A whole lotta engineering, and A little bit of magic...

JK,

When are you going to answer the same questions that you have asked countless others and that you refuse to answer? What do you have to hide?

This is all hindsight now, of course, but the tunnel plan did have some advantages.

The tunnel would have been small and only a single tube, so not nearly as expensive to produce as an automobile or rail tunnel.

The advantage would have been the ability to place elevators anywhere along the tunnel, not just at OHSU, to connect with transit on Barbur, for example, or connect the neighborhood west of I-5 to the waterfront (a pedestrian bridge is slated to do that now... with the tunnel, the bridge would not be required.)

The tram does not have this connectivity, but what it does have is a stunning view and a fast trip time to OHSU, faster than any other proposal.

- Bob R.

Jane,

What I consider bullying is the fact that the city spends motorist paid gas tax dollars to build curb extensions on main thoroughfares so busses then stop for passengers and block other traffic instead of pulling over to the original curb lines and letting other vehicles pass. I consider TriMet busses the big bullies of the road and for that reason refuse to ride them. Streetcars stopping for passengers in motor vehicle travel lanes pose the same bullying problem. The fact that TriMet fares only cover a little more than 20% of the operating expenses in a form of bullying to those who pay for it and do not use it, The fact streetcar operations are subsidized by parking meter revenues is a form of bullying to the people who park downtown. The fare structure for the taxpayer subsidized tram whereby TriMet and streetcar pass holders can ride the tram free while all other members of the public must pay a $4.00 round trip fare is heavy weighted bullying. I also consider it a form of bullying when a portion of motorist paid gas taxes pay for bicycle infrastructure and that there is a total refusal on the part of Sam and others in transportation planning to directly tax bicyclists, or even poll the poll the public with a undirected question. Furthermore, Sam and Metro want to raise the gas tax for exactly who knows what, but at the same time this siphoning of gas tax dollars continues. That too is bullying, big time!

I am not opposed to the concept of transportation options, however those who use them should pay for them and those who do not should not be bullied into subsidizing those who do – and adding or updating transportation option to a street or corridor should not negatively impact the transportation modes already using the street like curb extensions and bicycle lanes often do.

Silly little man!

The City of Portland and PDC build ballparks, eco-roofs, esplanades, trams, trolleys, and theatres. They don't build sidewalks: not sexy enough.

But if you and your neighbors would simply form a local improvement district, they are happy to charge you twice the market rate to improve your streets and sidewalks (you can't do one without the OTHER!). They'll even put a lien on your house and let pay over the next 15 years.

Who cares if the payments as big as a Subaru and costs twice as much...If you can't afford it....Finance it.

ALSO: if you and your neighbors would like to sell your little hovels for assessed value, I'm sure we can find a developer who is willing to tear them down and put up some low-rise condo towers. You can't stand in the way of progress.

Sidewalks! Sheesh.

I did my own sidewalks with my own contractor. The city gave me a loan at a good rate to pay for it. My realtor freind says it increase the value of my house by twice what I paid to put them it.

At least when a bus is full and things are busy they can (and will) send another bus. With light rail, streetcars and trams - you're stuck with the limited amount of space in the vehicle, can't add any more cars. So during the un-busy times they travel almost empty and during rush hour, they can't stuff everyone on board.

Portland could have and should have done better than light rail, streetcar and trams - a HUGE waste of transportation dollars.

TriMet can and does dispatch extra trains during peak hours. They also schedule extra trains during special events.

There is nothing preventing extra trains from leaving the yards (there are two, eastside and westside) -- just as easy as dispatching a bus, except that the train holds many more people and requires the same level of staffing.

The fact that light rail trans are full at peak hours is evidence of their popularity.

At peak hour, there is a 2-car train every 3 minutes (counting both directions). This would require 4 or more buses to carry the same capacity, meaning a bus every 45 seconds. Not only does this require much additional staffing, it leads bunching, overcrowding, schedule unreliability and other logistical problems.

- Bob R.

Any chance of you paying your real cost of $1.67 per passenger-mile (about 2/3 that of taxi fare, neglecting taxi's 2.50 boarding fee)

Thanks
JK

Are you interested in comparing total cost per transit vs automoble passenger mile?

I'm sour over those as well, but let's be clear about the root causes of these seriously underfunded issues.

Schools: Measures 5 & 50
Jails: Measure 11
Roads: Federal and state declining revenues, with state gas taxes stagnant for over 15 years.

Barking up the wrong tree never helped anyone.

Schools: generous teacher's retirement benefits coupled with declining enrollment and too many teachers. Hundreds of millions diverted by Condo Farm tax abatements, and TIF "free money".

Jails: spent $60 million to build Wapato, never opened. Revolving door jails and underfunded state justice and county probation supervision/monitoring leads to a "catch me if you can" mindset for criminals and first time offenders alike.

Roads: spent BILLIONS on light rail, trolleys, esplanades, and traffic calming devices. Not to mention the black-hole that is Tri-Met and the Port of Portland's budget.

