Safe, Sound, and Green Streets Proposal to Improve the Safety and Maintenance of Your Transportation System

Vance:
The Stakeholder List can be found in the original post under Exhibit D.

Well, at least my fly was zipped up. Ooops. Sorry Sam. Thanks for kicking my soap-box Shoshanah.

I still can't figure out why the, "8's", were dropped from my post. "9", is supposed to read, "89". The man is always tryin' to keep the, "8's", down, huh?

I try to stick to wild-ass assertions that can be neither proved, or disproved, myself. Way more effective politically, that way. Here's a good example of why:

"...and the majority of bicyclists, as well as many of those who are employed by the City, arrogantly ignore traffic control devices including not stopping at stop signs and blowing through red lights. ..."

Of course, you can produce a source, right?

You've painted a pretty ugly picture here that I, for one, appreciate. But you do seem to want to characterize one special-interest group as being worse than another. The reality is that they are all equally bad for the city of Portland. The so-called, 'cycling community', has but a single message to offer the citizens of Portland - "We are better than you.". These smarmy, elitist, eco-nazi's have spent a lifetime accepting trophies for games that no one wins, and seem convinced that Star Trek: The Next Generation is something more than a fantasy. Given carte-blanche they would dress us all, head to toe, in bubble wrap and styrofoam; and put cameras in your colon to monitor your red-meat intake. As tax payers, we get to foot the bill so that weak, terrified, helpless people can construct a delusion of safety for themselves.

IN MY OPINION, the, 'vast majority', of cyclists in Portland are completely unrepresented, as evidenced by the way the BTA gets away with calling the shots. Mr. Parker, you oppose these people because, as a motorist, and taxpayer, you feel taxpayer resources are being allocated unfairly. As a cyclist, I oppose these people because they are a tiny minority of cyclists who've arrogantly labeled themselves as the, 'cycling community'; and continually try to dictate to real cyclists what they should, and shouldn't be doing. The common thread? The vocal minority in control of the silent majority.

If we, as citizens of Oregon, were to take another look at, 'non-profit', we could seriously curtail a lot of this B.S.. The guidelines that frame this institution are ridiculously broad, and special-interest is using it like a .44 magnum. Normal, everyday citizens of Portland are being brow-beaten by a bunch of adults whose parents wouldn't spank them. A spanking is, indeed, in order at this point; and I think the best way to go about it is to start dissembling the non-profit pulpit they tend to preach from.

Thanks a lot Scott "Tricker" Bricker, Scott Ginsberg, and Commissioner Adams. Clearly you've upset Mr. Parker. Just exactly the type of thing that I told you would happen at the press conference where much of this stuff was trotted out in the first place. Useless safety improvements are going to do nothing but make real cyclists, like me, look bad. If you want people to avoid using their cars, raise the gas-tax, plain and simple. If you don't want to do that, please, keep trying to hide the fact, and continue telling us all it is for our own good. That seems to be working great for ya.

Two infamous Portland, 'Ginsbergs', is apparently one more than I can keep track of. It will be easier to distinguish between them as soon as they are done with puberty.

Vance:
You may want to look at the resolution above that commits the council to review the revenues from the state gas tax.

Keep in mind that the gas tax is not a stable funding resource, as people drive more fuel efficient cars and buy less fuel when the price point gets too high. Gas tax revenues have not kept up with transportation related inflation. This comprehensive proposal recognizes the need for a significant increase in the State Gas Tax, while recognizing that our system can not run on gas tax alone.

Are you saying that THE ACTUAL DOLLARS COLLECTED by the gas tax have actually gone down?

Thanks
JK

PS: Tell Sue that unless some one gets back to me about that project list I gave her, I am going to assume that it truely represents actual spending.

In real terms, the money collected in terms of the gas tax has gone down.

Inflation has increased, driving per capita has remained basically flat, and the population outside of Portland has increased faster than within (meaning that the allocation process gives more money to other localities vis-a-vis us relative to the past.)

Let me try again:

Are you saying that THE ACTUAL, UNADJUSTED, DOLLARS COLLECTED by the gas tax have actually gone down?

Thanks
JK

Why are you so concerned about unadjusted dollars? Weren't you just lecturing on the "time value of money" earlier? Are you unfamiliar with inflationary costs? Do you have evidence that vehicle-miles-travelled, combined with average fuel economy, have resulted in gas tax revenues which have kept up with inflation?

