Addressing Major Transportation Priorities, Sam Seeks One-Time FundsPortland's transportation system is facing some serious challenges. Sam is setting out on a new path as he works to address them. ASSESSING THE ISSUES Sam has just about a year under his belt now in his new job as the Commissioner-in-charge of the Portland Office of Transportation. Over this past year, Sam and his staff have been taking a hard look at the state that Portland's transportation system is in. And to be frank, it is a pretty dreary picture that is coming into focus. Our population is booming, putting more demand on an already aging system. Our maintenance backlog is not getting any smaller, while the money available for regular maintenance is falling annually. Each year for the past 5 years, PDOT has had to cut its budget. This decline in PDOT's resources is happening for many reasons. For one, we are receiving less and less gas tax revenue from the state. Portland is a net donor of gas tax proceeds to the rest of the state; for every dollar Portlanders pay in gas taxes, only a fraction of that stays in the city- much of it subsidizes less populous parts of the state. And as those less populous parts of the state grow, they are taking more out of the state's pooled gas tax revenues, which Portland disporportionately contributes to. Also, each year, inflation eats about one cent of every gas tax dollar collected. Since we have not raised the gas tax in Oregon for over 10 years, this adds up. And asphalt prices are skyrocketing. Add in higher fuel and healthcare costs, and you can understand why it is hard to maintain the fleet of cars and workers necessary to satisfy all of the needs of maintaining the system. Just to give you an idea of the magnitude of what is looming in our transportation future, let's say we only address a portion of our entire backlog (which is currently growing). If all we did was take care of the overdue maintenance on the following list of city transportation assets:
We would be looking at a 5-Year Total of $216,879,516 - or, about $43,375,903 each year for five years. To put this in perspective, PDOT's overall annual budget is a little under $200 million. NEW CHALLENGES NEED NEW STRATEGIES. Clearly, we can't simply keep following the current course and hope that things get better. The status quo is not tenable nor sustainable, so Sam is attacking the problems with some strategies that are not in the normal playbook. First, though, he is doing the no-brainers to make sure that the money that PDOT does has is being spent as effectively as possible: going through PDOT's budget with a fine-tooth comb to find every efficiency that may exist within the bureau, setting out clear priorities for the limited budget, and looking at the organization's functionality as a whole. In response to the recent reports by the Auditor's Office which focus on the city's pavement practices, Sam has put together a task force that will address all of the issues outlined by the Auditor and have solutions in place within 60 days of the reports' release. PDOT is also undertaking a sophisticated "asset management" strategy, which will make sure that with the limited funds we have, PDOT invests in the right assets at the right time, to get the most bang for the taxpayers' buck. Next, he has begun working with his counterparts in other parts of the state to take a look at the issue of unstable transportation funding, which is really a problem state-wide. Meeting with elected officials at the state, local, and regional level, he is working with other localities facing similar problems in an effort to win more funding from the state level. Lastly, he is asking the Portland City Council for so-called "one-time funds." Soon, the city council will be making decisions on how to allocate roughly $14 million in unforeseen tax revenues. While there are a lot of needs, Sam will push hard for one-time money to go to Portland's transportation needs. NOT A BLANK CHECK PDOT will not be asking Council for a blank check, however. Sam is lobbying for a specific list of projects that are based on a few priorities and the best data available to PDOT. Sam has put together group of focused and strategic projects that will target Portland's most pressing needs. Each project Sam will seek funding for will advance one of three main Goals: 1) safety, 2) maintenance, 3) smart, strategic investments (paying for things now that will only get more costly in the future). SAFETY Sam's number-one priority as Commissioner-in-Charge of Transportation is safety. The projects that Sam is advancing are focused on Portland's 40 most dangerous and deadly intersections, and employing our most cost-effective engineering, education, and enforcement solutions. For instance, a $40,000 pedestrian island will cut the pedestrian collision rate by 40%, on average. For some corridors, such as SE 82nd and SE 122nd, where there are numerous hits and multiple deaths each year, these are a smart investment. PDOT has compiled all of its data on serious injury collisions -for all modes, cars, bikes and peds- and mapped them to give people an idea of how concentrated these collision hotspots really are. (For instance, just 4% of Portland's intersections account for fully two-thirds [66%] of all pedestrian fatalities in the city.) MAINTENANCE We are focusing PDOT's funds on Portland's main arterials and taking our emphasis off of neighborhood streets. Making these decisions is tough- but prioritization is necessary in this budgetary environment. We expect this to help address and work through the maintenance backlog on our major streets that currently exists. We are also seeking funds to assist low-income residents upgrade and pave unimproved, gravel streets. Unpaved streets are a persistent maintenance problem that will be at least partially addressed with this program. We've already planned and secured a funding commitment from Council to enact a city-wide sweep of all of Portland's streets that will fill every pothole, neighborhood by neighborhood, in the city. This will improve the life of the roads and is a smart investment, especially when we are de-emphasizing neighborhood streets to focus on our main roads. We have taken pains to make sure that we are asking for the most cost effective engineering, enforcement, and education improvements, that these projects are data-driven, and that the projects are equitably distributed across the city. Below, you will find data Sam has presented to state legislators, city council members, and others. It includes maps, a list of the specific projects that we are advancing, and information about PDOT's budget. Take a look, and let us know what you think. Did we forget an intersection that you think is key? Do you agree with our overall priorities? Any other observations, thoughts or feelings? Take a look and comment below. We appreciate your feedback.