Schools: You're just plain wrong.

Jails: Wrong. Wapato funding came from the sale of voter-approved bonds. Yet, we're losing a fortune because the state (burdened by Measure 11 inmates) fails to reimburse the county to the tune of some $22M/year. Also Measure 11 has put the state on the hook for nearly 5,000 extra beds than we would have needed. Where'd that funding come from? From school budgets, and other such needed services.

Roads: Port of Portland's airport operations are self-sustaining. Property taxes are but 10% of their operations, averaging about $18 annually per household. Frankly, I'm just too tired to look up any more how wrong you are.

give it up. The Portland school system has been flush with cash. Why else would their teachers get the 14th highest average salary and the highest benefits package in the U.S.? To the tune of over $60,000. What's more galling is that Portland school enrollment has decreased! Still, all we hear are from people like you blaming M5 for funding woes.

Maybe you should take a peek at the multitude of UR districts and TIF projects in Portland and educate yourself as to the real reason property taxes aren't funding Portland schools like they used to.

Or you could ask yourself why Charter schools are educating kids at half the cost of public.

(sarcasm on)

Why, Chris, you've found the culprit. Those thieving teachers make a bit more than median income, and their benefits cost over $25/day per teacher! Oh, the humanity! All our problems are clearly due to teacher salaries! Why, cut their pay by 25% and just watch the quality education increase!

(sarcasm off)

Regarding charter schools, please show me a charter school which, like the public schools, has to accept and care for just about any student, and spends half per student what the public does, and achieves at least the same outcomes.

- Bob R.

Yep Bob, you're right, teacher pay is not all the problem, but is a large part of it. There's also administrative pay and bennies, overstaffing, redundant/nonessential curriculum and inefficiencies.

I don't know about you Bob, but most individuals I know make less than $60k a year.

And to answer your pithy questions; Charter schools accept and care for just as many at risk and special needs kids as public -- sometimes more so. They also, by law, have to abide be the school boards standards. And I know for a fact they spend less per student than public.

I don't know about you Bob, but most individuals I know make less than $60k a year.

It's not about most individuals, it's about responsibilities, duties, qualifications, and experience. Of the working professionals that I know, with educational backgrounds and daily responsibilities similar to teaching, several make more. And your $60K figure, in the case of Portland teachers, includes benefits.

I agree with you partially about extra staff and layers of administration. Portland has more school buildings per student than districts like Beaverton, and they have been closing and consolidating schools. By closing schools, some positions become redundant (# of principals, number of counselors, nurses, janitors, etc.) and can be eliminated. But, you can see just how popular those decisions have been. (Not very.)

As for your comment on Charter schools, you have backed down from your original assertion. You claimed that charter schools could educate for HALF the money. I asked you for proof, just an example of one school, and not only did you fail to provide an example, you now state that they "spend less per student", but that's backing way down from claiming "half".

- Bob R.

You nailed those topics with data sources. I love it.

I realize we all have tough financial times, both the taxpayer and state. Saying CoP can't do it because of these measures is not accurate either.

Mr Adams, through "novel" financing has been intimate with these projects:
1) PGE Park - He/Vera managed to get $35M to re-build a run-down park at the behest of two wanna-be sport impresarios
2) Armory Theater - Built a new theater for a theater company with a prefectly good space in the Newmark, but financially never got much above break-even and CoP is going to guarantee them a $35M loan.
3) The TRAM - $65M+ with OHSU, 'nough said
4) Burnside couplet - Somewhere he thinks he can get together $80M to fix a serviceable road.

City roads/SE 82nd are in the purview of CoP already so should be fixed. However, based on the above, one would think Mr Adams has the creativity to make something like any of the above amounts happen for jails, roads and schools - unless they aren't downtown. Especially since Mayor Potter seems to care about children enough to ask every day how the kids are, maybe he doesn't want to hear the answer.

I think the point, though expressed in stark terms, may be that certain measures have limited the ability to invest in many public needs.

Certainly, health care and defined retirement benefit costs have escalated and have impacted budgets. But they don't equate to the millions of underfunded needs in education, transportation and public safety--especially in operations funds.

I don't claim to know everything about bond financing, but I know there are limitations on their expenditures. Operations is usually not allowed. Happy to get more info on this, if you'd like.

With the Armory, there is not an ounce of taxpayer money. It was built with New Market Tax Credits. These are private capital dollars, not operations. (And a non-profit's mission is always to break-even--not make a profit.)

Transportation has at least a $100M backlog in road maintenance alone, let alone improvements in safety and capacity. But we're jumping on opportunities as they arise. And for future knowledge, SE 82nd is a highway owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation.

but it seems the feds give $0.39 for ever private dollar invested. Tax dollars are still involved, just federal.

Which is still a waste of Oregon's (and other state's) tax money.

In the sense that it is $0.39 of reduced corporate tax liability--a tax credit--yes, corporate taxpayer money is involved.