No Bob, I'm just trying to get the original question answered.

Thanks
JK

Your original question was of the form "Are you saying that [...]", and you got an answer, albeit from a different (but higher-up) staffer.

11 Days later & I am still waiting for a simple answer to a simple question.

What are you hiding, Roland?

Could it be that the actual revenues have gone up?

Show us the real numbers:
Actual revenue increase.
Inflation.
Net

No Billions for Bikes, Busses & Bubble curbs!!

Thanks
JK

I really like the idea of minimizing congestion by investing in our signal system.
JK:
So do I. Too bad Sams's streetcar scheme likely will dramatically increase congestion, well beyond any gain from repairing the signal system.

Thanks
JK

Andrew -- Sorry for the confusion regarding your projects not being mapped on our SW summary map. This is just a remnant of the days before SWHRL had partnered up with SWNI. It does not reflect a lack of service just a summary based on the SWNI Boundary. With the additional Safe, Sound and Green Street funds, federal Safe Routes to School funds, and local traffic safety revenue we will be able to provide Safe Routes to School services to all of Portland's elementary and middle schools -- including East Sylvan and Ainsworth.

Thanks for you great question. We will update these maps with the shared SWHRL and SWNI boundaries

Vance,

Your comments were very well thought out. I often come off as being totally against bicycling, however that is not the case. My issues are that bicyclists should be paying for all bicycle specialized infrastructure including bike lanes, but not necessarily the roads; bicyclists need to abide by all traffic laws and not blame others for all their own mishaps; that infrastructure for bicycles and/or transit should not add to congestion by taking away infrastructure from motorists and motor freight carriers; and transit passengers need to pay a fares that both better reflect the costs of providing the service and a surcharge to help pay for the damage TriMet’s busses do to the roads.

You hit the nail squarely on the head when you suggested a common thread: “The vocal minority in control of the silent majority.” Sam basis his decisions on too tight of a circle of bike, streetcar and transit advocates that leaves out taxpayer, motorist and motor freight carrier voices. Roland his Senior Policy Advisor (whom I have had conversations with) is extremely bias towards motor vehicles and seemingly does not care having no concept or regards of just how passing on the costs for bicycle and streetcar programs can negatively affect the economy, business costs and household income. His recommendations also appear to be self-serving not wanting his own taxes or fees increased. The end result is a total lack of equity in applying transport user taxes at the local level with bicyclists and transit riders NOT paying their fare share for the infrastructure they use.

Too true. I'll go you one further, Mr. Parker. Bike lanes are, for the most part, useless, and in some cases, worse than none at all. Bike-boxes, worse yet. Fortunately for the contractors picking up a little extra holiday revenue, these last are how it's done in the Netherlands. Given that the laws of physics confirm everything European is superior, I'm not surprised to see these ridiculous solutions being deployed. Beads and trinkets for the BTA, and other area special interests.

That means that money you would have liked to have seen spent on improvements more in line with the realistic needs of a multi-modal environment, actually only served to placate the cycling community's, special interest lobby. A move that resulted in brilliant additions like the so-called, 'curb-extension'. As a cyclist, these infrastructure, 'improvements', are an embarrassment. An utter waste of money, resources, and manpower.

You say you are upset about having an unfair burden in the funding of these disasters, I say we didn't need them in the first place. Experienced urban cyclists are having their own judgment taken away from them. Then, the city is going to turn around and launch a campaign to attract novice, and often incompetent, cyclists into an environment, that the city itself says, is poorly engineered, and potentially dangerous.

And to think, just days before this proposal's posting, Commissioner Adams was talking about arm-wrestling the attorney's office for what? It certainly wasn't to help motorists with blown tires, or cyclists injured by curb-extensions. For starters.

In case the above post was not clear, let me outline again below what this transportation funding package does and doesn't entail, and what it does and doesn't assume in terms of revenue.

The strategy that the Stakeholder Committee and Sam developed of how to get out of the woods with the increasingly dire state of repair of our transportation system and the financial liability this entails can be broken down into 3 parts:

1. Increase in the State Gas Tax - this is necessary in order to successfully bridge the growing funding gap, but it will still not provide enough funds to sufficiently pay for Portland's aging transportation infrastructure. This will most likely be enacted by the state legislature.