Posted Sun, 11/05/2006 - 12:17pm.
Plan to widen I-5 south between Delta Park and Lombard?Submitted by Sam Adams on Mon, 11/06/2006 - 2:25pm.
Yes. We are seeking funding for it now. Groundbreaking in next two years. » reply
Course correction requires alt modes financially contributeSubmitted by Terry Parker on Fri, 11/03/2006 - 2:07pm.
“Our population is booming, putting more demand on an already aging system.” Not only more cars, but more bikes and more people using transit that also use parts of the same aging/deteriorating system. “For one, we are receiving less and less gas tax revenue from the state.” And still no direct revenues to help pay for infrastructure collected from the bicycling and transit modes of transport which are not taxed, and thereby contribute nothing financially to the system which then unfairly places the financial burden/responsibility on only a portion of users. “Since we have not raised the gas tax in Oregon for over 10 years, this adds up.” That unknown and hidden amount of money being spent to pay for specialized bicycle infrastructure also adds up as does the costs of wasting dollars on curb extensions. Both subtract needed resources that could otherwise go towards maintenance “Clearly, we can't simply keep following the current course and hope that things get better. The status quo is not tenable nor sustainable “ This only demonstrates the need for a bicycle tax and for transit fares to better reflect the costs of providing service including making contributions to the road fund. Clearly we can not expect to continue to have motorists alone financially support the demands of other modes of transport at the same time leaving motorist specific infrastructure unattended to and allowed to decay. Alternative modes of transport at the very least must be taxed for the costs to build and maintain the specialized infrastructure specific to mode, while taxes on motorists, including the gas tax, must be totally redirected and dedicated to roads and bridges, and only roads and bridges that motorists can use. » reply
How much?Submitted by Let's See on Fri, 11/03/2006 - 10:16pm.
Terry, Let's say that your ideas take root and that a bicycle tax is imposed. How many lane miles will that build? My guess is not many (not discounting your point). Once that is accomplished, what are your ideas for resolving the problem that will still exist- excessive demand, too few road miles? » reply
Transportation PrioritiesSubmitted by Bryan H. Ackler on Fri, 11/03/2006 - 3:21pm.
If all we did was take care of the overdue maintenance on the following list of city transportation assets: * All Arterial Streets » reply
MaintenanceSubmitted by Sam Adams on Thu, 11/16/2006 - 3:07pm.
Bryan, The information you ask for is in the attachments below. When we say "maintenance" we mean required maintenance based on survey inspections. Sam » reply
Bicyclists account for 4 toSubmitted by BURR on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 7:53pm.
Bicyclists account for 4 to 9% of road users, yet recieve only 1.6% of PDOT's budget. Everyone pays into the general fund whether they drive or not. PDOT's budget is already biased towards motorized transportation; bicyle projects benefit motorists, as well, whether they acknowledge it or not. More funding for bicycle improvements, please! » reply
bike-transitSubmitted by Aaron on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 7:58pm.
I will ignore the shouting for bikes-should-pay, transit-doesn't-pay, etc. since these comments quote opinions and not hard facts. Here are some of the latter. » reply
A ProblemSubmitted by Anthony on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 8:51pm.
