Join the conversation about transportation funding: be part of the solution.

Are you asking us for MORE money? All my bills are going up (for example my power bill is to increase almost 20% this year!) and my salary is staying the same. I am SO sick of this city wanting MORE money from us. What happened to thinking practically and spending with a mindfull budget? How about you STOP giving money away ... OSHU tram, yeah, way to got there went how much money? and now you are bitching cuz you have no money for the roads, gee I wonder why!! How many other stupid pet project do you have in mind? Changing Burnside to a one way street, yeah there millions of dollars that could fix pot holes. The money is there, open your eyes and think a little more practically instead of having your hand out for everyone excect people who pay the taxes and drive on the roads. This has nothing to do with the roads but shows how backwards our city government is... Tom's comments about the illegal alien round up, he is more worried about them then the peoples IDENTITIES that were stolen, what about those people, oh thats right you don't care. And that is the feeling I get from this city ..... ARG so sick of you asking, begging telling us you need more money, what about MY bank account.

Just some input on Transportation priorities.

I live on a street that has never been paved. It was annexed into the city from
Multnomah County in 1986. It runs for 2 blocks east to west from the Gymnasium
at Binnsmead Middle School. It is a main thoroughfare for traffic to and from
the school, both pedestrian and vehicular. Children are subjected to being
splashed, forced into the hedges and frightened by the cars and school buses
that travel through the deep holes and ruts at speeds to high even for a paved
street. At night it becomes a haven for prostitution customers and drug dealers
from 82nd Avenue because of it's secluded and abandoned appearance. It has
become a dump for unwanted furniture and tires. Children walking to and from
school have to pass through discarded condoms, needles and beer bottles.
Neighbors have planted hedges and trees in the right of way to keep the traffic
away from their property and the city denies requests to have them removed. The
city purchased a right-of-way to extend the avenue south in the 70's along with
'spite strips' along the borders of the neighboring properties which now can
never be used because permits have been granted for Section 8 housing spanning
the space between the avenues being built farther down the way. My home is
constantly infiltrated with the dust on dry days and the water from the 'wakes'
of the traffic flows into my driveway and garage and yard, yet I have to pay the
same taxes as the people around the corner who enjoy sidewalks, curbs, pavement
and gutters. Let it be a priority to be fair, to ensure or enhance the safety of
the school children and to make all Portland streets presentable and up to
standard.

I don't have any quick fixes for the problem. I do know that city utilities are pretty high right now and seem to be getting worse. Portland's water/sewer fees are one of the highest in the nation. Portland wants to have a great city and a great transportation system but I think people are already stressed out on the current bills. We don't need and increase in whatever form.

Maybe when we get a new President in office, congress will be able to spend more money on needed infrastructure in our own country instead of wasting it on an unnecessary war. If the city can wait a couple of years, thats my best solution.

Here are my suggestions for the 6/20/2007 town hall on Portland transportation priorities and funding:

1. Ban studded tires. These destroy the road, bridge, and highway infrastructure which is a part of the public domain for the convenience of a few people who don't want to be bothered to learn how to put chains on their tires on those few occasions when the weather turns foul while they are on a ski outing on Mt. Hood. The destruction to our roadways caused by studded tires costs the public millions and millions of dollars. This cost is not being born fairly by those who use studs, but is being foisted onto the pocketbooks of everyone so that a select few can enjoy the tiniest bit of added convenience on their skiing jaunts. This is not only not fair, but it does not make sense. It is also entirely unnecessary. If the transportation commission could do only one thing to improve the funding situation and the quality of the infrastructure, this one should be at the top of the list. I grew up in an area of the Northeast (Upstate New York) that has infinitely more snow in a month of winter than Portland ever dreamed of seeing in a century, yet studs were illegal there and it never caused a problem. It is sheer insanity to continue pouring millions of transportation dollars down a rathole simply to allow a few people to not have to carry chains when they go to Timberline Lodge on the weekend.

2. Stop paving roads that don't need it and start paving the ones that do. Two or three years ago I observed a long stretch of NE 60th Ave. from Halsey St. at least to the I-84 on ramp and possibly beyond getting repaved, even though this entire stretch of roadway was in near-perfect condition. Why was this stretch repaved when it had nary a pothole in sight, when there are plenty of other roads within the city limits that have never been paved at all? Yes that stretch of roadway is high-traffic, but the road was not worn out yet! It did not need paving! Yet it got repaved anyway! Was that a good use of our limited transportation dollars?

3. Encourage public transportation, bicycling, walking, and other alternatives that reduce our dependence on the most expensive of all infrastructure addictions, that of roads for the private automobile. People gripe that these alternatives are "unfairly" taking money out of the budget for roads for cars, forgetting that the construction of roads for use by cars is the single most expensive transportation option ever devised by humans. It is subsidized in so many ways and by so many dollars that it makes all the rest look like chicken feed. Alternative transportation modes are not part of the problem, they are part of the solution.