Besaides the 0.39 tax credit, if the theater company cant make payments on the $35M, I think the CoP is on the hook. This is why lending a "non-profit" entity, especially if they have an adequate performing venue seems a pretty bad use of that guarantee.

THe main point is that Mr Adams seems to work all of these deals (about $200M above) if it is either Downtown or the right person wants it.

Why can't he give schools or jails some help? I think this affects more people than seeing a new version of West Side Story. If you can stop with the finger-pointing schools and police protection are everyone's responsibility if they have the means to do it and Mr Adams has pulled off some pretty hard to justify deals unless you think baseball parks, trams and theaters are more important than jails.

I admit that the myriad of public financing sources and restrictions are not the easiest thing to see day-to-day impacts, but I think the main point is that capital dollars are more easily acquired than operating costs. Jails need operating money. Schools need operating money.

City Council has funded jail beds for two years in a row, and this year gave over $10M to Portland schools. These are two areas where the county typically has jurisdiction. I don't see how this kind of unprecedented support warrants an argument for greater impact on police, fire and other city services.

You're right that the City would be obligated to pay the remaining debt on the armory building (around $8.5M) in 2014 and would then own the building.

...the building to sell to recoup any losses.

How many theaters will we have to sell, I mean the Newmark wasnt good enough either?

I just hope all of the kids who have 25-day school years because we don't have money for schools get to sleep in the empty theaters instead of being homeless

Can NEW MARKET CREDITS be used in our neighborhoods to build/finance sidewalk and street improvements? If PDOT has a $100 million backlog, why are they taking on new Big $$$ redevelopment projects?

It is time to think more creatively about infrastructure and safety improvements in our existing neighborhoods, rather TIF tax abatements for SHINY NEW CONDO TOWERS, Ballparks, Theatres, Eco-Hippie Communes, and art that's so ugly the neighbors make you take it away.

Also: we rode the Tram for the first time today. It was very nice, albeit a bit crowded. I wonder how many people are riding (per car) during peak use? My 3 year old was very impressed. He thinks the Kaady Car Wash is wicked cool too.

I was concerned with all the bumping against the guardrails as it enters the stations: that can't help the longevity of the gondolas. Perhaps if you reduced your threshold of wind for "wind speed" operation?

YOU HAVE TO FIX THE AUTOMATED TICKET DISPENSERS! Why can't I buy 2, 4, or 6 tickets? Why will it accept 14 quarters (or a debit card), but not dollar bills? Especially during this start-up mode, you need a change making machine or somebody that can help walk us tourists through the process. That was the most confusing part of the trip.

Also: you ought to hire an independent risk management audit: the draw cables are easily accessible to any 12 year old that hopes up into the "V" truss below. And I would recommend a trapeze net below the top station (at least in the well beneath the cars): it's just a matter of time before somebody jumps and/or is pushed over the edge. You would hate to earn the "Suicide Tram" title in the first 6 months of operation.

Paul,

Where do you think the state and federal money for roads and transit options come from; motorist paid gas taxes. Furthermore, all you need to do is take a trip down the now totally messed up Sandy Boulevard and look where the majority of curb extensions have been built - at the bus stops and paid for by a state grant using gas tax revenues. Yes there are a few others thrown in that are somewhat less objectionable, however, Sandy is an example of what should have been a simple paving project gone totally wrong!

Furthermore, you call it whining, however, the way to train a donkey, including the stubborn political ones, is to keep repeating the command over and over again.

Paul Cone: Curb extensions aren't primarily for buses -- most of them don't have bus stops on them. They are primarily there to shorten the crossing distance and allow pedestrians to see and be seen before entering the crosswalk. It is primarily an issue of safety.
JK: So, do you think that putting people closer to fast moving machines is a safety improvement? (I’ve been asking PDOT for safety data on this for over a year - they have none - but will conjure up something any day now.)

Paul Cone: Or did you forget we all pay federal taxes so you can put oil from the Middle East in your tank?
JK: In case you didn’t know: buses uses oil too. Actually a little more than cars on the basis of results: moving people (per passenger-mile) See: DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/BusVsCarTEDB.htm

Thanks
JK

Thanks for that link.

I took a look at your data source: http://debunkingportland.com/Transit/Car3549.htm

I think there are a few important facts in your data that you perhaps have accidentally overlooked.

The table clearly shows that, as far as energy use is concerned (Btu use per passenger mile), EVERY form of rail, whether it be intercity, Amtrak, light rail, or commuter lines, rail transit uses less energy per passenger mile than any other method of transit (with the exception of motorcycles and vanpools).

I understand. It can be easy to get confused. I know that based on your response to Paul, you are very concerned about energy use, and that sometimes it can be difficult to get your message across. What you are really trying to say is that you are concerned about the efficient use of energy, and in order to effectively utilize America's resources we need to focus on forms of transit that use the least energy. Unless everybody starts riding a motorcycle or traveling purely in vanpools, then that would be rail transit. I'm glad to hear that you support efficient energy use. I can't agree with you more that it is in America's best interest to invest heavily in rail transit infrastructure in order to gain energy independence and efficiently utilize finite resources.