Most people will drive regardless of the options available. I think this is why many people feel that transit should pay more of their own way and bicycles should be taxed. You can spend billions and trillions on transit and bike lanes and there will still be just as many people driving. Its a waste of money. » reply
Roland Thank you for finallySubmitted by paul on Mon, 11/06/2006 - 12:14am.
Roland Thank you for finally posting something about street maintainance. While I know you and Sam are big advocates of bicycle and public transportation, there are tens of thousands of Portlanders for whom bicycle and public transportation are simply not viable alternatives. I'm pleased to see you recognize the backlog in street maintainance, and look forward to continued posts that address the increasingly gridlocked streets faced by Portlanders. (Just one story for illustration: with all the street construction,my wife can now travel from Eastmoreland to Washington Square Mall in only a few minutes longer than it takes her to get from Eastmoreland to downtown. That is a big problem.) » reply
More choices is good, not badSubmitted by jim karlock on Mon, 11/06/2006 - 11:41am.
Paul: my wife can now travel from Eastmoreland to Washington Square Mall in only a few minutes longer than it takes her to get from Eastmoreland to downtown. That is a big problem. Thanks » reply
...Submitted by Roland Chlapowski on Tue, 11/07/2006 - 9:15am.
Jim, Paul says its a problem for him. They obviously would prefer to go downtown and if they are having problems getting there we need to address them. Paul- we hear you lound and clear and are working to address these systemic, though knotty, problems. » reply
Red Light CamerasSubmitted by Doug Mandell on Mon, 11/06/2006 - 11:57am.
I read a letter you wrote which was posted at http://www.portlandtransport.com, I'm very concerned that you'll be using this money to purchase Red Light Cameras. There's been a lot of research recently that indicates that lengthening yellow light times by as little as a second can cause a significant reduction in the number of cars that run a red light. Here's a quote from the Wikipedia page on red light cameras: In May 2001 Dick Armey, then Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives, issued a report suggesting that a more effective alternative to red light cameras would be to increase the yellow traffic light warning times. He suggested red light cameras exploited intersections where signal timing was shorter than necessary for some motorists to come to a complete stop (July 2001 U.S. House testimony). A 2004 Texas Department of Transportation study found, "crashes decrease with an increase in yellow interval duration and a reduction in speed limit." After 1.0 second was added to the yellow signal timing at test intersections, accidents dropped by 35 to 40%. This compares with a 6.4% reduction for "area-wide officer enforcement of intersection traffic control devices... during the time of the enforcement activity" You can read the study here: http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-4196-2.pdf Have you looked into lengthening yellow light times? My fear as that red light cameras will act less as a deterrent and more as a revenue generator for the city. Thanks » reply
Yellow light timingSubmitted by Doug Mandell on Mon, 11/06/2006 - 4:29pm.
Mr. Adams, You didn't in any way address the substance of my message, mainly that lengthening yellow light times has proven more effective in preventing accidents than installing red light cameras. So, have you investigated the potential benefits of lengthening the yellow light times at these six intersections? Have you tested lengthening yellow light times at ANY intersection where red light-related traffic accidents are higher than normal? » reply
Yellow LightsSubmitted by Sam Adams on Thu, 11/16/2006 - 3:12pm.
Doug, Sorry I missed it. I have asked staff to look into your yellow light suggestion. They will post their reply here. Sam » reply
Sam, Thanks for pushing aSubmitted by Lenny Anderson on Mon, 11/06/2006 - 2:29pm.
Sam, » reply
Thank you, Sam!Submitted by Jessica Roberts on Mon, 11/06/2006 - 11:50pm.
I'm very supportive of these reasonable, results-oriented approaches to improving traffic safety, reducing deaths and injuries on our roads, and providing Portlanders with real transportation choice. Thanks, Sam! » reply
Transportation budget prioritiesSubmitted by MIke Warwick on Tue, 11/07/2006 - 9:40am.
This is a tough issue. The focus of much of the budget is on maintenence of infrastructure that is used by regional and inter-state traffic, rather than Portlanders. Ideally, federal and state funds would pay for an appropriate fraction of those costs, instead, those funds are "too little" AND worse, earmarked for "bridges to nowhere" at the federal level and rural roads reflecting the over-representation of rural to urban legislators in Oregon. Once again, Portlanders are forced to pick up the bill for "free riders," as we are for education, etc. Obviously, some of this investment is required, regardless the funding source, but the City needs to make the point to the Legislature and Governor that it is subsizing roadways whereas the State budget is NOT significantly supporting Portland's other transit options. (And some of the readers of this blog need to realize this as well.) Given there is a shortage of funding for roadways and all other transit, and that this situation is unlikely to change, Portland should look "outside the box" at the "demand" side of the equation. If it had fewer lane miles of roads to maintain, it would be easier to keep up. The vast majority of Portland's roads are local access streets. ALL of these do not need to have 2 travel lanes and 2 parking lanes to service area residents. I recommend the City take a look at essentially » reply
Abandon streetsSubmitted by Sam Adams on Thu, 11/16/2006 - 3:19pm.
