Two Small Proposed Changes & One Procedural Question for Transportation Funding

To his credit, Terry did run for public office with a bicycle tax as a campaign plank.

Voters' Guide:
http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dbcs/elections/2004-05/metro_5.shtml

Results:
http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dbcs/elections/2004-05/results.shtml

Thanks, Bob. Fair enough. Kudos to Mr. Parker. I guess the voters spoke.

Of course Terry was outspent by a wide margin.

Thanks
JK

So Jim, I take it you support voter-owned elections? Because clearly Terry's trouncing at the polls had everything to do with his lack of funding, and nothing to do with his extremely narrow-minded, single-issue view of the world appealing to a tiny minority of the population. Right?

If Sam was so confident that he has the support of the people of Portland, he would be placing his tax and spending plan on the ballot for a public vote. Instead he is attempting to find ways to fend off efforts by the public to challenge the Implementation of his plan without a vote of the people.

Furthermore, Portland is more and more receiving a negative reputation from people all over the Northwest who want to do business here because of all this trolling for and wasteful spending of transportation dollars on bicycles and snail rail. This past Saturday I was in the Seattle area at a trade related event. No less than half a dozen people spoke to me about the craziness that was going on in Portland. The general transportation issues ranged from amount of taxes and fees and what they pay for, the lack of equity in the tax and fee structure and the socialistic controls Portland is attempting to implement through the tax and fee structures. Most inquiries were related to parking inequities, and the ridiculous amount of spending for freeloading bicyclists and the inflexible streetcar proposals. I had some of the same conversations with some Canadians (from the Vancouver area) at similar type events in both the Portland and Seattle area last year. And just yesterday I had a conversation with a couple who are senior citizen Portland homeowners. They are extremely displeased about the amount of money Adams is spending on his agenda “frills” like bicycle infrastructure for freeloaders and bus stop curb extensions where busses block traffic instead of pulling over to the curb.

If anything is degrading, it is Adams giving tax and fee immunity to bicyclists and transit riders such that they don’t pay their fair share for the services received; and his slight of hand tricks when it comes to conning the public into thinking there is wide spread support when instead the good buddy network and stacked deck committees are really just a façade to approve and work out the details of a preconceived agenda.

As for not implementing a bicycle tax, it is no different than if a person were to go into a grocery store, fill a cart with the groceries, and then walk right past the check out stand and out the door without paying. Bicyclists are doing the same thing when it comes to not directly paying for the specialized infrastructure they use. This status quo of the self-serving bicyclists continuing to freeload while other taxpayers pay the costs to serve them must end. Sam just continues to use his bag of tricks, including stacked deck committees, to maintain that status quo for his buddies.

Terry, without making any claims one way or another about the validity of your opinions, when you say that most conversations you had "were related to parking inequities, and the ridiculous amount of spending for freeloading bicyclists and the inflexible streetcar proposals", that's probably because you try to turn ANY conversation toward those topics, just like in the hundreds of posts I've seen from you over the years.

Bob,

As of lately, the number of posts I make on various blogs are dwarfed by the number of posts you make when responding to just about every comment posted. Obviously if you attend the streetcar advisory meetings and support the bicycle freeloading concept, you must only hear from a tight circle of supporters and do not get out in the real world where a lot of people see things differently and the way I do.

As an example, when in the Seattle area, one person cornered me just as I was leaving to complain about a trip he made to the Portland Expo Center where he felt unwelcome because he had to pay more to park after driving from Seattle than vehicles with more than one person in them. Without prompting he went on to talk about the Street Maintenance Fee and congesting the streets with streetcars. He was right on every count and all I had to do was agree with him saying Portland is being run by socialists that want to dictate our lifestyles.

Furthermore, hardly a day goes by that I don’t have a conversation with somebody that thinks bicyclists should be paying for bicycle infrastructure and/or has a complaint about subsidizing some form of transit. All in all, outside of the transport circles, I meet more people that think as I do than support all the taxpayer subsidies handed out like free candy to promote alternative forms of transport. Most people think these means of transport should pay their own way, in other words be financially self-sufficient paid for buy the users; others don’t like the additional congestion they create; and some are just waiting until all this whimsical sending hits the fan and truly doesn’t work to really solve anything.

the number of posts I make on various blogs are dwarfed by the number of posts you make when responding to just about every comment posted.