Dan Callaway: I took a look at your data source: http://debunkingportland.com/Transit/Car3549.htm
I think there are a few important facts in your data that you perhaps have accidentally overlooked.
JK: I didn’t overlook that, the subject was buses vs. car. You introduced a red herring to distract people from the fact that my claim IS CORRECT.

Dan Callaway: The table clearly shows that, as far as energy use is concerned (Btu use per passenger mile), EVERY form of rail, whether it be intercity, Amtrak, light rail, or commuter lines, rail transit uses less energy per passenger mile than any other method of transit (with the exception of motorcycles and vanpools).
JK: We are talking local transit here, so only the LRT number of 3228 applies. That is only 9% less than cars (not very much and NOT worth forcing people to change their lives for) and we know that cars are getting better. For instance a 60 MPG hybrid will be 2083 btu/mi or 1736 btu per passenger-mi., about ½ that of the toy train. And you forgot to mention that that 3228 btu comes mostly from burning coal which put mercury, uranium and thorium into the air. (Locally Trimet claims to offset this with green energy purchases)

A quick look at the construction energy of toy trains show that the take 1000's of years to make up for the construction energy. OK, I’ll put up a page that includes this little detail of MAX.

Then there is the cost. Over $1 per passenger- mile compared to a car’s under 20 cents. See: www.DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit.htm

Dan Callaway: I understand. It can be easy to get confused.
JK: OK, I forgive your confusion.

Thanks
JK

You know as well as I do that every driver in our nation does not drive just a car (i.e. a sedan). A very large percentage drives SUV's or pickups as their sole source of transportation. So to use only a "car's" energy usage as representative of the total energy usage of automobiles is a bit misleading. Taking ALL vehicles on the road into account, the average btu per passenger mile is going to be much higher than what you've listed here.

Addtionally, regarding your comments on the environmental impact of MAX: What about automobiles: you don't think that extracting oil from the earth, the refineries required to process oil into gasoline, the tankers and pipelines to ship it, or the factories required to build a car, the resources necessary to build the automobile, etc. have an environmental impact also?!? Everything we do has an environmental impact, including building light rail. But you simply cannot mention the environmental costs associated with light rail while ignoring the energy required and the environmental impact of both building and propelling an automobile, and the necessary transportation infrastructure that has to be built and maintained for an automobile's use.

Along the same lines, you talk about per passenger mile for MAX and per passenger mile for automobiles. However, the per passenger mile for MAX you list INCLUDES the cost of construction, while the per passenger miles for automobiles utilizes ONLY the personal cost of operating an automobile and ignores the cost of construction and maintenence neccessary for an automobile's infrastructure. This is like comparing apples and oranges. Unless you rectify your data to make it comparable, you cannot use this argument as there is simply no statistical correlation whatsoever.

And lastly, I know your intelligent Jim, and you are very earnest in your message. However, when you use words like "toy train" it really demeans your message and makes you sound like like a blind idealogue who lets emotions control your message. I'm not the biggest fan of an automobile based infrastructure, but notice I don't use deragotory terms in reference to it. I would recommend using commonly accepted terms, otherwise people really won't take you as seriously.

DC: You know as well as I do that every driver in our nation does not drive just a car (i.e. a sedan). A very large percentage drives SUV's or pickups as their sole source of transportation. So to use only a "car's" energy usage as representative of the total energy usage of automobiles is a bit misleading.
JK: My overall position is that people should be persuaded to switch to more efficient cars rather than to mass transit. That is more likely to really save energy and therefore the energy comparison should be between cars and mass transit. As to money, once you own a car, the per mile cost is less that bus fare for most trips. So even with an 80% subsidy, mass transit does not make economical sense. To get car owners to switch to crappy mass transit is a hard sell and unlikely to ever succeed. Getting people to switch to a more economical car is likely to succeed. To include truck owners as candidates for mass transit is to assume that MAX will welcome 2x4's ladders and tool boxes on board.

DC: Along the same lines, you talk about per passenger mile for MAX and per passenger mile for automobiles. However, the per passenger mile for MAX you list INCLUDES the cost of construction,
JK: I list MAX cost using Trimet’s data that does not include construction but does include maintenance: $0.434 (DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit.htm). I also extimate the cost including construction as $1.11. In any case MAX is far more costly than driving which is $0.185.

DC: while the per passenger miles for automobiles utilizes ONLY the personal cost of operating an automobile and ignores the cost of construction and maintenence neccessary for an automobile's infrastructure.
JK: The cost of roads are almost entirely paid out of user fees. The cost of mass transit is almost entirely paid from non-users. Basically a form or welfare.