4. Ponder whether free Tri-Met service would actually pay for itself in the long run through less need for more lanes, more roads, and more bridges.

5. Discourage sprawl. Encourage traditional neighborhood design where people at least have the option of walking to the places they need to get to for everyday living (e.g. schools, grocery stores, playgrounds, retail..). More lanes has been shown time and again to simply generate more traffic. No city yet has ever managed to widen its way out of traffic problems. Post-1950 suburban design (single-use pods connected only by massive high-speed collector roads) has proven an unlivable system that simply creates more car dependency. The east side of Portland largely got it right. The west side -- not so much.

6. Pavement and sidewalks for all city streets. This is a long-term project, but maybe some of the savings from points 1-5 above can be used to fund this over time. It is simply shameful that some areas of our city have nothing but dirt roads and drainage ditches. (Some of these roads are barely even passable in a compact car.) We can do better.

It's about time to collect from the bicyclists. There they are, using (and ignoring) the bike lanes, some of which replaced an entire car lane, thus cramming the streets even more.

I don't think it's too much to ask them to pay $20 every two years for a bicycle plate that must be displayed on the rear. It can be the same size as scooter plates. Too often they anonymously pedal away from some traffic crime, whether vandalizing a side-view mirror or throwing trash. Sure, it's just a small percentage, most of them young, but why should their ride be subsidized? They will never pay a cent of gas tax, but they should at least pay for the costs of their special treatment and facilities. The city should not be giving away free services, especially to the ones with bikes that cost more than some cars.

It is wrong for road funding (including things like pollution cleanup) to come from sources like property taxes that are not based on the actual amount of road use. It can encourage more road use (leading back to the starting point--a need for more funding) which leads not only to more traffic and pollution but also to decreased transit use and higher fares/subsidies.

First of all I have heeard about some ideas that Commissioner Adams has for his dept. 14 cent gas tax, gas is too expensive already. A $4.50 additional charge per month on our property tax. If you let the city impose this tax, what is to stop them in the future from trying to impose a new tax everytime they have one of their special projects.
Impose a tax on bicyclist. They use the city roads & they don't pay any fees. There is extra painting for the bike lanes. It use to be if a person lived on an un-improved road, they had to pay to have it improved! Is this still true?
No more pay raises for city employees. If some of the services that the city & the county have are merging-why not get the money from the county?
Whatever the Adams decides & the city council passes, there should be a vote of the citizens of Portland.
A gas tax could be a good idea-people from out of state that visit oregon would help pay for the transportation improvements. Just a comment.

I live on an unpaved thru street, and I have accepted that it probably will never be. My neighbors and I do what we can to keep it a passable street.
I get upset every time I drive down McLoughlin and see that bicycle bridge. Did the bicylists pay for that?
If a gasoline tax were imposed, I would simply buy gas outside of Portland.
Try making Tri-Met a for profit business, then use the tax money for the roads.

I have lived here 18 months .I think this city is beautiful but the rainny season is long so the roads are damage soon.Should we use concrete to repair the small road and we must have money by the residents.Tax can be in gas

I have lived here 18 months .I think this city is beautiful but the rainny season is long so the roads are damage soon.Should we use concrete to repair the small road and we must have money by the residents.Tax can be in gas

Those of us who have been paying attention to land use and transportation trends know that years of deferred maintenance of the transportation system have added to the overall cost of repairs/replacement. My questions are: Have the list of needs been prioritized by overall deteriorization, cost/effectiveness, etc? How much is the city council willing to set aside for transportation projects in this biennium v. future budget cycles? Are there funding resources other than general fund tax dollars? Are some parts of the city worse than others? How many of the 157 bridges listed in the need list are owned by the county and require a city-county solution? Plese make good use of your website to inform and educate residents about possible options in order for us to discuss this rationally instead of knee jerk reactions. Thank you.

I can't believe you would even consider an additional tax when gasoline prices are so high already. I know that you live in N. Ptld, as do I, and I wonder why the speed bumps were put on N. Denver and N. Alberta streets. The material put into those bumps would have filled a lot of potholes. N. Interstate Ave has been cut down by one lane in each direction by MAX and bicycle lanes. Denver Ave, which could have been 2 lanes instead has had bicycle lanes added and then cement dividers down the center cutting out another lane for traffic. How much did the Denver/Alberta project cost? If speeding was a problem, the speed limit should have been lowered. It's ridiculous to try to go north on any afternoon. It seems more of a problem has been created than solved.

Make the MAX riders buy tickets before riding. I doubt that half the riders pay - and nothing is done. That's pretty poor business practice. No wonder we have to subsidize them. Our 'city that works' isn't working very well.

I support three ideas to raise money for transportation improvements:

1. I support a higher gas tax.
2. I will gladly pay a bicycle fee to pay for bicycle improvements.
3. Studded tire users must pay a fee or large fine.

Two additional votes:
1. Continue to focus on public transportation and alternatives to automobiles. There are far too many cars with only the driver inside.
2. Do not tax my property to pay transportation costs. Property ownership or rental does not have anything to do with transportation usage.