2. Increase in the Multnomah County Vehicle Registration Fee - This will be used primarily to pay for the region's local match (that is required in order to qualify for federal funding) for a new Sellwood Bridge and also some important Willamette River bridge maintenance. The county maintains almost all of the Willamette River Bridges, but this will not provide any funds for maintenance of the roads in Portland or greater Multnomah. By statute, Multnomah County has to put this on the ballot for a referendum.

3. Enactment of a Street Maintenance Fee by Portland City Council - This fee will be assessed to both businesses and residences, with businesses and residences each paying about half of the money that will be raised. This was the result of careful work by an 89 member stakeholder committee that looked at the exact extent of PDOT's budget issues and worked to balance the implementation of competing needs that exceeded the amount of money that will be raised by the new fee.

The decision to seek enactment by Portland City Council instead of going to the voters was based on a few reasons.

First, Sam and other city officials were elected to broker the kind of deals that this represents and to make difficult decisions.

Second, in part because of the balancing of needs and objectives this policy proposal entails, there is A LOT of nuance that is easily lost or distorted by those who don't and wouldn't support local government raising more money for transportation no matter what.

Those opposed to this proposal (or any other funding proposal) would be able to come up with catchy (if misleading) slogans against the package of measures, but those supporting it -a broad coalition, but one that is not as tightly organized as potential opponents- do not have as easy a task... Going into the policy details and mechanics of how this fee is assessed, the series of decisions and compromises that led up to this particular proposal, and the trade-offs entailed in different fee structures is not something that can be done easily or quickly in a 30 second sound-bite.

.............

What Council will vote on regarding a gas tax is a resolution stating its intent to implement a local gas tax if the statewide gas tax is not raised by the Oregon legislature in the next session.

..............

A big reason that the steering committee decided upon pursuing a street maintenance fee is because EVERYONE BENEFITS FROM A SAFE, EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM - WHETHER OR NOT YOU BIKE, DRIVE, OR SIT AT HOME AND GET EVERYTHING DELIVERED TO YOU. A street maintenance fee is a fair way to have all users of the right of way pay for the benefits the receive from it, whether or not they drive or take transit or walk.

This is why the animosity that is still being exuded from the small (but very vocal - I give you credit, Terry) group that exists in Portland that have a chip on their shoulder about cyclists is hard for me to understand. It is misguided in my eyes, to say the least. This fee will have everyone pay into the basic maintenance of our transportation system for the first time ever. So, its hard for me to really take to heart the arguments put forward by this (small) crowd.

.............

RE: Safety at intersections, the answer is that while Sam was successful in convincing his colleagues on Council of the importance of traffic safety, who subsequently allocated one-time funds to redo some of the worst of the worst, the money they allocated was far below the overall need. This will complement and continue the work that is already underway.

Mr. Chlapowski:

It is apparent that a majority have come out in favor of the Safe and Sound Streets proposal, and we all know that local funding is essential, but in a (hopefully) democratic society, we like being asked, not demanded from.

Bypassing the voting process was not, as I remember, specifically part of Sam Adam's campaign for Commissioner, and when I voted for him, that's not what I had in mind. I have always been in favor of putting fee increases to a vote, especially when they show up in unlikely places.

With a little more time all the important nuances of the program can be successfully presented. There is no need to railroad it through the legislature without a vote. The excuse that people won't support local government raising this money just doesn't fly. Maybe in conservative Southern Oregon, but this is Portland.

Looking at the stakeholder list I see a lot of that conservatism there, however. In fact the list looks very biased in that direction. The voting public of Portland represents a much broader cross-section. We should be trusted in this decision making process. This should be a partnership with the people of Portland, not a select few special interests.

This lack of trust for the constituency feels to me like a form of oppression as well as an erosion of my rights.

Nuada

Roland Chlapowski This is why the animosity that is still being exuded from the small (but very vocal - I give you credit, Terry) group that exists in Portland that have a chip on their shoulder about cyclists is hard for me to understand.
JK: You are determined to give a free ride to bikers as they take up more and more street space and flaunt the rules of the road. Be very wary of the battle at the ballot. The bikers have pissed off just about every motorist around.