Mike, I appreciate your blog entry. I do not think most residents would support abandoning streets in front of their homes that they have paid to improve. But maybe others can weigh in with their thoughts. I have asked PDOT to look at whether or not we need to keep our street easements on unimproved right of ways. Sam » reply
Priorities Maintenance & Safety - Not Discriminatory PracticesSubmitted by Terry Parker on Wed, 11/08/2006 - 12:12am.
The highest priority on any list of one time funds needs to be reducing the backlog of maintenance, so street and road infrastructure does not deteriorate to the point of requiring even more costly repairs. Second on the list should be low cost creative ways such as re-striping, adding and extending left and right turn lanes, and changing signal timing at high crash rate intersections rather than the more expensive schemes. Red light cameras, for example, are not only expensive, but also discriminate against motorists. A true story case in point; as I rolled up to a stop at an intersection that has a red light camera, I watched as a bicyclist “sped” past crossing four lanes of traffic against the signal, no flash, no license plate to read and therefore no citation. Given this situation and the fact the bicycle mode of transport is not directly taxed to pay for bicycle infrastructure, I suggest the following slogan for PDOT: “Portland – The City That Works Harder to Discriminate Against Motorists”. As for what the one time money in any circumstance should NOT be used for: Curb Extensions!!! » reply
Another Reality CheckSubmitted by Terry Parker on Fri, 11/10/2006 - 12:33pm.
More propaganda for a socialistic agenda: Follow JC's hidden identity suggestions and you will be funding the creation of more congestion thereby assisting big oil by forcing motorists to burn more fuel; you will be funding the freeloading pedal pushers whereby it becomes hypocritical for you to even suggest increases in the gas tax; and you will be assisting the pyramid transit scheme since transit fares only cover about 20% of operational costs so somewhere down the road there will be anther big expense/bill that will undoubtedly be passed off to already overburdened taxpayers. » reply
A REAL Reality CheckSubmitted by Roland Chlapowski on Mon, 11/13/2006 - 1:45pm.
So Terry, You have to explain to me: why do you get so worked up about literally 1.5% of PDOT's budget, which has multiple funding sources, going to bikes, while you have no qualms with the fact that Portland taxpayers are subsidizing out-of-town transportation expenditures far, far more? Let me be clear- I am not advocating for any change in the current funding system- but if you say that bicyclists are freeloaders, why do you either have no problem with "poachers" from rural parts of the state, or if you do have a problem, why you don't focus on it at all? We are probably talking about something like between 10-30 cents on the dollar (which is a guess, I admit) for sending tax dollars out of Portland, whereas 1.5 cents on each tax dollar goes to bicycle-related stuff... If "poaching" is really your problem, then why do you focus on the much smaller issue of bicycles and ignore the much bigger "freeloader" that is "out-of-towners?" » reply
Get Real - Show Me the Total Money SpentSubmitted by Terry Parker on Mon, 11/13/2006 - 8:58pm.