DC: However, when you use words like "toy train" it really demeans your message and makes you sound like like a blind idealogue who lets emotions control your message.
JK: Forgive my little insult. But actually, I can defend that characterization: a toy is something that really doesn’t do much and is frequently expensive. That IS light rail. It removes about 25% of one lane of traffic from US26 (and I84) that is little effect for a BILLION dollars for the US26 toy train. Basically light rail COSTS TOO MUCH AND DOES TOO LITTLE. It is a toy.

Thanks
JK

JK,

You continue to dodge the question. Do you receive income, support or collaboration from those with a political or economic interest in planning, politics or transportation?

How long will you continue to dodge the issue? Your credibility shreds in the meantime...

p.s. I expect your normal attack about a lack of a name. You have received requests by people with real names. I expect the attack about what my agenda is. You continue to avoid answering the real question.

Do you have a real name?
Thanks
JK

Quit dodging question.

I don't feel like taking to people hide their real identity just now, so go crawl back uner your rock.

Thanks
JK

JK,

You refuse to answer the question whether people use own names or not. What are you hiding under rock?

I just don't feel like engaging a trimet/PDC/Planning shill right now. Please go play somewhere else.

BTW have you noticed that the leading PRO-Global warming web site appears to admit that CO2 only increases after hundreds of years of global warming, making CO2, apparently, NOT the cause of global warming. See: realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

Thanks
JK

Thanks
JK

JK (who won't deny getting paid to spread his disinformation)
PRO-Global warming web site appears to admit that CO2 only increases after hundreds of years of global warming

Actually, that's not at all what it says. You conveniently left out the closing statement:

"So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming."

This is because stating "if A then B" is true does not in any way indicate that "if B then A" must be false. In other words, just because warming forced by non-greenhouse effect causes can trigger the release of CO2 doesn't mean that suddenly increasing by a third the amount of atmospheric CO2 can't itself force warming. They can -- and appear to be -- co-causal.

I assume you are not a paid lobbyist for any group, right?

Given JK's rapid response time for other issues and his complete silence on (and dodging) the issue of whether he receives funding from advocacy, political or other group/indivduals for his work...we can only conclude that he does receive funding. For someone who advocates transparancy in government his silence on this issue is disturbing.

"Curb extensions aren't primarily for buses -- most of them don't have bus stops on them."

Well, the ones that do are for the most part road blocks. The end result of the existing curb extension design is that cars can't pass a stopped bus and traffic backs up. (Specific example: SW35th & Capitol Hwy.). And it appears that there is a TriMet desire/policy NOT to have cars pass busses while they are stopped so that stalls traffic further.

Bryan H. Ackler
Multnomah Village

Unfortunately, the motorists brought this problem on themselves: they would not yield and let a bus back into the traffic flow at a bus stop, thus screwing up the transit schedules.

nate, you stated “Have you noticed that school, retirement, protection and transportation funding is a problem”

Yes, and money continues to be wasted and unrealistic goals continue to be set.

Sticking with transportation, the biggest problem is that all the transportation alternatives Sam wants to build require construction, maintenance and/or operating subsidies from revenue sources other than from the direct user base.
There is also a lot of politically motivated spending that can be construed as wasting taxpayer dollars. Currently, and Sam has admitted this to me, motor vehicles pay more of their own way than the alternative modes of transport do, even though we disagree on how much more.. As an example, Sam includes street lighting, paid for through the City’s general fund, as for the most part a subsidy to motorists. I consider street lighting as benefiting al residents of Portland and all modes of transport, including pedestrians walking on City streets.

Furthermore, taxes and fees assessed on the use of motor vehicles are also siphoned off to subsidize streetcar operations and the roads and infrastructure both transit and bicyclists use. The objective for any new transportation proposal should be financial self-sustainability, meaning the specific mode users should pay all, or at the very least, the majority of the local infrastructure costs including operation and maintenance. Continually expecting to increase the costs and draw more revenue from motor vehicle users to subsidize other modes of transport is totally unrealistic and only promotes inequity.

First off nate, I have no idea where you get the notion I was tying Sam to what is occurring in New York City, or California or elsewhere other than Portland.

What Sam and his transportation cronies are doing is to continue to dig a deeper and deeper hole that he expects taxpayers and motorists to just keep filling up with more and more tax subsidy dollars. The misguided ignorance here is that there is a limit to amount of subsidies the public can afford before it will have a negative impact on the economy. Why do you think the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is disappearing?

People vote with their mode choice and cars are here to stay. Sam is a civil servant that has taken an oath of office to represent not only those people who have a love affair with bicycles and vocal transit supporters, but also the majority of the public that travels by motor vehicle. Sam has grossly under represented the majority by not advocating for increasing motor vehicle capacity, and by putting up barriers and obstructions within the motor vehicle infrastructure that currently exists. Not only are these policies and barriers and obstructions costing the taxpayers in dollars, but they are adding to congestion that is increasing the costs of doing business in Portland and negatively impacting the movement of freight by truck, all of which could equate to job and business loss in the future.

