MARK YOUR CALENDARS. Next Round of Neighborhood Transportation Meetings

Sam isn't making any plans on whether he will run for reelection or some other office until later in September.

Sam talks of exactly how PDOT's budget is broken down, where the money comes from, what gets spent where, what money is discretionary and subject to reprioritization, and which money we can't be reallocated because of state laws.

For instance, all gas tax revenue MUST be spent on roads and ROW maintenance.

System Development Charges MUST be spent on capacity enhancements.

Streetcar money comes from property owners and urban renewal dollars, which cannot be spent for maintenance.

These are just a few examples. Please attend the townhalls and you can ask any more questions you have.

The short of it is, though, is that PDOT has been cutting its budget every year for the past 7-8 years, and its annual budget is $12 million a year less now than it was 9 years ago, and this doesn't account for the 70% inflation for transportation costs that has taken place over the last 13 years, either.

We have had to prioritize and cut non-priority programs for some time now. A couple examples of the result of this: We don't care for trees any more or prune them, even if they are blocking streetlights. If a car crashes into and knocks over a streetlight, we do not replace it, because we cut that budget, too.

We are cleaning the streets less, charging people for leaf removal, and a whole host of other things that you can learn more about if you come to a townhall or give me an email. rchlapowski@ci.portland.or.us

Can I assume from you ad hominem against me that you are unable to find any errors on my web site and that is why you attack me instead of attacking my message?

Please either prove misinformation coming from me or quit the accusations.

Thanks
JK

http://www.debunkingportland.com/Calming/Accident/Accident.htm

What is your point?
That is a real accident.
It would not have happened if:
1) The shrubbry had been kept trimmed, or
2) That obsticle was not in the road.

BTW, did you know that devices like that kill more people by delaying emergancy vehicles than they save by slowing traffic?

See secondsCount.org

Thanks
JK

Uhhhhhhh.....It also wouldn't have happened if the driver had obeyed the law; a simple, clearly marked, and obvious one at that. I do however, like how you attempt to rationalize a driver's illegal behavior by saying "such an action probably seemed safe." It's people like you, advocating for illegal driving habits, that gives a bad impression of car drivers in this town.

PS have you ever driven a car before? Turning left around a traffic circle isn't "difficult" as you say. And if it is, you probably shouldn't be driving.

A Legal Driver Uhhhhhhh.....It also wouldn't have happened if the driver had obeyed the law; a simple, clearly marked, and obvious one at that.
JK: That guy would not have fallen off the cliff if he had just obeyed the sign! That is why we put up guard rails.

I am constantly amazed by how little knowledge planners have of basic safe design:
1. They want connected streets which increase crime.
2. They put light rail stations down in Sullivan’s Gulch and wonder why they have a crime problem.
3. They put parking lots in the back of buildings to create a walkable neighborhood. But these create high crime areas in the backs of buildings.
If you read much planner claptrap you rapidly see that they place safety far down the list of priorities. They simply don’t care about people’s safety because they have a higher calling: playing SimCity with real people.

A Legal Driver I do however, like how you attempt to rationalize a driver's illegal behavior by saying "such an action probably seemed safe."
JK: Again you show you lack of knowledge about safe design. You always keep human nature in mind for safe designs,. Too bad Portland planners show such little interest in safety.

A Legal Driver It's people like you, advocating for illegal driving habits, that gives a bad impression of car drivers in this town.
JK: Please learn to read: I did not “advocating for illegal driving habits”. That is your diverting the conversation away from bad design.

A Legal Driver PS have you ever driven a car before? Turning left around a traffic circle isn't "difficult" as you say. And if it is, you probably shouldn't be driving.
JK: That you consider a 3/4 circle turn around a traffic obstruction “isn’t difficult” compared to a simple left turn shows your lack of basic driving knowledge. Do you actually drive?

BTW how does a fire truck do that turn while rushing to your house to save it from a fire? Or to save you from a heart attack? See SecondsCount.org

Thanks
JK

My experience has been that street connectivity and permeability reduces crime, not increases it. It's what every university teaches you in their planning courses, and for good reason.

Try getting attacked on a through street. Now try getting attacked in a dead-end cul-de-sac. Tell me which street it's easier to flee your attacker from.

As a girl who was attacked two years ago by a man at about six in the evening in a dead-end cul-de-sac, I can tell you which type of city planning I'd have prefered that January night. And the dead-end street I was on that enabled him to corner me was not it.

Paul, If you read my 8/16 post, you would have realized the $6 million I was talking about was identified on the website blog of Amanda Fritz who is a respected former candidate for City Council and serves on one or more City citizen committees. Money in the Systems Development Charges Fund is collected from development projects throughout the City and can be used for increasing transport capacity throughout the City. It is not Urban Renewal Money. Any use of the Systems Development Charges Fund to pay for the streetcar is a take-a-way from other neighborhoods in Portland. Sam’s request for more money to fund PDOT would then back fill some of these funds. Therefore, Sam and Roland are playing a cover up shell game to finance snail rail.