Roland Chlapowski It is misguided in my eyes, to say the least. This fee will have everyone pay into the basic maintenance of our transportation system for the first time ever. So, its hard for me to really take to heart the arguments put forward by this (small) crowd.
JK: Your other problem is that you have wasted the money that should have gone to road repair on transit, bikes, peds, streetcars and toy trains. Just taken a look at the list I gave Sue at one of you town forums. She was going have some one get back to me about wether or not I am right that those are mostly transit, bike, ped and rail expenditures, not what ordinary people think as road expenses. I am still waiting, so I presume my interpretation is correct:

YOU GUYS HAD LOTS OF MONEY AND WASTED IT ON PET PROJECTS AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR ROADS, NOW YOU ARE ASKING US TO TRUST YOU.

FAT CHANCE.

Thanks
JK

Roland Chlapowski said: “This is why the animosity that is still being exuded from the small (but very vocal - I give you credit, Terry) group that exists in Portland that have a chip on their shoulder about cyclists is hard for me to understand.

Roland; you do not understand because of your prejudicial narrow-minded bias towards motorists and motor vehicles. You continue to advise Sam using tunnel vision with your blinders on only listening to your close circle of good buddy bicycling rebels (including the BTA) rather than the silent majority who vote everyday by driving their cars and trucks. You obviously have no respect for the number of jobs tied to the automobile industry, how the motor vehicle is coupled together with maintaining a vibrant economy and doing business in today’s fast paced business world. JK was absolutely correct when he said, “You are determined to give a free ride to bikers as they take up more and more street space and flaunt the rules of the road. Be very wary of the battle at the ballot. The bikers have pissed off just about every motorist around.”

The issue, the chip as you call it, is about taxpayer equity, and the irresponsibility the bicycling community outwardly demonstrates when opposing directly paying for the specialized infrastructure they use, and when they deliberately,, intentionally, knowingly, arrogantly, condescendingly, carelessly ignore traffic control devices such as stop signs and red light that are in place to keep everybody safe on the road, and then attempt to blame their own safety failures and mishaps on everybody else. And because those mishaps do happen, you and Sam propose more taxpayer funded bicycle infrastructure such as bike boxes that will only add to traffic congestion and more conflicts between bicyclists and motor vehicles.

Get real Roland. Get a reality check. Get a job that gives you some real world business experience instead of just providing lip service political rhetoric.

And yes, the one and only thing you got right; I am vocal - specifically when policies, politicians and policy advisors promote using the tax codes as a socialist means to dictate how people should travel, where and how people should live, and even what people choose to eat.

You can call it:

BILLION$ FOR BIKE$.

Thanks
JK

But you'd be wrong, and intentionally misleading.

Bob R. You could call it that. But you'd be wrong, and intentionally misleading.
JK: Are you saying that is it NOT “appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations” to get people's attention? (With thanks to Al Gore, who said: I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is , as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are... Al Gore in Grist, 09 May 2006, grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/ bold added.

Bob I suggest that you set an example by leveling with people about mass transit’s real cost being several times that of driving. And its lack of energy savings compared to modern, efficient cars. And its crime problems. And its slowness. And light rail’s death rate being well above that of driving.

Thanks
JK

It amuses me that you've tried to expand this from a street maintenance fee, to the Columbia River Crossing, and now to Al Gore.

You've done what a number of right-wing bloggers did: Misrepresent (over-represent?) the context of what Al Gore was saying in that interview. Somehow I'm not surprised.

Al was asked about the appropriate mix between "scaring people" about the problems of global warming, and offering up "hope" in the form of solutions. Al stated that he thinks over-representation of the problems is necessary to motivate people. This does not imply lying or distortion, but rather where to put the emphasis.

For commentary, see:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/06/11/135311.php

Can JK go a step further and invoke a conspiracy theory beyond "Al Gore / Global Warming == bad" to oppose the street maintenance fee? How about taking issue with the moon landing? That might be a good start. The Scientologists might want you to put a word in on what Xenu thinks about the street maintenance fee.

Bob R.: You've done what a number of right-wing bloggers did:
JK: Don’t call me right wing, you commie, I’m probably more liberal than you are except that when it comes to wasting other people’s money.