Motor vehicle users pay for the majority if not all of their own way. If that was not true, motorist paid taxes and fees could not be siphoned off to subsidize other modes of transport. Poaching motor vehicle user paid taxes and fees to subsidize transit and bicycle infrastructure is nothing more than back room politics and politically motivated thievery covered up with a good shell game.

The bottom line is that financial self-sustainability must applied to the alternative modes of transport, including charging transit fares that cover far more than the current 20 to 25 percent of transit operational costs. Not doing so is being irresponsible.

Paul,

I really think you have missed my point(s). A person that chooses to drive is not only paying for their car, but is also paying more than other modes of transport, if not all of their own way for usage of public infrastructure. Another way of putting it, motorists pay for streets, roads and bridges through taxes and fees assessed on motor vehicles and the fuel they use.

Although bicyclists pay for their bicycle, the bicycle mode of transport pays zero, nada, nothing towards the streets, roads, bridges and bicycle infrastructure used when traveling by bike. TriMet fares only cover 20 to 25 percent of the operational costs of providing the service. TriMet makes little to no financial contribution to the streets, roads and bridges on which their busses travel. Furthermore, motorists through federal fuel taxes also pay for the majority of the federal share of transit projects such as light rail, new busses and maintenance facilities. From a financial standpoint, what I am advocating is that transit riders and bicyclists become more responsible for what they use whereby transit fares better reflect and cover the costs of providing the service, and bicyclists help pay for bicycle infrastructure by a direct tax on the bicycle mode of transport. In other words; transit riders and bicyclists should demonstrate both some self respect and respect to the motorists (who currently subsidize their choice of transport) by accepting some financial responsibility for their own mobility instead of just continuing to accept welfare like subsidies from other taxpayers

nate,

You are correct in that this is not the 50’s or 60’s. In the 50’s and 60’s people paid for their transportation choice. In the 50’s and 60’s and even before those decades, private for profit operators provided transit service in Portland. When government controlled fares could no longer cover the costs of providing the service, the company went out of business and government took over. Going back to the future and adding intercity rail systems and streetcar lines must also mean going back to the future and charging transit fares that at a minimum demonstrate a close to break even recovery of costs for providing the service.

In the 50’s and 60’s there were bicycles, but no bicycle lanes or a large amount of bicycle infrastructure. The roadways and interstate highways being built at that time for an increasing number of motor vehicles were paid for by taxes and fees assessed drivers and the fuel they used. That same financial structure is in place today, however, it is being drained due to the siphoning off of funds for other than how the fund was originally designed to be used for. Just like throughout the history of the automobile, when there was a need for improved roads and additional capacity, the motorist was assessed for the infrastructure price tag; so should the bicyclists of today be assessed for bicycle infrastructure – and this must be done through a direct tax on the bicyclists and the bicycle mode of transport. To achieve equity in this matter, any love affair a politician has with bicycling must be set aside

To some degree I agree with you that road capacity alone will never resolve all the issues of transport, however neither will increasing transit capacity and just adding bicycle infrastructure. Furthermore, reducing motor vehicle capacity with new transit and/or bicycle infrastructure only creates more congestion that can have a negative impact on the environment as opposed to more cars freely flowing on a thoroughfare.

In the 50’s and 60’s, Portland which my comments are limited to, was a much smaller place. In the larger scope of things today, personal mobility and driving is more important than ever. Transit will never go everywhere people want to go; and where the majority of people want to go on a daily basis is not downtown Portland. Transit has its place in the community, but only where a high volume of travel is traveling from the same point(s) to the same point(s) and not where it negatively impacts other modes of transport. This is the only way transit can be efficient. The automobile is here to stay and so are the family wage jobs the industry brings to the table. If Sam and others do no wake up and support increased motor vehicle capacity, Portland and the Metro area will be over come by gridlock, freight mobility will come to a standstill and big time job loss will encompass the region.

And just for the record, as for the shell game being played out over the amount of taxpayer dollars being spent on bicycle infrastructure: The total amount is far greater than what is in the PDOT budget. There is off budget money, special programs, grants and Metro money being spent on bicycle infrastructure. I have asked for but never received the total amount being spent. Yes, it is a shell game, the total amount continues to be hidden from the public.

Terry.

The Capital Improvement Plan figure we gave you for bicycle investments includes the money we get from Metro. Even with the money we get from Metro and all other outside sources, our expenditures on bicycles are only 1.5%.

It's no shell game, and we are not hiding anything - it's just not what you want to hear.

Roland,

I may have missed something, but 1.5% is not an annual total dollar amount figure.

Paul Smith, a PDOT employee posted the budget for bicycle projects for the next five years.

It is under 1.5% of all PDOT funds, or around $3.5 million - over 5 years.

Paul posted that in April of '06, and you commented on it ...a lot.

Granted, I will admit that there have been a few new projects that have been added to PDOT's project list since then (as part of our transportation safety initiative), but even with a series of new projects, the money we are talking about is small beans in the context of PDOT's $180 million or so annual budget.