Roland, A funny thing happens to most of us who live in Portland, on a somewhat of a regular basis most of us leave Portland and use those highways that take us to the coast or to the mountains or to other destinations throughout the state and beyond. Those who live outside Portland, and even out of state, do the same in reverse. Freight also moves in and out of Portland on that same highway system. All motorists that use the road systems, including freight carriers, pay taxes and fees that directly support the highway infrastructure throughout the state. All this movement adds to a healthy economy. On the other hand, bicyclists in the bicycle mode of transport pay zero, nada, nothing to support bicycle infrastructure, let alone making any form of financial payment for the roads they share with motor vehicles. Sharing the road must mean sharing the financial responsibility, not subsidized support (poaching) from another source, in this case motorists. As for the 1.5 percent (or about $700,000.00 to $800,000.00) of PDOT’s annual budget; get real, you continue to play a shell game to cover up the true amount of motorist paid taxpayer dollars spent on bicycle infrastructure in Portland. For example, the requests by the City of Portland to Metro in the MTIP: $1,872,800.00 (total cost $2,087,000.00) for Marine Drive Bike Infrastructure Rounded off that is "NINE" and a quarter million dollars requested for projects totaling "TEN" and a third million dollars within the City of Portland paid for by poaching motor vehicle taxes all for freeloading bicyclists that directly contribute ZERO tax dollars to help finance this specially designed infrastructure that can not be used by the financier motorists. Then, if you add those dollars to the costs of providing bicycle infrastructure hidden within the price tags of other projects like 102nd Av on the eastside, East Burnside, Cully Bv, Division St, the Hollywood Transit Center and many many others, the costs of subsidizing bicyclists balloon even more. Furthermore it is not the bicyclists that paid for that new confusing signal on East Burnside, and it is not the bicyclists that will pay to narrow the lanes on the Morrison Bridge only to add a bicycle route. Even when the money is in the form of a state grant, the dollars are being poached from motorist paid taxes. I have more than once requested that you Roland, as a policy advisor for Sam, provide and post a total (yearly) amount of dollars that are being spent to subsidize bicycling in Portland, You have yet to do so continuing to hide behind PDOTs budget that does tell the whole story. If you do not have those figures, then transportation funding in Portland is truly dysfunctional. Personally, I think you are too embarrassed to provide the figures because chances are every regular commuting bicyclist in Portland could probably buy a new car every year for the annual amount of money spent on bicycle infrastructure. By driving those cars daily instead of free pedaling, bicyclists would then actually be contributing to the economy and paying taxes for infrastructure instead of poaching off of other taxpayers for a financially subsidized ride. Continuing to mask a REAL reality check demonstrates your fear that providing the REAL numbers also will demonstrate the REAL need for a bicycle tax. » reply
Real.Submitted by Roland Chlapowski on Tue, 11/14/2006 - 6:44pm.
Terry, You know, that IS funny!!! What I take away from your above post is that as long as YOU might potentially sometime someday use the facility being built with your (and my) money, you don't care if the "tax poaching" happens (at least as long as it is for cars). But, if facilities are ever being built for those nasty socialist bicyclists (whom you will never join, you have made sure), it is baaaad. On your (and my) dime, it's fine by you for rural folks to construct roads that cost thousands of times more than a bikelane (even though they'll serve far fewer people will), well, ...just so long as they only drive (and never bike) on that road. It is a funny thing - that you don't dispute that those folks are NOT really paying for their roads. And it is a funny thing- you mention a whole lot of projects that are funded by federal tax dollars that are funded via many sources, including federal income taxes that we ALL pay, and try to pass that off as city money. A funny thing- you don't seem to care about the tax dollars of people who don't really leave Portland all that much being used for infrastructure they will never personally use. What about them, Terry? A funny thing- you don't seem to care that less air pollution and a healthier, more active populous makes Portland a better place to live with lower healthcare costs. Or about any other public benefits that may accrue by breaking our addiction to oil, which is funding terrorism, Mideast dictatorships, and damaging the environment. Terry. Please. » reply
Still awaiting an answer on spendingSubmitted by Terry Parker on Wed, 11/15/2006 - 8:11pm.
Roland, “On your (and my) dime” First off, if you are on a bicycle, you are not contributing a dime, and that is the problem. I also think you have “poaching” mixed up with funding a network of highways and roads. I do not consider it “poaching” if a portion of fuel taxes paid in Portland helps to fund a road or highway say in Southern or Eastern Oregon. Motorists in Southern and Eastern Oregon are also paying the same fuel taxes. Portland as a transportation hub city economically benefits from interstate commerce. That could not happen without some tax support from urban areas to rural areas for roads. The big difference between bicyclists and motorists is that motorists make financial contributions through taxes assessed on motor vehicles while bicyclists do NOT make financial contributions at all in that no tax exists on the bicycle mode of transport. Therefore, since no funding to support bicycle infrastructure comes directly from the user bicyclists, the dollars to sustain bicycle infrastructure is all being “poached” from other sources. The REAL funny thing however is that with all your rhetoric, including that transportation funding comes from income taxes, you continue to play the shell cover up game by failing to disclose the true total dollar amount actually being spent annually in Portland to subsidize bicycling. So here is a direct question: What is the annual amount of transportation dollars from any public source or program spent to support bicycling in Portland? It should be a matter of public record and not require applying the Freedom of Information Act to have this enormous dollar figure disclosed. And just one other note since you brought up the subject of dictatorships: Socialism (such as government attempting to control the way people live and move about) is a first step towards being a dictatorship. » reply
Terry says: First off, ifSubmitted by Dan Callaway on Thu, 11/16/2006 - 10:10am.