We need to find a way to pave the unimproved streets and add sidewalks to all streets as well as maintain our existing infrastructure. We have several streets in this city that are unfit for car truck bike or pedestrian. Thanks for taking a serious look at this and starting a difficult conversation that this city must face at some point. In my opinion the best solution is a gas tax which would tax people relative to how much they drive their car. This way people pay for what they use and it is not tied to property taxes. A gas tax will also tax visitors to the city any one who drives here long enough to fill up with gas at some point. This would allow Portland to generate more money and/or have a smaller impact on the people who live in Portland by making non residents or other users of the transpiration system help pay for it even if they only fill up for gas in Portland occasionally.

It would be nice to know more about how money is currently being spent and what specifically the increased revenue would be used for. People are happier parting with their money if they think they are making a fair contribution and it is being put to good use. There is a lot of conjecture here about how money is being (mis)spent, but not much in the way of facts.

That said, I will add to the ill-informed comments. Freight transportation should be given priority over personal automobile transportation in any plans for transportation upgrades.

I do not think additional taxes are needed... we already pay county taxes, city taxes, state and fedral taxes, one of the highest gas taxes, and as a small business owner, we also pay plenty of trimet taxes... If you can find millions of dollars to fund a study on planting trees in the park blocks, I am thinking you can finance a few road repairs. Also maybe manage the jobs you have going a little more effeciantly.. for example, for the last 4 months, Columbia Blvd has been torn up now for the 3rd time, once to lay sewer pipe, covered back up, then opened up again to lay concecting pipe to businesses, covered up, now torn up again to pave, why can't projects like that be more stream lined, it would save money, not be so burdonsome for business and it would also look better for the "city that works"
I am just so tired of hearing you all need more and more money for things that I think we have all payed for 10 times over. I just know that I can't run my household budget like you all do in city government, when time are tight we just cut out the extras, maybe the same should apply here.
The voters have trusted you to use the money you already have wisely, not come grab for more.

Like most city tax payers I am very tired of the City of Portland making poor decisions with tax dollars. The OSHU tram is a recent example of spending way more that budgeted and very limited benefits. Also, it is my opinion that bicyclists need to begin paying their fair share. Few of them obey traffic laws and most are inconsiderate towards anyone in an automobile. Yet, they pay no taxes to maintain the roads that they are to "share" with automobiles and buses. I say it is past time to licence them with a test of the rules of the road and a license for their bikes. Make them put a plate on he front and the back just like other users of the road. The taxes can help pay for road improvements and a side benefit will be that they will start riding responsibly when they realize that people can report their license number when they fail to stop, ignore signals and ride on the sidewalks with disregard for pedestrian safety. As far as other sources of funds I suggest you tighen your belt like the rest of us.

First there is $6.4 million that the City is going to use to pave over a portion of Waterfront Park (so much for being green) for the junk sale they call Saturday Market.

Second go through the budget and remove any program that has the words “Cultural Awareness” in it. This will save millions more. This is not an “essential service”. Grandma and Grandpa will still get their drugs, they won’t be thrown out of their apartment, we won’t have to release prisoners out onto the street, (insert your favorite politicians scare quote here), if we don’t have government sanctioned cultural awareness. I am so tired of the City, County, and State saying they have cut all but essential services from the budget.

The State just passed a law against “predatory lending” what we need is to get rid of the politician’s predatory taxation.

One of the proposals that I have seen is to create a neighborhood safety tax on homeowners in SW Portland to add sidewalks to the streets that do not currently have them. Some of the proponents of this idea have expressed their desire to make it look like Europe. Safety is just a hot issue to hide their real motive.
I received training from the City of Portland in transportation issues and in the past have looked closely at the costs of adding sidewalks in SW Portland. Due to the topography and the existing structures and mature trees that would have to be torn up and replaced, plus the expense of adding proper drainage beneath the sidewalks, and the city codes that dictate a very expensive sidewalk construction, this idea would cost property owners millions of dollars. Why not spend those millions to enforce the 15-25 mile per hour speed limit in residential neighborhoods to make the area safer for pedestrians? Adding more police to enforce both traffic and criminal laws makes a lot more sense than spending millions trying to convert 60 miles of SW streets without sidewalks into some European paradise.
There are too many touchy, feely people making these decisions. And, who gets to decide which neighborhoods are "unsafe" and thereby get a safety tax imposed on those residents? Where are the logical professional minds who can organize and prioritize a transportation plan and also budget the existing money to maintain the roads and enforce the laws instead of always having a hand out to SOMEONE else to make their "visions" come true?