Shall we do a count of posts that you've made here and I've made here? Hmmm? I do post a lot over at PortlandTransport, but then I'm one of the volunteer moderators, so that's part of the job.

Obviously if you attend the streetcar advisory meetings and support the bicycle freeloading concept, you must only hear from a tight circle of supporters and do not get out in the real world where a lot of people see things differently and the way I do.

I get to the streetcar CAC meetings about once a month or so. The rest of the time I'm working in the "real world". I deal with lots of people, and not just my own little circle of friends, and even when talking about transportation in general, problems with bicycle infrastructure rarely, if ever, come up in conversation.

He was right on every count and all I had to do was agree with him saying Portland is being run by socialists that want to dictate our lifestyles.

I will respond with the same level of intellectual vigor you've presented in your own arguments: Sure. Whatever.

Furthermore, hardly a day goes by that I don’t have a conversation with somebody that thinks bicyclists should be paying for bicycle infrastructure and/or has a complaint about subsidizing some form of transit.

Sure, we know that, you post about it all the time. You're the go-to guy for "bikes must pay!" (but of course, bicyclists do pay quite a bit, you just ignore the proof of that time and time again.)

So, Terry, do you want to bet $100 that you've posted here more often that I do? Do you want to bet another $100 that the word "bicycle" appears in the majority of your posts? We can donate the proceeds to charity if you like.

PS... You even mentioned bicycles here in a discussion about gay marriage. Twice.

Terry, it is obvious to most here that you live in a narrow little wormhole of a world where reality is skewed to your strange pleasures. Fortunately, few of us have been sucked into your twisted logic, but please know that your time spent here and on other blogs has accomplished little. Your *unique* perspectives are always good for a laugh though.

If anything is twisted and narrow minded it is the freeloading bicyclists even suggesting they pay the price tag for bicycle infrastructure in Portland. Sam is their sugar daddy that deceptively uses his bag of tricks to loot funding from other transportation resources. That makes the bicycling mode of transport unsustainable because the infrastructure used is not financially self-sustainable – paid for by users. Obviously the hard core bicyclist mentality is one of a socialist. They simply want to dictate their beliefs and siphon off taking for themselves what the rest of society earns and pays for.

So was that a "Yes" or a "No" on the bet?

Bob,

I only make gentlemen's bets, not for money except, for the rare instance when I am engaged in a game of poker with friends. Noted also is that I do not post on all the threads you post under. Just looking at this thread only and counting this post as my fifth specifically to answer your direct question, the current tally is five posts for me and eleven for you. The results of the count speaks for itself.

Bob R with 11
Sara with 6
Terry Parker with 5
Skinny City Girl with 4
The rest three or less

You’re the clear winner here Bob!

You’re the clear winner here Bob!

Thanks!

...the rare instance when I am engaged in a game of poker with friends.

Wow, so there is life outside of ranting about bicycle and transit taxes on these blogs?!? I can only imagine the stimulating conversation that must pervade said games...!

Terry,

Who do you like to win the NFC, the Giants or Green Bay? Personally I think the Packers are a lock.

"And what is so impressive about 20 public meetings and putting together an 89-member committee." ... "When they want something advanced they put together meetings, dominated by their activist friends, avoid the opposing concerns and craft whatever they want."

The stakeholder list is quite diverse, and may be viewed here:
http://www.commissionersam.com/files/ExhibitDSafeSoundGreenStreetsStakeholderList.pdf

Among the usual neighborhood associations, pedestrian/bicycle groups, local governments etc., it includes "activist friends" like:

• Associated General Contractors

• Alliance of Portland Neighborhood Business Associations (APNBA)
• Columbia Corridor Association
• Restaurant Association
• AAA
• Safeway, Inc.
• PGE
• Schnitzer Steel Industries
• NW Grocery Association
• Associated General Contractors (AGC)
• PTA
• Oregon Truckers Association
• Oregon Business Council

Have any of those participants, not known for being bicycle/ped/streetcar/hippies, decried the committees as stacked?

The public meetings were just that, PUBLIC. Anyone was free to show up, the meetings were quite widely publicized for months, and many of them were scheduled in the evenings, so that people who can't leave work during the day to attend a meeting could still have a voice.