Even if we tripled spending on bike infrastructure (which we haven't), your still talking about expenditures in the vicinity of 1%.

“A bicycle tax isn't economically feasible at this point in time Terry!”

WRONG – It is just that free loading pedal pushers continue to act like little children and are unwilling to accept some financial responsibility for the bicycle welfare services they receive. A bicycle tax is economically feasible and economically necessary if there is continued expansion of bicycle infrastructure. Sharing the road must also require sharing the financial responsibility. The current love affair some have with bicycle simply does not equate to good responsible reality check transportation planning.

*There is *no* way to expand our road capacity to the levels necessary for congestion remediation!“

WRONG – More people and more cars make expanding motor vehicle capacity absolutely necessary. A Transportation engineer has told me that motor vehicle capacity must be increased in the I-205 corridor, the I-5 corridor and a new corridor built West of the I-5 corridor just to handle the expected growth of the region over the next 20 years. City streets and thoroughfares also must be designed to accommodate more traffic. Furthermore, the Cost of Congestion report done for Metro clearly identifies Portland as a transportation hub and a region where jobs are tied to transportation. That report also suggests improvements to motor vehicle infrastructure to handle growth, Without major improvements in road capacity, Portland and the Metro region will become gridlocked with stagnation in the economy, job loss and a significant increase in the costs of doing business that will also substantially increase the costs of living, goods and services.. Transit alternatives can only slightly offset the reality check need for more road capacity. The fixation with bicycle transport only dribbles away financial resources needed for additional road capacity. Traffic calming wastes even more money that only adds to congestion and the need for additional road capacity. Increasing road capacity is a must do.

“Terry, if you were Commissioner of Transportation, what would be your first five projects? And, please, something realistic! (Ie NOT charge a 1,000€ bike tax per annum.... Or expand I-5 to 20 lanes).”

1. Fix the I-5 bottleneck from the Rose Quarter to the Marquam Bridge by making I-5 four lanes in each direction. Included in the project would be a better interchange with I-84. and removing all HOV lanes and HOV lane proposals in North Portland. This improvement would complement the widening of I-5 at Delta Park already approved.

2. Eliminate all curb extensions at bus stops – require TriMet to completely pull over to the curb and not block motor vehicle travel lanes when stopping for passengers so other vehicles could pass. This project would also require all bus stops on Powell Boulevard to be coupled with bus turnouts, and bus turnouts be built where possible on other major thoroughfares such as Barbur Boulevard.

3. Start a study to add a new motor vehicle and freight corridor through North Portland connecting Washington with the Highway 30 on the Westside of the Willamette.

4. Rethink bicycle infrastructure by relocating the majority of bike lanes off of major thoroughfares and on to parallel streets. Make motor vehicle improvements on those thoroughfares that would improve the flow and efficiency of traffic. This would also make the thoroughfares more accommodating for freight deliveries. Reduce the bicycle boulevard program to paint and signage only. Impose a direct tax on the bicycle mode of transport to pay for bicycle infrastructure. Charge for the use of bicycle lockers and bicycle parking in areas where there is a charge for motor vehicle parking.

5. Completely rethink and revise transit in Portland, Study for the purpose of building a cut and cover below ground (tunnel) route for Max through downtown Portland. Redesign Tri-Met’s route structure to create transit hubs at major employment centers, shopping centers and town centers. Establish express routes between these hub centers (some are already provided by Max) and local routes that feed into these hub centers. East-West cross town express routes would bypass downtown as would eastside North-South express routes. Downtown Portland would remain as a transit hub, but only for passengers going to and from downtown. Fareless Square would be eliminated in favor of a transit fare policy that better reflects the costs of providing the service. A new policy would also be required for the Portland Streetcar whereby any new streetcar infrastructure could not be built on high motor vehicle volume thoroughfares and bridges, Streetcar fares would also be required to better reflect the cost of providing the service since parking meter revenues would be redirected to improving infrastructure for the motor vehicle users who pay them.

Furthermore, all social engineering policies and positions within PDOT would be eliminated and replaced with real transportation engineering and engineers.

What is flat out WRONG is ignoring the reality that these types of improvements are needed.

nate: Terry, Some of your statements included in your last post are flat-out wrong! I can't bear reading that drivel again
JK: You’re not doing so well either. See below.

nate: *A bicycle tax isn't economically feasible at this point in time Terry! The end!
JK: Please show proof that the city can’t collect $50 from 100,000 people and turn a profit.

nate: *There is *no* way to expand our road capacity to the levels necessary for congestion remediation! The end.
JK: Wrong.
STEP#1: Quit reducing road capacity. (Easy to do.)
STEP#2: Quit encouraging higher density since high density is a cause of congestion.
STEP#3: Add extra lane to much of I205
STEP#4: Build West Side Bypass. (that plus I205 improvements should reduce the traffic on I5)
STEP#5: Add direct Vancouver - West side link of the above full bypass.
STEP#6: Double decking selected sections of freeways would not cost much more than a toy train line and be a lot more useful.

nate: *Traffic calming features SAVE LIVES!
JK: Prove it.
I have been asking PDOT for years and they have no evidence. I only have the London Ambulance Service estimating the number of live LOST by speed bumps over there and a study out of Texan A&M that mostly says the same thing.

