled in a narrow valley. Its just geology and physics. Unless we just level all of the foot hils for a 30 mile radius. That might help and it would give more development land. Hooray! (sarcasm)

Hopefully if we can’t improve our air at least we can try and not make it worse as the area grows. I think that should be one of the top priorities. The unfortunate part is politicians only care about what will be noticed when they are in office and not about the people 5+ years down the road. That is someone else’s problem.

And makes a helluva lot more sense than those found on SUV’s (occupied by lone individuals) that urge: “No Blood for Oil”, “Coexist”, and so on, Ad Nauseam.

Until we discontinue rewarding the utilization of these infrastructure straining, resource wasting, Uber polluting vehicles and begin rewarding those who use sane vehicles and alternative transportation, nothing will change.

For God’s sake… The City Owned (spare me the CCDC distinction) Parking Garages can’t even bring themselves to enforce the “Compact Car ONLY” Parking Spaces. A Non-Policy Sorta-Secretly Mandated by Councilwoman cum Mayor Tertling-Payne who lives in the Washington Mutual Bank Building adjacent to the City Centre Garage.

Spaces which were “invented” back-in-the-day to reward conscientious citizens with choice parking spots, and are now just a way to “Up” the number of parking spaces available on the books.

Bown Crossing is a perfect example of what George is talking about.

In reality, I am afraid that horse left the barn a long, long time ago

But here’s a cheerful thought. The demographic experts project that the Valley will grow from the current population of ~600K people to roughly 1M people within the next 25 years (ball park estimates only).

If we could focus all of our efforts in reducing our communities’ carbon footprint by improving air quality alone (no recycling, no energy reductions, etc. – just actions that improve our air quality) – the change that would have to occur is monumental.

Not only would every new person moving to the Valley (all ~400K of them) have to live in such a way as to produce 50% less pollution emissions – every existing resident (living in their older homes, and still working at their current jobs) would have to reduce their emmissions by 33%.

Put in another way. Each and every one of us would have to drive 1/3 fewer miles from here on out – and every new person moving to the valley would have to drive 1/2 as much as each of us does right now.

The end result of all this belt tightening will be a net ZERO improvement to the valley’s air quality – nothing will improve, the air quality just won’t get any worse than it is today.

This assumes that cars will be just as polluting as they are today, but it also assumes that the additional electrical generation needed by those extra 400,000 people won’t degrade the air quality either (Fission, Solar, Hydro, Wind?). We would have to count on improving vehicle technology alone, to realize any air quality improvement.

The only mechanism capable of reducing our emissions’ “footprint” is by changing our land use patterns. And, not just for all the new comers – every existing residential subdivision would have to become more walkable and less monolithic in its use. No more exclusively residential neighborhoods – every neighborhood will have to have some level of office, retail, and service uses retro-fitted into it.

HOWEVER… you say, “Get the sinners out of their gas guzzlers, admit global warming is bad, stop building highways, live near your job, walk to Costco for those 48 rolls of toilet paper and 12 loaves of bread.”

I’m trying to decide if you’re serious, or if that should be taken tongue-in-cheek… or a little of both.

“Get the sinners out of their gas guzzlers.” Is there something wrong with that notion? (By the way, we’re all sinners!)

“Admit global warming is bad.” Might it be good? (By the way, I’m skeptical about humankind being the cause of global warming… but I’m pretty sure we’re causing the valley’s bad air. And I’d be shocked and awed if global warming didn’t come up tonight at the bad-air discussion.)

“Stop building highways.” Sounds good to me. More pavement isn’t the answer, or L.A. would have the fewest traffic problems. (I can’t imagine a fellow growthophobe would be in favor of MORE highways!)

“Live near your job.” Again… what’s wrong with that notion? My dad lived literally within eyesight of his office when I was a kid growing up in Boise. At 3.5 miles (by bicycle), I’m currently as far as I’ve ever been from work.

“Walk to Costco for those 48 rolls of toilet paper and 12 loaves of bread.” Frankly, that’s the only one that seems obviously facetious. But it illustrates how so many citizens tend to view transportation choices as an all-or-nothing deal. Sure, it makes sense to drive a car to Costco for that big shopping spree… but what does that have do with getting your sorry carcass and sack lunch to work 5 days a week? Is your need to go to Costco a couple times a month a valid excuse for ignoring any transportation option besides your Ford Expedition, for all your other trips as well?

Government and business can put incentives in place, to encourage people to make socially-responsible transportation choices. But as several other folks have pointed out, in our free society, ultimately it comes down to individual choice. As long as the vast majority of INDIVIDUALS are unwilling to adjust their personal habits (or feel that they’re already doing as much as they can), nothing will change in any significant way.

EDITOR NOTE–As usual, you make great sense. My post was indeed “a little or both” tongue in cheek and serious. Sorta like going to the doc and he says the sugar is a little high, you need to exercise, cut down on fats, and don’t smoke. EVERYONE knows it, but seldom do they actually follow through.

Finally, I think there is some middle ground to be had on cars, bikes, buses, etc. Clogging roads and “making it painful” helps no one.

These folks will just keep having their meetings and puffing their chests until they force it on us.

One must do a little historical due diligence with respect to the so-called Portland model. The Oregon state government was involved as far back as 1970 with Senate Bill 100. It is unlikely that the Idaho state gov’t will get involved with land use planning any time soon.

Then there’s Oregon Ballot Measure 37 of 2004 which was a backlash to the years of strict land use regulations. So what we think of when we think of Portland is something that was created in the 70s. The unintended consequences of Measure 37, which itself was an unintended consequence of strict land use, are just beginning to come to light and it’s not a pretty sight.

How would you anti-taxers like your tax money to be payed to developers not to develop land in the same way we pay farmers not to grow crops?

Regardless, the topic was air quality and we need to focus on realistic goals. As I’ve said before, emissions tests for 2C, vapor recovery fuel nozzles and closing the loophole for light trucks and SUVs are three such realistic goals. If you want to think more grandiose, then electric or hydrogen powered cars are a good start. Hell, anti-gravity cars powered by blender sized Mr. Fusion devices are about as realistic as strict land use planning in Idaho.

In other words, herding cats would be as easy a task as herding humans into a smaller and denser area ’round dees parts.

I agree with Cyclops comment about parking. Many downtown worker do not pay the full amount of their monthly parking bill. They are subsidized by their employer. A quick fix would be for employers to subsidize employees who find alternatives. Examples: full or partial payment of monthly bus pass, gift certificate from local bike shops.

The banking community is under enough scrutiny these days and they will be reforming the way mortgages are qualified. They can influence where people live by involving commute mileage in the loan calculation. The house that is $30,000 less in Nampa may not be cheaper when figuring gas and wear & tear.