"PATCH AND ROLL" - Sam Launches a City-wide Pothole Sweep, Neighborhood by Neighborhood

1: For the seventy some miles of unpaved roads do large gulleys count as pot holes ? Will the "Patch and Roll" address putting down new gravel to fill the gulley ?

A: No, unpaved roads don't count as potholes. We will not be putting down gravel on unimproved streets for several reasons. One is that it is not cost effective (more on this below). Another is that PDOT never accepted maintenance responsibilities for them - it accepts streets into its system when they are up to city design standards.

2: Has anybody thought that maybe the residents might prefer the gravel road to asphalt, curbs, sidewalks, bike lane, and loss of a more rural feel to their street.

A: Yes we have. We will not upgrade roads that people do not want upgraded. The reason we are looking at upgrading roads is that it is our biggest generator of calls and complaints. We are looking for ways to help out the many, many people who have contacted our office wanting to see their streets improved but who cannot afford to do so.

3. Gravel is less expensive that asphalt, so we should be able to "level and fill" all the unpaved streets for far less than "improving" only some.

That is what I thought at first,too, but it turns out to be wrong over the long run. Graveling roads ends up being a short-term fix; it requires re-graveling at least once a year and there is so much more maintenance that it is not cost effective vis-a-vis asphalt. Asphalt, on the other hand, does not need maintenance for years after it is put down, making it the smarter choice.

4. Gravel allows water to soak-in not run-off.

A: Well, yes and no. It is definitely more permeable than asphalt, but once the gravel-soil gets really compact, it can create a decent amount of runoff itself. When we construct streets, we make sure that stormwater is managed responsibly with swales and other facilities that ensure that runoff is contained.

Roland Chlapowski: Another is that PDOT never accepted maintenance responsibilities for them - it accepts streets into its system when they are up to city design standards......
......We are looking for ways to help out the many, many people who have contacted our office wanting to see their streets improved but who cannot afford to do so.
JK: I have a simple, proven solution:
1. Issue bonds to upgrade the streets.
2. Pay off the bonds by dedicating property taxes, due to the increased value of the homes in the area.

It is the same deal the city gave to the big, politically connected, developers in the Pearl and the SoWhat. Why not give it to ordinary people too? Let it benefit our neighborhoods, instead of just millionaire condo farms!

Thanks
JK

Jim,

Thanks for the suggestion. For the last three months, we have been in conversation with residents in Southwest Portland on just such an approach. State law limits us in what we can do short of creating an Urban Renewal District for streets but I believe we can get pretty close.

Yours,

Sam

I'm sensing a double standard here. I could be wrong, but I think Mr. Karlock believes that transit should not be subsidized. Yet he's OK with motorists getting their roads subsidized by property taxes.

Apparently you haven't been reading much here.

Portland DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE ROADS with property tax. It does, however use some road user money (parking meters) to subsidize transit.

Urban renewal districts do pay for some "transportation", mostly toy trains, in urban renewal districts. (That should never have been started and should be shut down ASAP.)

Thanks
JK

Since when did this become Jim's blog? It seems like he is taking up a great deal of space (for free) and his pedantic nature keeps other, more reasonable, people away.

Might I suggest a user fee on blog postings so that multiple posters begin to pay their own way? With as much as they post both JK and Terry ought to be able to make up for the bike "subsidy" in no time.

Thanks.

It is my belief that somewhere in a Roadway Engineering Manual their are designs and sections for durable gravel roads. When I asked about improving gravel roads years ago, I was told by a city engineer that there were NO city standards for gravel roadway and hence there could only improvement to the full blown asphalt/sidewalk/etc. etc. right-of-way improvement. My question is why doesn't the city have a gravel roadway standard? As mentioned in later replies in this thread, the village is the village because of the local environment, and some people, sometimes entire streets, want it to stay that way. ]

Commissioner Sam, could not the city transportation staff find a gravel roadway standard or family of gravel roadway standards and allow citizens to get a permit to fill in ruts and pot holes in their gravel street if they used "approved specification gravel"?

This doesn't have to be an ALL or NOTHING proposition
does it?

And I won't even revive my discussion of several months ago about how the city hauls gravel around day-in and day-out for its own projects.

Bryan,

Potland does have a program that gives adjacent property owners the ability to regrade and fill potholes in their gravel streets on their own, its called "Expanded Maintenance Options." All you need to do is take out a permit by calling Linda Williams at 503-823-7154. She can walk you through the process.

PDOT itself does not have "standards" for these roads because it does not maintain them (just like we don't have standards for other private roads and driveways). We do have guidelines and suggestions that we would be happy to share if you decide to go ahead with Expanded Maintenance Options.

http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=dfhbf&a=icgfd

Thank you for the specific information on resident
initiated road maintenance.

Bryan

You can also call street maintenance: 823-1700.