We need to spend the money to maintain and upgrade our roads. It costs more not to. I'm not concerned that waste is really a serious problem. I favor a fuel tax (both gasoline and diesel). Let the users of the roads pay for them. It would be better to have a fuel tax for the whole metro area, not just Portland, for obvious reasons. I don't want to give the suburbanites a break and I don't want people to go buy their gasoline in the suburbs. Besides road maintenance, I would like more spent on public transit and safe bike routes. I like bike-friendly streets like SE Ankeny and NE 28th. Bike lanes painted on big busy boulevards are not desirable. All it takes to make SE Ankeny into a good bike street is that barrier to cars at 20th, which costs the city almost nothing.

Comments to Commissioner Sam Adams and for the whole Council

Thanks for the community outreach about taxes for transportation. I am sure it will give plenty of grist for the mill. Please keep in mind transporation is far more than taxes to fix roads for motor vehicles.

I do support more resources for our transportation system. But, not by taxing only City residents. Far too many vehicles pass through this City and do not live here. If we raise a gas tax or a tax on employers or property tax it will affect only City residents.

Any tax for transportation must be levied by the State of Oregon or by METRO to cover most folks who live, work or play here. If only the City passes a tax it will cause more poverty in Portland and bad feelings toward you and the Council. I do not agree on taxes on property to pay for roads. Regressive and impractical.

Bane studded tires completely. These are not need in the METRO region as we have few days per year of ice or snow. There are many alternative solutions. My residential street is Condor Avenue SW which has been used for years by employees and contractors to OHSU and the VA. It is being torn up by studded tires 6 months of the year and 1,800 vehicles per day which do not live in our neighborhood. I want the City to enforce the transportation plan for the Marquam Hill and other sensitive areas in the City and stop the commuter cut through traffic to and from the Hill using our neighborhood.

Ban semi trucks from using I-5 through Portland and have them use I-205. Ban semi trucks from a 2 hour window in both morning and evening rush hours. Semi trucks can gas up in California and to Seattle and never gas up in Oregon. Are the weight/mile taxes sufficient for the road damage done in Oregon?

Focus on METRO solutions to transportation rather than just the City. For example Metro ought to be responsible for all Willamette River Bridges inside the tri county area. Not just Multnomah County and the City.

Focus on low cost solutions promoting residents to use public transit, walking and bicycling. Promote neighborhood commerce so residents do not have to drive to the store, movies, cleaners etc. Having just returned from a week of living in the old city of Amsterdam I find Portland has eons to go to make this City friendly to people and cyclists. Ban large trucks from the Core downtown and off residential streets. Only box van trucks allowed with certain exceptions.

Find more ways to promote people rather than faster ways for motor vehicles to move from place to place.

City gives credits to PDC, OHSU, VA, Pearl District and Dunthorpe house owners for historic preservation or for loft owners and these ought to be dropped. Why tax lower income persons more per capita then wealthy property owners. Does not make sense!!!

Promote a METRO tax to pay for the number of miles one drives. Pay the tax based on the gas mileage of the vehicle driven and/or the weight of the vehicle and/or value of the car as these types of vehicles to most road damage. This could be done via State Legislation and the DMV records.
I

As a retired Grants Manager, percentages are a difficult way to explain your point of view.

For example, if 32% of 3,941 miles of streets are in poor condition--then 68% of the streets are okay---WHY SHOULD I CARE!!!

Much clearer to say "Of the 3,941 miles of streets, 1,261miles are in poor condition. Then explain WHY. ie. How many miles are over 50(or 40, or 30, etc) years old. What does it cost per mile to repair? How many miles needing repair are being added each year because of a lack of funds.

The same basic facts are needed to the 157 Bridges of which 35 are in poor condition. Or of the 992 traffic signals of which 427 are in poor condition. The why question again? How many are over 50 years old? etc. lack computer controls or what ever.

I would encourage additional post cards that highlight the needs in more detail. Let the numerical data explain the problem. Stay away from %. Give the public details of why and what the goals could be.

For example, of the 427 traffic signals in poor condition, the goal is to replace 42 next year that were installed before 1958. In 2009, the goal would be to replace all those installed before 1968, etc.

I have had it with tax increases. This city is a very unfriendly place to raise a family becuase it is so expensive. And I do quite well financially. WHat I see fromt eh city is a Tram that is a subsidy to OHSU that allows a stupidly located and very well off institituion to easily access more real estate and it's athletic club. I see the tram subsidized with 6.5 million in PDOT money that could ahve paved, fixed bridges, stop lights and potholes.

I see prioritization to trendy issues like biking, and "visioning" and endless belly button gazing by people in city government who have no grip on reality. That's what I see.

I called the city about traffic congestion in teh seven corners area and was told bya city traffic person that teh city sees congestion as a form of "traffic calming." Well, try telling that to those of us in private industry, with families and very busy lives. I am at the office at 7 and leave at 6 as often as not. Many private secotor people live and work like this. Not many public sector folks do.

I see a city out of touch with tax payers. And I am sick and tired of seeing my money wasted.

I live in Ladd's Addition, but I will not be at St. Philip Neri tonight because I know it will be a dog and pony show, and at best I might get 3 minutes to speak my mind. And I know we will be ignored.