Furthermore, if anybody is spreading misinformation, it is yourself. What you claim is a majority are really just the vocal groupies that rally to the support of the streetcar and often post both here and on Portland Transport. The only way to clarify a true “majority” is to have a vote of the people, up or down, for or against any streetcar proposal.

The fact is that you cannot use Urban Renewal money for basic road maintenance.

You CAN use it for major capital improvement projects, which would include building streets from scratch and major streetscape projects. And this has been done in many URA neighborhoods.

This type of capital improvement is fundamentally different from regular street maintenance which you CANNOT LEGALLY FUND WITH URA money. That's just the fact.

For instance, I tried to use URA money from the Mississippi neighborhood (they WANTED to spend it on the following program) for the installation of a series of new crosswalks in the area and was told NO by our financial folks because it is not considered hefty enough of a project to be considered a capital improvement. I also had asked if we could amortize the maintenance costs to get that from URA money. Again, I was told no, you can only use URA money for MAJOR improvements in the right of way.

I don't know what else to tell you... except that URA money can only be used for MAJOR road redesigns and overhauls but not regular maintenance.

You can state facts, but how about this? Every time you set up a URA, there is that much less property tax to fix roads, schools, sewers and police. So you play a pretty good shell game by dedicating this money to your pet projects and then cry poverty and say you need a new tax to pay for things you should have been doing all along.

Goodness, when are you going to see you are like the guy who takes every penny to buy a Porsche and then can't afford to maintain it? Except the Porsche guy can't raise taxes.

So when Mr Admas visits Mr Bluemnhauer to ask for trolley money instead of moeny to fix roads or sewers please don't be so proud. THen he has the gall to blame Mr Bush (I am not a fan of his either) even though Bush never vetoed a spending bill and surprise we have plenty of money for light rail from him. You chose this future for Portland.

You are conflating all tax revenues, which makes sense in as much as you are paying all the taxes. But as for where those tax dollars go, each revenue source has a specific place where it can and can't go. You can call it a shell game, but the fact is that some money can be used for some things but not others. And some sources of money are easier to raise than others.

"Every time you set up a URA, there is that much less property tax to fix roads, schools, sewers and police."

NO- Leaving aside the fact URA's can stimulate development and increase property tax revenue over the long term, this is just not true.

Two things in particular that should be clear:

1. Property tax is not used fund roads - period. Roads are paid for via gas taxes, some parking meter revenue, and state/federal grants. NOT property taxes.
2. Property taxes are not used for sewer maintenance. Sewers are paid for by ratepayers via their regular sewer bills.

As for a question of priorities, you are right on some level.

For decades, the federal government has funded big splashy new projects as opposed to maintenance. But even in this case, the feds focus the vast majority of their money on the federal highway system. The federal government has not paid for local road maintenance and improvement since Reagan slashed HUD (housing and Urban Development) funds in the early 80's.

Cities in Oregon depend by-and-large on the state gas tax for all of their maintenance funding.

Sam took 10-15 trips down to Salem this past year to lobby legislators for an increase in the gas tax. Not only was he not successful (the state legislature has been loathe to raise the gas tax for nearly 15 years), but what was on the table was at most a 2 or 3-cent-per-gallon increase, which would not even come close to covering our needs in Portland.

For every dollar someone in the Portland region, only about 46 cents of it returns for projects in the area- this includes state, county, and local projects. With the funding allocation formula (which will very likely not get changed), to secure the necessary funding to address Portland's maintenance backlog over the next 10 years, it would take more like 20 or 30 cents more a gallon, not even close to 2 or 3 cents a gallon being considered by the legislature.

We in Portland would actually get significantly more bang for our buck with a local vs. a state gas tax.

In any case, to say that it is government inefficiency or "wrong priorities" that has caused the chronic, nation-wide underinvestment that we'ves seen in our transportation infrastructure, especially when there has been roughly 70% cost inflation for transportation projects over the last 15 years and coupled with the fact that we are living in a state with a capped property tax, no sales tax, and a gas tax that has been static for the last 15 years - is just folly or wishful thinking.

You can't get something for nothing, despite what the conservatives have been telling people for the past few decades. When you don't accept that living in civilization entails a cost (e.g. taxes), what you get is deficits that our grandchildren will be burdened with for decades as well as a crumbling public infrastructure caused by underinvestment in the basics of our society's and economy's wellbeing.

"Above all stop telling people you can't use UR to make capital improvements to streets unless you include streetcars. You are not telling the truth."

I never said that.

"Stop responding to what I DIDN'T say."

Ditto.