Terry says: First off, if you are on a bicycle, you are not contributing a dime, and that is the problem. My reply: I don't drive a car. I bike or take mass transit everywhere I need to go. I also happen to own a home and pay property taxes. I have job downtown where I also pay state and federal income tax. Some portion of all three of these taxes go towards funding towards an auto-centric infrastructure of which I have absolutely no need of what-so-ever. Each year, I contribute far more than "a dime" to support you and your habits, and yet I really don't mind. I understand that different people have different needs for transportation. Bicyclists do in fact pay taxes. They pay taxes to support an auto infrastructure that they do not use. These simple comments alone dispute every single arguement you have made on this page. You completely lack merit. You have a problem paying taxes for services that you do not use, but refuse to acknowledge that others pay taxes for services that YOU use but they do not. Honestly now, aside from cyber-space I can imagine no one who could or would ever take your arguements seriously. » reply
Tranist and Bike welfareSubmitted by jim karlock on Thu, 11/16/2006 - 11:24am.
Dan Callaway My reply: I don't drive a car. I bike or take mass transit everywhere I need to go. I Dan Callaway also happen to own a home and pay property taxes. I have job downtown Dan Callaway where I also pay state and federal income tax. Some portion of all three of these taxes go towards funding towards an auto-centric infrastructure Dan Callaway of which I have absolutely no need of what-so-ever. Dan Callaway Each year, I contribute far more than "a dime" to support you and your habits, and yet I really don't mind. Dan Callaway Bicyclists do in fact pay taxes. They pay taxes to support an auto infrastructure that they do not use. Dan Callaway These simple comments alone dispute every single arguement you have made on this page. Dan Callaway You completely lack merit. Dan Callaway You have a problem paying taxes for services that you do not use, but refuse to acknowledge that others pay taxes for services that YOU use but they do not. Dan Callaway Honestly now, aside from cyber-space I can imagine no one who could or would ever take your arguements seriously. Thanks » reply
Auto and highway welfareSubmitted by Dan Callaway on Thu, 11/16/2006 - 1:08pm.
No I do not work in government. I work in non-profit cancer research. Some examples of my tax dollars at work? You bet. 2.456% of my federal tax goes to the department of transportation of which the VAST majority does indeed go towards roads and highways (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/transportation.html). Additionally, 29 cents of every dollar I pay in property taxes goes to counties and districts to be spent on services that include, yes you guessed it, roads. (http://www.oregon.gov/DOR/PTD/property-dollars.shtml) Furthermore you seem to think I have problem with "those nasty roads." I do not. I've already said I don't mind paying taxes to provide infrastructure that I don't necessarily utilize. Would I request a bike medic? Of course not. Now you're just being silly! And lastly addressing this question of yours: >> Dan Callaway: You have a problem paying taxes for services that you do not use, but refuse to acknowledge that others pay taxes for services that YOU use but they do not. JK: Care to cite a credible example? << Huh? What are you talking about? YOU are the perfect credible example! You seem to have a big problem with some of your tax dollars going towards bike lanes, mass transit, etc. But yet, when it comes to the taxes I pay (some of which are referenced above) you seem to be a-ok and blissfully ignorant with the fact that it is ME who also subsidizes YOU. » reply
Property taxes do not pay for roads.Submitted by Terry Parker on Thu, 11/16/2006 - 4:10pm.
Property taxes in Oregon do not pay for roads. The exception is tax increment financing in urban renewal districts that helps to pay for transportation related infrastructure, but only within the specific urban renewal district where the property is located. So unless you live within the boundaries of an urban renewal district, and you have made significant improvements to your home that raised the value and the property taxes, then you are not paying for roads through your property tax. Furthermore, JK is correct in that 80% of your transit ride is subsidized by taxpayers, much of it through a payroll tax on Metro area employers and self employed people. Your fares only cover 20% of operational costs. Federal grants for transit that pay a portion of capital expenditures for the most part come from the federal tax on gasoline paid by motorists. Since currently there is no tax on the bicycle mode of transport, bicycle infrastructure is 100% subsidized to the bicyclist user. Without motorists subsidizing and paying your share of transportation expenditures, you would not have a late model bus to ride on or a bicycle lane to ride in. The transit and bicycling modes of transport need to become financially self-sustainable, and directly paid for by users, not subsidized by other taxpayers. » reply
Thanks car drivers for making my life better!Submitted by Dan Callaway on Fri, 11/17/2006 - 4:45pm.