In addition, this kind of fee is not unprecedented. About 20 Oregon communities have street maintenance fees of one kind or another: See here. Apparently those towns, which don't have streetcars the last time I checked, still feel that ODOT/gas tax revenue alone doesn't cover basic costs. It's not as though this fee is some kind of drastic radical move.

It's not a drastic, radical move. In fact, it's a very conservative move; a move Margaret Thatcher did when she instituted the Poll Tax as a replacement for property taxes.

If Sam wants money for these initiatives, he should do it the proper and equitable way, as part of the property tax assessments, not as a tax that will enable me to pay as much as a Schnitzer.

Large corporations can get benefits from these taxes for things they already do, like subsidize transit and locate themselves near the Max and streetcar (and especially the TRAM!). No wonder they're for it - they get to stick people with their bill.

How many of these meetings did you attend and how many of these people did you talk to, to be so certain in your opinion that there was no other possible outcome?

It would rather seem that there's nothing I or anyone else could say that could convince you of anyone's sincerity or diversity of opinions in the process that led up to this.

Sara - other than complaining on Sam's blog, what are you *doing* to further your own beliefs and opinions? Are you trying to change the status quo, or have you decided to write off the entire system altogether and by default accept whatever they want?

It's really easy to "kvetch and moan" - where does *your* rubber meet the road?

OK Bob, but let's get real.

Yes, I'd love for this discussion to get real. Still waiting.

You're just a wee bit biased as an unofficial spokesman for all of city hall's agenda.

Good way to get real, start off with a mild personal attack.

But I'll wager from experience that the diversity of opinions was quite limited

So you weren't there? And you have no evidence?

As well as no mention or discussion of changing the spending priorities instead of new taxation.

How do you know if you weren't there? There were over 20 public meetings. Are you certain NOBODY discussed this?

Regardless of Bob's contention of diverse opinions.

Let's say, just for a moment, that you are 100% correct and that this committee of 89 stakeholders was completely stacked with a predetermined outcome (including all the neighborhood groups and business coalitions, which apparently aren't representative of residents and businesses in your opinion).

Can you name a few groups/organizations that you'd like to see represented on future stakeholder committees which were omitted this time around? How many such organizations would be necessary to provide balance?

Maybe if more people who felt like you went to the _public_ _meetings_, or supported candidates who reflected your point of view, the outcome of these public processes would go more in line with your personal viewpoint more often than at present.

"The Goldschmidt establishment"

Boy is that song getting old. It is almost as bad the "Clinton-Soros conspiracy" that your compatriots bray about on a national level.

Someday, the right will realize that it needs a new straw man.

AAA and the Oregon Truckers Association, known stooges for the BTA.

You are biased and you are the most outspoken and consistent defender of city hall around.

You're displaying your complete ignorance of me.

It appears that anyone who actually goes to meetings and gets involved and supports _some_ of what city hall is doing, in your book automatically becomes, as you _originally_ put it: You're just a wee bit biased as an unofficial spokesman for all of city hall's agenda.

I see you're retreating from your cynical insult. Yes, in my book it is a mild insult to call someone biased an an "unofficial spokesman for all of city hall". I'm glad you scaled that back to "consistent defender", even if that's wrong, too.

Rather than argue the facts and try to win people to your side, you seem to rather insult. Not just public officials (after all, they signed on for criticism with the job), but citizens who do not share your overwhelmingly negative outlook.

I'd love to stay here and watch you call me biased again, but I've got an actual public meeting to go to. See you later.

Since Federal grants for transit and bicycle infrastructure come from the Federal Highway Trust Fund where the money comes from the Federal tax on motor fuels; how about eliminating all those grants for transit and bicycle infrastructure and charge a about $10, one way transit fare, which is about the true average cost of providing the service, and then charge a $100. or more annual bicycle registration fee to cover the costs of bicycle infrastructure. It is about time transit riders and bicyclists quit sponging the services provided to them off of taxpaying motorists and start paying their own way.

Right on, Paul!

Unfortunately some people don't realize (or accept) that it's a good thing to spend some of your money to make *other* people's lives better and not merely your own. Mr. Parker seems to think that cyclists exist in a complete vacuum, isolated from the world - and that the money they spend never benefits anyone other than cyclists. This is patently false, but I don't expect that Mr. Parker will ever acknowledge that fact.

Also, not all costs can be measured in money - not even all the ones that "matter".