Thanks
JK

You have been asked so many times about your funding sources and alliances...when will you come clean? Or will you just keep diverting, dodging, and ducking like a politician?

I will bet that Karlock's supporters aren't on the city's payroll, unlike the numerous "City that Works" shills posting on these boards.

In fact, I would be surprised if Karlock receives any monetary support from any group: he merely gives a damn about the city's misplaced priorities.

It certainly begs the question: how can a city that aspires to greatness have such lousy roads and rising drive time gridlock. If mass transit is the solution, how come traffic continues to get worse?

San Diego has been on a freeway building spree for the last 30 years, and every time I visit, the drive time traffic gets a little better. Granted, they had more geographic flexibility to work with. But it's a sacrilege to even suggest we should be adding vehicular capacity in P-town (unless it has metal wheels).

Don't ask how I got started reading Sam Adams' site and other portland transport sites. But, I live in San Diego and I have to correct you, Bruce. In my opinion as a resident and commuter, the drive time has gotten consistently worse in the 15 years since I moved here. The most recent widening of the 5 helped for about a month. The 5-56 interchange seems to have only created more traffic. The toll roads on 15 don't seem to do anything for the insane traffic in east county. And now they're talking about widening the 5 to something like 14 lanes all the way from S.D. to Oceanside. All this building, and we've gotten nowhere. The regional transportation agency, SANDAG, expects that even with their wish list of road construction (and they LOVE road construction), average commute time and traffic will increase for the next twenty years.

Building freeways is not the answer. San Diego is especially screwed because there is absolutely no good way for thousands of people from different suburbs to commute 30 miles or more to different suburbs.

Be grateful for what you have up there, and keep working to make it better. Down in San Diego we WISH we had such transit-oriented transportation planning. Sure, it might be better to have heavy rail in tunnels, and a faster trip through downtown, but you all have it great compared to most cities, especially on the west coast.

As for Karlock -- I ran into him on another board sometime last year. That "toy train" trolling is really obnoxious, and his statistics don't hold up to scrutiny. For example, he doesn't consider projected transit ridership increases; road construction is not nearly all paid for by gas taxes (see e.g., http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs03/htm/hf10.htm); his rail cost includes administrative costs, but he doesn't include the relevant portions of federal and state transportation departments which administer the road system; his 18.5cent/mile car cost is a gross underestimate of actual cost (the AAA estimate of around 50 cents is closer). And that's just the cost part of his page; his energy usage and safety claims are plenty bogus as well. Aaaarghh, I swore I wasn't going to get drawn into another stupid argument on the internet.

Anyway, props to Sam, we wish we had some more councilmembers like you down here.

In 2006, Money magazine picked San Diego as one of the Top 5 U.S. Big Cities to live in; Portland did not appear in the Top 100.

According to this report, 8.9% of San Diego's population commute more than 45 minutes (the national average is 13.4%). By comparison, 9.7% of Portland residents must commute more than 45 minutes. Worse than San Diego. San Diego also created jobs 10 times more jobs (8% vs. 0.8%) than Portland from 2000-2005.

The median commute time in San Diego was 20.3 minutes (which is exactly the same as Portland) vs. the national average of 20.8 minutes. This despite the fact that California's car culture/weather results in much larger numbers of people accessing the freeways.

Keep in mind that San Diego covers a much larger area, and has 1.25 million residents vs. Portland's 545k.

Granted, San Diego may resort to a municipal bankruptcy filing before us, but they're water/sewer rates are cheaper.

Facts are stubborn things.

Do you have a real name?

What about your funding sources and alliances...when will you come clean? Or will you just keep diverting, dodging, and ducking like a politician?

Thanks
JK

The two BILLION we wasted on rail would have been a good start.

Thanks
JK

nate,

You obviously did not read my post thoroughly. Where do you think all the funding and taxpayer subsidies are coming from to criminally rebuild the downtown transit mall, for the outrageously expensive streetcar expansion and all that mumbo jumbo bicycle infrastructure for freeloading pedal pushers.

It is all about financial self-sustainability and responsibility. A bicycle tax pays for bicycle infrastructure (administrative fees such as $5.00 for every $50.00 collected should be no greater than ten percent of the amount charged). An end to Fareless Square with TriMet and streetcar fares that better reflect the costs of providing the service (the goal being eventual financial self-sustainability without subsidies). And finally, redirect all motor vehicle taxes and fees including gas taxes and parking meter revenues to only fund motor vehicle infrastructure (and not be used for development, transit and/or bicycle subsidies)

Nate:

OK, maybe Jim wanted the money spent on roads, and I wanted the money spent on buses. What we did agree on was that 2 bil was wasted on light rail.

Nick