Bob R.: Al was asked about the appropriate mix between "scaring people" about the problems of global warming, and offering up "hope" in the form of solutions. Al stated that he thinks over-representation of the problems is necessary to motivate people. This does not imply lying or distortion, but rather where to put the emphasis.
JK: That was a clear admission of lying - you are just refusing to admit it.

For commentary, see: blogcritics.org/archives/2006/06/11/135311.php

Bob R.: Can JK go a step further and invoke a conspiracy theory beyond "Al Gore / Global Warming == bad" to oppose the street maintenance fee? How about taking issue with the moon landing? That might be a good start. The Scientologists might want you to put a word in on what Xenu thinks about the street maintenance fee.
JK: Typical progressive: attack the messenger when YOU HAVE NO FACTS.

Thanks
JK

I wrote: You've done what a number of right-wing bloggers did:

JK replied: Don’t call me right wing, you commie

A: I didn't call you right-wing. I said you've done what a number of right-wing bloggers did. This is demonstrably true with just a little bit of Google searching. If you're worried that people are confusing you with right-wing bloggers, don't use their tactics.
B: Nice bit with the "commie" slur. Something getting under your skin?

That was a clear admission of lying

No, it was a clear discussion about framing an argument and how to motivate people to act. I already linked to a commentary on this, and you can click through directly to the original interview from there.

Typical progressive: attack the messenger when YOU HAVE NO FACTS.

Just who's attacking the messenger?

JK has invented a completely new word, never-before used online! Google returns no hits for "boulivarding". Congratulations.

Bob R.: JK has invented a completely new word, never-before used online! Google returns no hits for "boulivarding". Congratulations.
JK: Still picking nits, I see.

I do understand though, you have to keep people distracted from PDOT’s history of a massive waste of money on worthless projects that benefit only a tiny few people. Bike lanes, bubble curbs, speed bumps, boulevards and streetcars.

Coming soon: the $200 million bike lane across the Colombia.
Coming soon: more traffic congestion and tax breaks for the wealthy if we build the Eastside streetcar line.

Thanks
JK

JK says: Still picking nits, I see.

Still inventing words, I see.

you have to keep people distracted from PDOT’s history of a massive waste of money on worthless projects that benefit only a tiny few people.

Here we go.

Bike lanes

Serve thousands of people every day, and a significant portion of the citizenry. Every regular bicycle commuter I know is a homeowner who pays sewer bills and property taxes, and also owns a car, and also pays vehicle registration fees and gas taxes, and also votes.

bubble curbs

Benefits anyone who walks and wants to cross a street. A study in Albany confirms that curb extensions reduce the number of vehicles illegally passing pedestrians waiting to cross the street.

speed bumps

Usually installed at the behest of local neighborhoods who have a problem with speeding vehicles on various streets. Personally, I'd prefer other mitigation measures, but if that's what the neighborhoods want, you'll have to convince them otherwise. (Most people involved in neighborhood associations also happen to be voters, by the way.)

boulevards

Gasp! A boulevard! Those darned French and their famous streets. Whatever shall we do?

(On a hunch, I'll bet you mean Bike Boulevards. Truly a plague tormenting all Portlanders.)

streetcars

10,800 boardings per day and still climbing. Literally _billions_ dollars of private investment within 1/4 mile of the line, all of which will pour into city/county coffers in the form of dramatically increased property tax revenues when the TIF/urban renewal districts expire. Seems like a good long-term investment to me. (Not a cure-all and not appropriate for every area, but in this case it worked out quite well.)

Bob R: JK says: Still picking nits, I see.
Still inventing words, I see.
JK: Which word might that be? meriam-webster.com/dictionary/nit

Bob R: Every regular bicycle commuter I know is a homeowner
|JK: Every biker you know owns a home? You must not know many bikers.

Bob R: who pays sewer bills and property taxes, and also owns a car, and also pays vehicle registration fees and gas taxes, and also votes.
|JK: How does that pay for that part of the road that is reserved for bikes. Or are saying the converse is true - I “also pay vehicle registration fees and gas taxes, and also votes” - so I have the right to use the bike lane IN MY CAR?

Bob R: Benefits anyone who walks and wants to cross a street. A study in Albany confirms that curb extensions reduce the number of vehicles illegally passing pedestrians waiting to cross the street.
JK: That is a really fun study - I’ll bet you didn’t actually read it.