Unfortunately the bicyclist mentality is that some of everybody else’s money should be spent on them so they do not have to spend their own money when they want something like specialized bicycle infrastructure. They think by taking away infrastructure and money from motorists, and creating more congestion by doing so, also benefits everyone.

Furthermore, don’t expect bicyclists to acknowledge that the health of the auto industry is directly coupled to the health of the US economy. A number of years ago one in every seven US jobs was tied to the auto industry. It is a little less than that now, but is still many multiple times that of what the bicycle industry contributes to the economy. In Oregon, each new car dealership employs an average of 60 people. Compare that with the number of employees at an average bicycle shop. Then add in all the auto repair shops, auto parts stores, etc, etc, and other businesses that are auto related including all the dock workers that drive cars off ships at the port and the people who transport them by rail and truck from Portland to other destinations. Motor vehicles create jobs and simply make people’s lives better, but don’t expect bicyclists to acknowledge that either. Bicyclists only want it their way with free perks provided by the rest of society, and will use every possible excuse and all the rhetoric known to man to achieve that end.

Good point about employment, Terry.

We must also thank the auto industry for all the emergency room technicians, emergency-responders, respiratory therapists, physical therapists, landfill operators, oil company executives, and members of various royal families the auto industry employs.

Bob R. Good point about employment, Terry....We must also thank the auto industry for all the emergency room technicians, emergency-responders, respiratory therapists, physical therapists, landfill operators, oil company executives, and members of various royal families the auto industry employs.
JK: Just be glad that all those auto users weren’t on light rail because light rail kills people at 2 ½ times the rate of automobiles.

See: PortlandFacts.com/Transit/MAXSafetyChart.html
Light rail costs too much and does too little.

Light rail kills 2 ½ time the rate of cars.

Thanks
JK

I find it very sad that Jim Karlock has nothing better to do at 4 AM than post something on someone else's blog.

Typical rail supporter:
Attack the messinger because you have no rational case for rail.

Thanks
JK

Irony.

Matt Picio Said: “Unfortunately some people don't realize (or accept) that it's a good thing to spend some of your money to make *other* people's lives better and not merely your own.”

This attitude must go both ways with bicyclists not expecting to be just on the receiving end whereby money directly paid out from bicyclists also makes “other” people’s lives better. Since the way many bicyclists attempt to define quality of life represents only a tiny fraction while the silent majority of people vote everyday by driving their cars and trucks as their primary means of transport; bicyclists like Matt should have no problem and eagerly accept directly paying a bicycle tax for new roads bridges and freeways, maintenance for roads bridges and freeways, more gas and oil exploration that create more family wage jobs, new energy technology for cars and trucks, car and fuel subsidies to low income people, yield signs in bicycle lanes, etc, etc, etc - all of which will make the "majority" of people’s lives better. Also included on this list of what a bicycle tax could help pay for is better law enforcement targeted specifically at bicyclists who do not obey traffic control devices, do not stop at stop signs, blow through red lights and otherwise do not abide by well established traffic laws. Then maybe everybody's lives could be made better because overall there would be less money going to pay for undertakers and bicycle babble lawyers.

Since Mr Adams seems to want to shove thru this tax increase, we need some guarantee from him personally that a big chunk of this money will NOT go to SoWa. Again, they have a $70M tram, $100M river path, $35M worth of site improvements and probably still $250M worth of I-5 access issues left to go.

It's time we walk away from this train wreck he helped create when OHSU and condo developers duped him into thinking he can play SIM city with taxpayer money. No biotech jobs (at least not in Oregon) and empty condos - thank you Mr Adams.

I really think it is Sho time.

"I read MAX has killed 20 people"

Not while riding it.

And I have no problem with a bicycle tax if it were going toward something really great. Thing is, we already have the right-of-ways, pavement, bridges, etc., so a bit more of the tax money might be better spent on integration and making a safer cycling infrastructure for cyclists in the city. Every single street doesn't need to be for cars. There are plenty of them already. In fact I'm working on a documentary about this very subject.

And by the way, I drive a car too. I just think there are better and much more beneficial ways to get around a city.

Sara: I read MAX has killed 20 people. I have to believe that's at a rate higher than cars in deaths/vehicle mile traveled.
JK: Actually MAX’s death rate is 2 ½ times the death rate of cars (see below).