So gas tax? Gas guzzler tax? Property tax? I don;t care what it is, I don't want it. I want the subsidies to builders to stop. I want the tax breaks to corporations to stop. I want the stupid projects (tram and street car - dumb!) to stop.

And I see folks like Sam Adams having not a clue what life in the real world is like, lacking the life experience to be able to ahve a concept of what it is like to work and raise a family in this city. I have four kids, and yes, we own a suburban. It is a gas guzzler. Should it be taxed differently than the Prius te self righteous people down the street own? Should we be encouraged to ride bikes? I dunno. But I;d suggest that gas prices already discourage us from driving the suburban (we drive a twenty year old Volvo as much as possible instead), but doesn't it really boil down to how much the car gets driven? And doesn't sucha tax punish families - who are arguably forced to drive more (like say, to school as PPS keep centralizing and screwing up neighborhood schools) than hipster twenty somethings?

So Sam, the gas tax thing is just an example, and my crude way of illustrating to you, enough is enough. The NINE GRAND I paid in real property tax will be ten grand next year. That's a damn lot, in addition to the income taxes I pay. And I am tired of it.

So, cut out the stupid stuf. the needless waste. the trendy projects that sap any creidbility you and the city have left. Stop wasting my money. No couplet (Stupid with a capital S), no more trams (Dumb!), and no more streetcars (Really Dumb Waste of My Money!)

How about focusing on making this city more liveable for those of us who pay the taxes, and less time on the trendoid hipster childless twenty-something crap?

Work on the priorities, get back to the basics and skip the cultural sensitivity crap, the eco roofs and tree hugging. The studies of studies studying why no one reads studies.

Sincerely (typos and all - I'm too busy to correct them), Simon Harding

As a long-time Portland resident, who moved here in the wonderful early 1970s when far-sighted City officials and neighborhood residents and businesses worked together to give us the City most of us still think is wonderful, I am saddenend by the number of viturperative comments posted here. While I think the tram was a terrible idea and that the proposed Burnside-Couch couplet is perhaps the most ill-conceived proposal in the past 30 years, I believe our City government tries incredibly hard to maintain and improve the City and the lives of residents. I appreciate them!

Some of the reasoned suggestions posted here merit careful consideration. I congratulate you on naming the issues "transpoprtaion funding". Streets and roads are a small part of the solution. Switching to transit use and making other behavior and land use changes is the most important approach. Taxing and funding mechanisms that provide incentives for this and disincentives for continuing reliance on single-occupancy of fuel guzzling, road-damaging vehicles will help. Bicyclists and walkers are a blessing -- though I wish they would be more careful of their own safety. Perhaps ticket bicyclists who at night wear black clothing, without a light and without a helmet.

P. S. I support additional funding to address the problems articulated. I think most of the funding ought to be tied to road use and use of other transportation facilities. Use taxes and fees to motivate us to be part of the solution.

What has the city been doing with all of the System Development Charges (SDC's) that are being raised through all of the building projects going on throughout the city? There are tons of construction sites, which have raised millions of dollars in these fees. Where does this money go?

I would like to eventually see an MRT system here (basically an express MAX (which is an LRT) with more cars)...much of this system would need to be underground, but as this city continues to expand upward and outward this will be essential to keeping the city moving as well as constructing, upgrading and maintaining roadways.

I am lucky enough to have an employer that provides me with a free Tri-Met pass. With the price of gas and parking so high, it is worth the little extra time it takes to get from one place to another. If I had to pay for it myself, I would probaby drive and pay to park. Maybe others would chose public transportation as well if it wasn't so expensive.

When making priority decisions, please don't forget about the eastside of I-205.

I understand some of my suggestions would need to be done at a state wide level but this is what I think needs to happen.

1. Raise vechile registration. It costs next to nothing to register a motor vehicle in Oregon. Use a system similar to CA where the value of the car determines the cost of registration. Use this money to subsidize road improvements for the city where the vehicle is registered.

2. Ban studded tires.

3. Raise gas taxes statewide.

To touch on people saying tax cyclists. As a cyclist I have little to no impact on the condition of the roads. I obey traffic laws and keep one more car off the road, the small costs for bike lanes ensure drivers know where I will be on the road and helps with traffic flow by giving me a place on the road.

I'll gladly pay $100.00 per year, to use my bike. But if I do, you drivers keep the hell out of the bike lanes, quit parking on them, and give the proper right of way to bicyclists.

Most of the negative comments about bicyclists seems to be mere envy. Yes, we do get something for free, because we're smart enough to see a wonderful opportunity. Building more roads for cars just encourages more sprawl, more traffic, and more problems for the city. If Portland wants to remain a great place to live, we need to take some roads away from gasonline traffic, and return them to pedestrains, and non-motorized traffic.

No use attending meetings, you folks at city hall
throw our comments in file 13. As for more money for
this project you should have thought about this before
the 55 million dollar tram and the Burnside project.
Taxed out, especially when our property taxes are about
to take a big Hike.