They studied the probability of stopping for pedestrians, not the probability of pedestrians getting hit. That alone makes the study WORTHLESS in support of bubbles. However the study did observe instances of pedestrian(s) almost getting hit BECAUSE a vehicle stopped! (For lurkers: the problem occurs on a street with two lanes, or more, in the same direction and a opaque vehicle stops for the pedestrian who gets careless about looking at the SECOND lane before stepping out from behind the opaque vehicle, into the path of a car passing the stopped vehicle.

Real world engineering is just full of subtleties like this. Most activists don’t have a clue about these subtitles because they are operating on emoting, not logic. They just read something in some crappy source and run with it without checking to see if there an other side.

Bob R: Usually installed at the behest of local neighborhoods who have a problem with speeding vehicles on various streets.
JK: You forgot the part about them slowing emergency vehicles. That kills more people than they save from slowing traffic. They also increase the neighborhood noise and pollution levels as cars slow down before the bump and accelerate after the bump. See secondsCount.org for a good introduction and links.

(A little detail: they aren’t really speed bumps they are humps, sorry I just got caught up in popular usage. Bob, I’m ashamed of you - you missed and opportunity to pick a nit (IBID))

Bob R: boulevards
Gasp! A boulevard! Those darned French and their famous streets. Whatever shall we do?
JK: How about getting rid of the trees that hide pedestrians and widen the lanes back to a safer level and maybe even add a lane to relieve congestion. (I know congestion relief is a foreign concept to those in Portland’s planner class that think we will soon run out of oil and actually believe Al Gore is a prophet instead of a profit center that specializes in scaring little children and gullible adults.)

Bob R: streetcars
10,800 boardings per day and still climbing.
JK:
Streetcar.............$1.67 per passenger-mile
Automobile........$0.25 per passenger-mile
Streetcar.............waste of money

Bob R: Literally _billions_ dollars of private investment within 1/4 mile of the line,
JK: Yeah, I particularly liked the claim that the underground PARKING LOT in a nearby church was caused by the streetcar, as were some number of buildings at Portland State. I’m sure Portland State thanks the street car for making its new building(s) magically appear.

Bob R: all of which will pour into city/county coffers in the form of dramatically increased property tax revenues when the TIF/urban renewal districts expire.
JK: Do you really expect that to happen in your lifetime? Further have you ever looked at a cash flow diagram of that scheme:
For the 30 year life of the district tax money from the city flows into it to pay for basic services.
After 30 years a few bonds are paid off (final pay off will be the last day that they issue a bond, perhaps 30 years after the start, plus the life of the bond. A 30 year bond on the last day of the district will be paid off 60 years after formation)
The cash starts trickling in after 30 years, but that money is worth PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR when you account for the time value of money. Credible people think that there will NEVER be a payoff - the revenues will NEVER OVERCOME the initial outlays and interest payments. And afer 60 years, all those nice new streets, sidewalks etc will be blighted and so we will immediately declare a new UR district.

It is however a nice scheme to shovel millions of taxpayer’s hard earned dollars into the bank accounts of rich developers, many of who just happen to be big donors to local politicians.

Bob R: Seems like a good long-term investment to me. (Not a cure-all and not appropriate for every area, but in this case it worked out quite well.)
JK: You call taking money from basic services like police, fire and schools good??
PDC recently released their annual report on UR and, for the first time, it actually complies with state law that requires disclosure of where the magic TIF funds come from:

City of Portland....................$20.6 million......40%
Multnomah County..............$13.8 million.......27%
Portland School District......$11.4 million.......22%
others.....................................$5.4 million.......11%
Total of all TIF....................$51.2 million.....100%

Got that Bob, your UR districts took 11 million from Portland’s under funded schools and $20 million from Portland’s basic services and $14 million from the county’s basic serevices. But, to you, it is worth it because all that money was spent on your favorite toys. (Have you ever heard of the time value of money? )

Thanks
JK

Which word might that be?

"Boulevarding" -- see above.

Every biker you know owns a home? You must not know many bikers.

That's not what I said JK. I said, precisely: "Every regular bicycle commuter I know is a homeowner [...]"

I wrote: "A study in Albany confirms that curb extensions reduce the number of vehicles illegally passing pedestrians waiting to cross the street."