>>>> Without motorists subsidizing and paying your share of transportation expenditures, you would not have a late model bus to ride on or a bicycle lane to ride in.<<<< Well, I don't really feel like arguing, so I guess I'll just say Thanks a lot for all you do to help people like me. You're the best! Seriously though Terry, while I certainly can't say I agree with your argument, I do understand and respect the point you are attempting to make. However, in the big scheme of things, all this hullaboo about subsidizing bikers is kind of like making an issue about patching a leaky roof when the dam just upstream is about to break. If you combine all taxes in the United States, the funds that go towards bikers and transit is a mere fraction of 1%. And no I cannot cite a source, but you know it's true. >>The transit and bicycling modes of transport need to become financially self-sustainable, and directly paid for by users, not subsidized by other taxpayers.<< The reality is that the United States, through various methods, subsidizes everything from farmers to airlines to oil companies, manufacturers, the medical industry and more. To see you so up in arms over something so insignificant, big-picture-wise, seems strange and illogical to me. » reply
OK I'll pay a bicycle tax......Submitted by Dan Callaway on Wed, 11/15/2006 - 4:58pm.
Terry, You are hysterical!! "Freeloading Pedal Pushers?" I love it! Me thinks the neighborhood bully ran over you with his bike when he was a child didn't he? I can't think of any other reason than that that could explain your rambling, utterly illogicial (albeit creative) rabid bicycle hating comments. I'll tell you what though. Just to be fair I will happilly pay a bicycle tax if you start paying a carbon tax for the thousands of pounds of pollutants you spew into the air, poisoning the air I breathe as you drive down the street blissfully unaware of the world around you; concerned only with your ego-centric vision of the way your world should be. » reply
Dan Callaway Terry, You areSubmitted by jim karlock on Thu, 11/16/2006 - 9:19pm.
Dan Callaway "Freeloading Pedal Pushers?" I love it! Dan Callaway I'll tell you what though. Just to be fair I will happilly pay a bicycle tax if you start paying a carbon tax Dan Callaway for the thousands of pounds of pollutants you spew into the air, poisoning the air I Thanks » reply
Elders in Action CommissionSubmitted by Vicki Hersen on Wed, 11/08/2006 - 2:58pm.
The Elders in Action Commission appreciates the efforts to improve pedestrian and traffic safety with the one-time funds. All efforts to help make Portland an “Elder Friendly” City to better meet the growing senior population are greatly appreciated. We have been delighted to work with Mark Lear, Sharon White, and Greg Raisman, Kirsty Hall and Donna Greene at PDOT on the : Safe Routes for Seniors, Senior Strolls, Senior Walking Challenge, and the new Senior Bike Program. These efforts to provide for safer walking places for seniors to get to their local services and to the bus stop, as well as improve their physical activity have been great. The slowing down for the crossing time at Traffic Lights by PDOT engineers has been especially helpful, as well as pedestrian islands on busy streets. We appreciate the work the PDOT and other Bureaus do to help implement the recommendations that the Elders in Action Commission made and that were unanimously approved by City Council in 2004. These efforts make a better City for all! We look forward to working with you and to hear more about the final projects to be funded. » reply
SpeedSubmitted by Ross Williams on Thu, 11/09/2006 - 9:48am.
I think the key safety improvement that can be made is to reduce vehicle speeds. The difference between 15 mph and 25 mph is the difference between bruises and death for pedestrians and bicyclists. Lowering the design speed to 15 mph will not significantly reduce motorist's mobility for the short, local trips that city streets mostly handle. But it will substantially improve the safety of everyone. » reply
Another damage the economy idea from the transit lobbySubmitted by jim karlock on Fri, 11/10/2006 - 4:29pm.