For every trip that is made on a bicycle, bus or pair of tennis shoes that is one less 3000+ pound car on the road and much, much less wear and tear on the streets, pollution in the air and poisonous oil residue making it's way to our streams and rivers.
Even if you never go anywhere without your own car it is in your own best interest to encourage others to use bikes, buses or walk because it gets their car out of your way.
A user fee on bikes would cost more to implement than it would collect and it would be a disincentive for something we should be encouraging.
Currently only a tiny portion of transportation dollars are spent on bikes. Let's spend more on bike/pedestrian and public transit not less.

All these comments about how bicyclists don't "pay their fair share", "use the roads for free", etc. They made me laugh.

Most cyclists I know, including myself, also own a car. We also drive. Which means that we buy gas, paid to have our car registered, paid for insurance, paid for a driver's license... hm. Sounds like I paid a lot already.

I would not be averse to a license for cycling; that said, I would also like to see MOTORISTS have to retake the entire driving test over again when it comes time to renew the ol' driver's license. Maybe if EVERYONE had a refresher course every 4 years about the rules of the road, there wouldn't be such problems with cars, bikes, etc.

it can be argued that the simple act of choosing bicycles as transportation subsidizes other vehicles that use our roads. as aforementioned, the difference in weight of a bicycle compared to an SUV creates far less road damage thus requiring less maintenance. each person that chooses to cycle and not drive their autos (potentially with studs) prevents costly damage to the roads. any expenditures for cycle infrastructure is easily covered by the savings in road maintenance and then some.

cyclists also prevent congestion simply by not being another 4 wheeled vehicle.

i am abhorrently opposed to any licensing of bicycles. there are many citizens that do not have the money to own, maintain, insure, and fuel a vehicle. these people need a safe and efficient method of transportation so that they can live an work. do we really want more ill maintained, uninsured vehicles on the road? do we need another costly state department to oversee licensing?

bikes need to remain free as a source of transportation.

i am also of the opinion that traffic laws need to be amended in order to take into account the differences between a 20lb and a 3000lb vehicle. fines should be determined by potential damage that either can inflict. i am also a proponent of an idaho style stop law, perhaps this would be a win win solution for both cars and bike.

One of the local papers estimated that it would take a 15 cent increase in the gas tax to cover the cost of fixing problem roads and maintaining the rest. 15 cents is nothing when it's lumped into $3.10/gal.

The burden of paying for the transportation infrastructure should lie on those who use it the most, and taxing gas is the best solution that I can see at this point. Todd, who posted above, has some excellent points on having a sliding scale of vehicle registration fees based on vehicle value and banning studded tires. I couldn't agree more.

I concur with previous posts regarding studded tires. They do a tremendous amount of unnecessary damage to our roads, and the users of studded tires pay little if anything in exchange.

...that the only mode of transport in this town which routinely and quite literally causes damage to the infrastructure which allows it to be viable in the first place should be the class of transport that's most responsible for financing the upkeep of that infrastructure?

Look, I don't have the money to own a car. I can sink a whole lot of time into telling you all about the great benefits of using public transit, walking, and biking, and that's great, but first and foremost, I've made a choice based solely on the practical decision that I would put myself in a tremendous amount of debt to own and maintain a car and I'd rather avoid that. I'm already paying income taxes which in part help to maintain the roads I'm that I'm not cracking apart just for the sake of getting myself to the grocery store and back. I've chosen to avoid contributing to one problem for the sake of having my *own* problem keeping up with the expense. Now some people are wanting me to pay up for the consequences of their decisions? Right... I might as well ask *you* to all chip in and take care of my student debt because I had the poor sense to assume a loan with a ridiculously high-interest rate...

Seriously folks, you can scapegoat the other modes of transport all you want, but you made your choice and now you're going to have to work with the city to figure out how to solve the problem without breaking the bank from either end. It really shouldn't be too tough. Since you *are* the dominant mode, there's a lot of you, and so you can all split the cost evenly and fairly and make a difference! A sliding-scale of income/fuel efficiency/etc. registration fee sounds like a great idea that not only makes people think about their choice, but ensures that the people who can sink crazy amounts of money into a luxury car are picking up the slack while the lower-class family of four who has an ancient boat for getting around in aren't getting totally screwed.

The only pot hole I'm concerned about filling is the one at the end of my pipe. When it's legal for me to fill that one, you'll have all the money you need to fund upkeep of the transportation infrastructure. You’ll even have money left over to build dedicated bike lanes (think Springwater Corridor) everywhere in the state.

Please, please, please raise the gas tax, car registration tax, car import tax, anything. We need to up the ante on discouraging wasteful and polluting consumption of resources. The price of gas will do nothing but continue to rise in the coming years, so we might as well raise some money in the meantime to build out our transportation system for more efficient, healthy and safe means of transportation - biking, walking, mass transit, light rail. Gasoline-powered personal auto transportation will be obsolete within two decades or less. We should stop building additional car infrastructure now and focus spending on sustainable transportation solutions.