JK replied: That is a really fun study - I’ll bet you didn’t actually read it.

How much would you like to bet JK? (Hint: I read the entire thing, years ago.)

Here's a link for those following along:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP_RES/docs/Reports/PedestrainSafetyCurbExt.pdf

JK critiqued: "They studied the probability of stopping for pedestrians, not the probability of pedestrians getting hit. That alone makes the study WORTHLESS in support of bubbles."

JK, that's what I said. Nothing you've just said contradicts how I characterized the study. Now who's picking nits?

Regarding UR district explorations and increased general fund tax revenues: Do you really expect that to happen in your lifetime?

Yes.

Credible people think that there will NEVER be a payoff

And credible people think that there will, and that (gasp) there even already has been some payoff. Are you sure you're not picking nits?

And afer 60 years, all those nice new streets, sidewalks etc will be blighted

Got any other 60-year predictions? Any hot stock picks?

You call taking money from basic services like police, fire and schools good??

No, I call spending a limited percentage of city resources on target growth and infrastructure opportunities a good investment, especially when those investments will grow the tax base significantly in the long term.

Have you ever heard of the time value of money?

Yes, but for some reason I still debate you from time-to-time. :-)

You're welcome,
Bob R.

Bob R.: That's not what I said JK. I said, precisely: "Every regular bicycle commuter I know is a homeowner [...]"
JK: OK I get it - both of them are home owners.

Bob R.: JK critiqued: "They studied the probability of stopping for pedestrians, not the probability of pedestrians getting hit. That alone makes the study WORTHLESS in support of bubbles."

JK, that's what I said. Nothing you've just said contradicts how I characterized the study. Now who's picking nits?
JK: OK I get it - it is more important that more cars stop for peds, and less important that a few more people get killed. So typical of city planners, their motto seems to be safety last!

Bob R.: And credible people think that there will, and that (gasp) there even already has been some payoff. Are you sure you're not picking nits?
......
No, I call spending a limited percentage of city resources on target growth and infrastructure opportunities a good investment, especially when those investments will grow the tax base significantly in the long term.
JK: We’ve been dong UR since Goldschmidt days, so where is this payoff? We are cutting schools, police and fire. The city is Billions in debt. You are full of it if you think there is a real payoff. The only payoff is for the developers and toy rain hucksters.

No BILLION$ for BIKE$
Light rail costs too much and does too little.

Thanks
JK

OK I get it - both of them are home owners.

Now you're just making stuff up.

OK I get it - it is more important that more cars stop for peds, and less important that a few more people get killed.

It is more important that fewer cars break the law. (It's also important to educate peds on where and when it is legal to cross and how to do so safely.) You've presented no evidence that more people get killed due to the existence of curb extensions, so the rest of your snarky remark about planners is invalid.

We’ve been dong UR since Goldschmidt days, so where is this payoff?

Downtown and many neighborhoods are far more vibrant and valuable than they were 30 years ago. I'm willing to be most people who've been around 30 years support most of what's been done, but I admit I don't have a poll handy to back that up. People do seem to keep electing (and re-electing) candidates who support these kinds of policies, though.

You are full of it if you think there is a real payoff.

There's that classic JK civility again.

No BILLION$ for BIKE$

There's the misleading and factually incorrect figure again.

One other thing about your question: Have you ever heard of the time value of money?

This actually goes a long way toward explaining why gas tax revenues today do not cover as much road work as they used to.

Thomas Hancock said: “I really tire of people who try to divide our community with absurd categories of bicyclist, transit users, pedestrians, and drivers “

Sam and his socialist agenda is the person that is dividing this community with his lack of tax equity and preferential back room deals that give bicyclists tax and fee discounts, and then poaches taxpayer funds for roads to subsidize bicycle infrastructure. Add to that the proliferation of curb extensions and his manipulative, exceedingly subsidized and costly streetcar mania agenda all of which add more congestion to already crowded streets and Sam becomes more of a control coveting dictator than acting like a fair minded person who wants to become the Mayor that actually represents the diverse population of Portland.

Terry, welcome to Oregon. We have a law here that mandates that money be spent on bike and pedestrian improvements. Automobiles have created a dangerous environment on the public roads and should pay for safety improvements for other roadway users.