Ross Williams I think the key safety improvement that can be made is to reduce vehicle speeds. The difference between 15 mph and 25 mph is the difference between bruises and death for pedestrians and bicyclists. Lowering the design speed to 15 mph will not significantly reduce motorist's mobility for the short, local trips that city streets mostly handle. But it will substantially improve the safety of everyone. Thanks » reply
safety initiativesSubmitted by Lidwien Rahman on Sat, 11/11/2006 - 8:05pm.
The Willamette Pedestrian Coalition wholeheartedly supports the proposed funding for a number of safety initiatives. Our highest priorities are the Pedestrian Safety Improvements, Safe Routes to Schools Improvements, Crosswalks for Main Street Corridors, and Traffic Signal Upgrades and other SE 122nd Avenue Safety Improvements. In addition we urge you to pursue strategies for addressing driver distraction, including the use of cell phones while driving. WPC is very excited to see this follow-up of the Safety Summit. We would like an opportunity to participate in the selection of the specific improvements to be funded if the funding initative is succesful, and would be happy to testify in fromt of City Council to make it happen. » reply
Lidwien Rahman: InSubmitted by jim karlock on Sat, 11/11/2006 - 9:00pm.
Lidwien Rahman: In addition we urge you to pursue strategies for addressing driver distraction, including the use of cell phones while driving. Never wear dark colors at night. Always LOOK before stepping in the street. Keep looking when in the street. These three simple steps can stop most ped - bike (or auto) accidents. Lets throw in some tips for bike safety: 2. Headlights should be as visible as motorcycle head lights. There is no technical reason that you cannot be that well lit with today’s technology. It may save your life. 3. Tail lights too. Very few are anywhere as visible as car tail lights. Again, if you get hit, it might not be you fault, but it’s your body that gets hurt. (Remember those four bikers run down by a drunk on 39th a couple years ago. The police found only one (or two) lights among the four bikes. Do you think they might not have been hit if each was lit up like a SUV? Its your life. Keep in mind that biking is around ten times as dangerous as driving - stop making it even more dangerous. Thanks » reply
Where do you get the baloneySubmitted by Jesse O on Mon, 11/13/2006 - 4:07pm.
Where do you get the baloney stat that biking is ten times as dangerous as driving? » reply
Jesse O characterized aSubmitted by jim karlock on Thu, 11/16/2006 - 2:14am.
Jesse O characterized a thing he didn’t like to hear as baloney : However, since you so kindly and considerately asked, I googled and found this: Since one mile=1.61 km, our 1.47 per 100 million miles would be .91 fatalities per 100 million km (divide 1.47 by 1.61) I found a chart of European bike fatalities showing various countries bike fatialites as varying from 1.6 to 11 per 100 million km depending on country. See fig 6 of: So, European bike fatalities vary from 1.8 to 12.1 time American auto fatalities. Perhaps you would like to find auto fatalities for the listed European counties and do ratio for each county. No baloney » reply
We like downtown, but it must be convenientSubmitted by paul on Mon, 11/13/2006 - 11:51am.
Roland knows me and understands my post. We're pleased to have Wash Sq Mall as an alternative. It receives national plaudits. It's a great mall in a wonderful location. But for us to be able to get from front door to storefront at a Mall that is, literally, on the other side of town, more quickly than we can to the downtown mall that is probably 2 miles as the crow flies... well that is a problem for us, and for the long term vitality of Pioneer Place. Maintaining movement on the arterials (such as 39th, 26th, Holgate); monitoring street projects so that downtown is not a parking lot; providing easy alternative paths to downtown (say parking just over the river and rapid streetcars)--these are all alternatives that will bring these shoppers back downtown. (That and a WalMart. HA HA! Gotcha!) » reply
Post new comment |
NavigationGet Our UpdatesRecent blog postsSam's Snapshots
Recent comments
 Popular contentToday's:  Syndicate |
Home |
Sam's Calendar |
Sam's Priorities |
Sam's Portfolio |
I Want To... |
Your Neighborhood |
Archives
PRINT
Road widening
Although public transportation seems to be the highest priority for city government what is being done to improve (widen) roads in and around downtown? I work in an industry that requires me to use a truck. I cannot take mass transit but it cost me money to travel into Portland. Most of my business in in and in the immediate area of downtown.
Is there a plan to widen I-5 south between Delta Park and Lombard to 3 lanes? The improvement to the Kerby off ramp from I-405 North will be a huge improvement to this bottleneck area.
Thanks for taking the time to address these issues.
John Jackson
Portland