We need to start designing the city for the lowest common denominator of transport ability - making the metro area friendly to children, seniors and people with low incomes. People of all means and abilities should be able to get to a local grocery store, library, park, etc. The status quo of designing for automobiles makes this impossible.

Creating a bike tax is without precedent. It might even be illegal. However, I would be happy to pay a road bike tax proportional to vehicle weight, lane width, and miles traveled. If x is the average tax paid by an automobile driver. The average bike tax would be something like (.01*.2*.5)x. This is a pretty small number. Even if you go on to assume that bike facilities deny others the use of the road (which is untrue) and multiply by the ratio of automobile users to bike users (a 50:1 ratio is very generous to auto users since far more than 2% of Portland residents are bike users) to account for "special treatment" the number is still very small. This is a completely absurd idea. The actual revenue generated would be a rounding error compared to the amount needed to enforce (a tamper-proof odometer?) the tax. While we're coming up with stupid fees, let's tax those no good pedestrians too, with a surcharge for dogs and children.

Whatever crisis the roads are in is of City Hall's own making. Take some of the money you spend on dangerous curb extensions, speed bumps, bike lanes, Tram cost overruns, trolley tracks, pogo stick lanes, and skate board costs and spend this money on roads. And think how much money you will have if you drop the stupid idea of making Burnside a one-way street. The Neighborhood Town Hall Meetings are merely a public relations ploy. Adams already knows what he wants to do and couldn't care less about the public. Why didn't Mr. Adams do something during his 12 years working for the mayor, before the roads became so bad. Stop your crocodile tears. I'm not buying it this time.

Why don't you build another tram and tell people that live under it that their property value increased! Oh, you already have. Or you could have your animal terrorist buddies smear feces on the roads to smooth them out. Just like they did to the Schumachers. Another way is to license bike riders, which might prevent them from blowing stop signs and lights. Every morning one of these idiots almost t-bones my car. When I get out to confront them they ride away like the cowards they are. Don't get me wrong I do occasionally see a few that actually obey laws, myself included. I would say about $500 a year for a bike license, I would gladly pay. If you can't afford that much, then get a real job. I am tired of paying the most corrupt and dim city government in this country. Your and randy leanords job is to destroy the city that my family has lived in for 7 generations. Job well done! I now encourage families and businesses to leave this city . Thanks for ruining one of the best on this planet. Go back to the state that spawned your diseased minds. Don't run for mayor you won't win. LOL

I would say about $500 a year for a bike license, I would gladly pay. If you can't afford that much, then get a real job.

I work 40-60 hours a week doing a mix of system administration, web design, and application development. I can't afford that $500 without paying out more interest in repaying my student loans that I'm staring down paying for another good 5-6 years. You wanna tell me how this isn't a real job, Jim?

I bike, Jim, and I follow the laws. If you want me to pay up $500 a year just for the benefit of getting around with burning gas or having to pay car insurance, and I'm *not* the one driving a multi-ton vehicle chunking holes in the pavement, you're practically *demanding* a new gas task, substantial automobile registration fee increase, etc.. And hey, you sound like you've got money to burn, so that's not so bad, is it? Your unfocused rage against cartoonish leftist stereotypes should prove a nice distraction while you fork over a great deal more than the paltry $500 figure you've plucked from thin air.

Stay angry, Jim. Your zealotry makes this easy for the rest of us.

Why not cut some of the school buses. Kids who live within a mile of their respective schools could walk, which would take 15 to 20 minutes! What a concept . . . . exercise plus save costs in fuel and maintenance on school buses. Less damage to the streets from the bus traffic. The school buses that travel down our street go at a pretty good clip and our road is filled with pot holes, to boot! The savings from cutting school transportation could be passed down for road repairs. We live on an unimproved street in southwest Portland. The neighbors on our street maintain our own black top because the City won't do any pot hole patching. We've been told that the City would have to go down to the base and redo the entire street completely in order to keep it maintained plus we'd have to pay for it. Of course this won't be happening in my lifetime.

I would like to see the bus shelters that were pulled up out of downtown put back in after the construction is finished. Those fricking things werer expensive and the best reuse of them is to put them back. They are big, keep the rain out and so what if they house a few homeless now and again. I don't want to see some sleek minimalist piece of crap that keeps 2 people dry but has no wind buffer, and is built more because the town worries homelsss my try to live in it. Reinstall the old bus shelters!
It is nice to come here and thrash about the state of the town. I would comment that gas needs to be expensive. Let's start at about USD$10.00/gallon. I still see new SUVs so clearly cost is still not a problem.

My family has lived in Southeast Portland for five years. In that time I saw a repair crew fill one pothole on our street. I had hopes that they were finally going to fill them all, since my neighbor and I have both talked to the city about the streets deterioration. But, it didn't happen.

Meanwhile, I have watched millions being poured into streetcar projects for downtown residents as well as the multimillion dollar OHSU doctor's escalator (tram).