Here is the list of MAX’s 20 victims:

20..Nov 19, 2007.....Susan C. Dorsey killed near 82nd station-suffered from epilepsy- speculated "was not
aware she was walking around and had left the platform."
19..May 16, 2006......Catalino Salazar-Salgado, 51, of Portland died Sunday night after being hit by a MAX
train in Greshamg to.....
18..Sep 30, 2005.....A 40-year-old woman struck and killed by a MAX train Wednesday night in Greshamwas attempting to cross two sets of tracks surrounded by fist-sized rocks, bordered by high curbs and lacking any crosswalk.
17..Aug 3, 2004.....a 47-year-old Southeast Portland man had safely exited a MAX when his power wheelchair inexplicably rolled between the train's two cars
16..Jun 24, 2003.....A 16-year-old Gresham boy was killed Monday night when he was hit by a MAX train on his bicycle at a stop near Northwest Eastman Parkway and Division Street
15..Feb 9, 2002.....A man in his late 20s was killed Friday after he got caught between moving MAX train cars near the PGE Park
14..Jan 6, 2002.....Mark Russell Arthur, 43, died when he was struck Friday by a MAX light-rail train in Gresham,
13.. October 21, 2001.....A MAX train hit and killed a man lying on the light-rail tracks just east of the Beaverton Transit Station on Saturday night.
12..April 10, 2001.....Johnston, an engineering program manager at Intel's nearby Jones Farm Campus, died from massive injuries to his head
11..October 12,1999.....A 41-year-old Beaverton man was struck and killed by a MAX train early Monday as he walked along the light-rail tracks...the 16th fatal accident involving MAX trains since Tri-Met opened the system in 1986...... Randy Scott Ruetz is the fifth person to be killed by a MAX train in Washington County since the westside line opened last year.
10..Aug 3, 1999.....A light-rail train struck and killed a pedestrian during Monday's afternoon rush hour at a busy commuter station in Beaverton
09..Jun 15, 1999.....A light-rail train struck and killed a youth Monday afternoon just outside Beaverton, making him the second pedestrian killed by westside MAX in eight days.
08..Jun 8, 1999..... Herbert Lee Johnson Jr., ...was killed about 2:30 a.m. Sunday when he was struck by an eastbound light-rail train while walking on the tracks......Tri-Met figures show that 10 pedestrians have been killed by eastside trains while walking in areas that were off-limits, and one person died after a car and a MAX train collided.
07..Sep 20, 1998.....Transient rode bike into side of Westside train. Died five days later. (From Graphic on page D01, Oct 28,1999)
Sept 12, 1998 Westside MAX opens
Nov 1996 North-South LRT looses at the polls
Aug 1993 Ground Breaking for Westside MAX
06..June 22, 1992.....Pedestrian walking in ROW 82nd Avenue EB
05..February 26, 1992.....A 40-year-old transient was killed by a Metropolitan Area Express train early Tuesday as he walked on the tracks at Northeast 24th Avenue.... He is the fourth person struck and killed by a MAX train.
04..March 23, 1991..Lee Heizer, 26, of Northeast Portland -- the third person killed in MAX's history – was thrown approximately 100 feet
03..January 16, 1991.....Collision w/ vehicle MLK
02..January 1, 1990.....Pedestrian walking in ROW 21 & Banfield
01..July 28, 1986..... Pedestrian walking in ROW Halsey & Banfield
??..???.....1986 first day of full revenue service

BTW, sometimes people say that these were all the fault of the victims, not the train. I have two answers to that:
1. Why don’t buses have similar problems?

2. Attractive nuisance.

Sara: I have to believe that's at a rate higher than cars in deaths/vehicle mile traveled..
JK:As of 2006:
MAX: 1,666,466,432 passenger-miles. 19 Killed. MAX Death Rate: 19/ 16.66= 1.14 per 100,000 passenger-miles
MotorVehicle Fatality rate forPortland (1994-2002): 0.55 per 100e6 Vehicle miles / 1.2 = .46 Car Death Rate=0.46 per 100,000 passenger-miles

Compared to cars (1.14 / .46 = 2.48 ), MAX’ death rate is 248% that of cars.
See: PortlandFacts.com/Transit/MAXSafetyChart.html (Be sure to follow the links back to the original documents that prove the claims.)

Thanks
JK