I don't think the economy can stand any more tax increases, especially on gasoline. You are pricing middle class families out of the city already.

I have a number of comments and suggestions.

1) Let’s distinguish between fees and taxes. In my mind, fees are funds that a user pays for a service, like the use of roads. Taxes go to a fund that we, through our government, decide to use to subsidize things that we don’t want to, or are unable to, charge the user for. Gas taxes aren’t taxes, they’re fees. Got it? Don’t use taxes, which ought to go to things we want to subsidize, to pay for things that the user can and should pay for. To a large extent, the road infrastructure is used by cars & trucks, and to a large extent users of private cars and trucks should pay for it, through fees, not through property taxes, income taxes or other taxes. True, we all benefit to varying degrees from the roads, but we all benefit to varying degrees from almost all economic activity; that does not mean that the government should subsidize every economic activity. To a large extent, the car and truck users should pay for the road system. This is a basic economic concept. When the users don’t pay, the users use more. I don’t want more private cars & trucks and I don’t want to subsidize them.

2) Don’t use city general funds for roads. I do not want to see city general fund money used for roads; not only does it subsidize the user, it also hides the problem of users not paying enough to maintain the system they use, so the users can continue to oppose higher gas fees because they don’t see the consequences of not paying enough to maintain the roads.

I, personally, have no problem subsidizing bicycle lanes and public transit. (But I’m open to kicking in something for bicycles if we as a community decide that’s fair.) It seems to me that bicyclists, pedestrians and public transit users help the roads be less congested, and that this benefits those who use private vehicles. I also think that we need to promote change in this area, and that subsidizing these things (using taxes) is justified.

3) Don’t subsidize growth. To the extent that we’re building more roads, I don’t believe that existing residents should be paying taxes to subsidize growth. New roads should be paid for by growth, not existing residents.

4) Don’t expand roads. I do not support doing anything that encourages more driving; we should not be expanding roads. We should be working to change our transportion use so that the road system does not need expanded.

5) Expand public transit. We need a quantum leap here. In any other country, you would glance at the road and see, almost without fail, a bus or some other form of shared transit going by – they’re that common. We need more public/mass/shared transit. I want to live in a city where it’s easy to get everywhere without owning a car. And we’d all be better off for it. Tri-met is holding it’s own, but we need more vision & goals in this area, to ensure that most people have access to transit within a specific distance, most of the time. I don’t have the data so I can’t say, but how about some thing like 99% of Portlanders should be served by public transit within easy biking distance for 15 hours per day, and 95% should be served by public transit within easy walking distance for 15 hours per day. That would be visionary leadership.

6) Make Tri-met free for every Portlander who’s a student. Their student body cards could be transit passes. Let’s encourage our young people to develop a lifestyle that uses mass transit. It would also help their parents out, and they would be advocates of transit in the future. In a few years, let’s bump the age up to 21. I don’t know how you administer that…

7) Depave: Save money by deciding not to pave side streets. Offer people/neighborhoods the option of closing some small side streets that aren’t really needed or wanted, and of narrowing side streets that are wider than they need to be. I used to live on a street that had no driveways and simply was not needed. Maybe it would be nice to use one small section for parking, but forget the rest. Build a nice planter box, and turn it into a playground or orchard, or allow people to take it over. This would be an improvement on a number of levels.

8) Make gas expensive. While I appreciate the strain that higher gas prices put on people who are living within a budget, gas needs to be more expensive. Expensive gas motivates people to use other options, and support other options, and it encourages innovation in more efficient transportation options. More people using mass transit means a growing mass transit system. We can support people in handling the increased cost of gas by providing cheaper transportation options.

9) Move away from the automobile economy. Economically, we are better off in Oregon when people use fewer cars; all of us would be better off if more of the money in our economy stayed in Oregon, and every aspect of the automobile economy drains money from Oregon. The car is made elsewhere so when an Oregonian purchases it, most of that money leaves the state. The insurance companies are elsewhere, so a good portion of our insurance premiums leave the state. The gasoline comes from elsewhere and a very high percentage of the money that each of us plunks down for gas leaves the state. Parts and motor oil all come from out of state; the only portion of the money we pay for those that stays here is enough to pay the minimum-wage worker at GI Joes and Jiffy Lube, and the cost of operating a retail store; even the stores are mostly based out of state so the profit leaves. Oregon would be economically better off with a smaller percentage of our money going into automobiles. Let’s take some of that and build other options that keep our money here, and improve our livability and environment.

10) We need better inter-city transit. I’m tempted to repeat this three times. Getting to Salem by public transit is not practical. People use transit when it’s available, and they’re motivated. But it doesn’t matter if we’re motivated, if the option isn’t there.

11) Prioritize. Think in terms of investments, rather than capital expenditures. If we invest in more transit wisely, we decrease the need for other transportation projects. If we forego some “nice” transportation projects now, and instead spend money on projects that will save us all money in the future (because as a community, we’re able to use fewer cars), we can do more nice projects later.