Portland Business Journal: We can pay now or pay later

Jim is absolutely correct. Listed are nearly 17 million dollars of bike infrastructure spending for the freeloading pedal pushers who directly contribute nothing in taxes to the funding, and approximately 44 million of spending for transit infrastructure while only 21 percent of the operations costs are collected through the farebox from the ridership. Additionally both groups are in line to receive utility tax discounts.

Siphoning off tax dollars collected from motorists to pay for alternative modes of transport instead of for roads is a misdirected priority. Congressman Earl Blumenauer, Gov. Ted Kulongoski and Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams are all befitting to scam artists when they call for investments transit and bicycle infrastructure and then only add the tax burden to the drivers of cars and trucks. What is needed as an alternative is some affirmative action in tax policies and codes such that the direct users of transit and bicycle infrastructure actually start paying their own way for the government services they are provided.

Since the federal portions of spending for new transport non-motorist transport infrastructure contained in this spending program are coming from The Federal Highway Trust Fund which comes from the federal tax on motor fuels, this whole proposal totally lacks tax equity. Moving beyond the gas tax needs to establish a three legged stool of user mode taxes whereby transit riders pay a surcharge on transit fares to pay for transit infrastructure and repairs to the roads that are damaged by the busses, while bicyclists are directly taxed to pay for bicycle infrastructure. Furthermore, instead of receiving socialistic utility tax discounts, transit riders and bicyclists should be paying double or even triple the amount of people paying gas taxes.

To suggest that Sam is ambitious and explains his transportation plan so well it is testament to his knowledge and passion makes him the ultimate “flimflam man”. The passion equates to one of discrimination towards motorists when the details are viewed of who is taxed and then how the money will be spent. If he is so confident that this proposal is the right thing to do, Sam would be recommending sending it to a vote of the people. He is not because the proposal is stacked full of discretionary politically motivated spending to support his personal streetcar comrades and bicycle babble buddies. His elaborate rhetoric however should be turned into a clarifying campaign catchphrase: “A vote for Sam is a vote for Flimflam".

I'm not a Portland resident and have no intention of getting into the pro/con of this proposal here.

I do have to offer a correction to the above, however. A number of items in this list are *not* Portland only.

For example, the commuter rail items alluded to are entirely within cities in Washington and Clackamas counties and do not at any point enter Portland. The Arista Trolley Trail is also not in the city, nor is the Ruby Junction trail program. large segments of the light rail funding above are also in Clackamas County.

There are also a number of items above that are regional programs that serve the entire metro area. I make no comment on if they are good or bad programs, but they are *not* purely Portland programs.

If this list is ODOT, it is a list of capital funds not maintenance funds. There may be strings attached to such funding and it depends on where the original government money source was, e.g. Federal vs. State, etc....

To make a comparison for determining the benefit (or lack thereof) of this proposal, you'd need to compare funds sourced from funds paid directly by taxpayers/businesses to the City of Portland, from both taxes and from user fees. Only an examination of the budget allocations of these funds would allow a directly apples-to-apples assesment.

Appearenly you missed this line in the first paragraph:

In Portland Area based on the ODOT source listed below.

Thanks
JK

Right, Portland Area, not Portland. That was exactly the point of the previous comment.

JK is a representative of the Big Oil industry. Dont pay him any attention.

Big oil?
Only by spending money on their fine products that allow our modern, high standard of living. I receive no money for this.

PS: Watch the liable.

PS: Why are you hiding you name - what are YOU hiding?

Thanks
JK

Libel, not liable.

I like you, Jim: you're like the Chinese PLA...Just keep marching, and your large numbers will eventually win out.

What’s wrong with this picture? Gas taxes are used as a subsidy siphoned off to pay for bicycle infrastructure, transit and/or non-road projects. To correct this image the gas tax needs to be returned to do what it was originally designed to do; as a more you drive the more you pay funding method for that only funds roads and bridges for cars and trucks.

What’s wrong with this picture? Just one of TriMet’s two axle busses does as much damage as 22,000 cars, yet transit passengers pay only 21 percent of TriMet’s operation costs and the fares they pay contribute NO funding towards fixing the roads the busses chew up. To correct this image a surcharge needs to be added to transit fares to help pay for roads.

What’s wrong with this picture? There is no bicycle user tax, no bicycle license and no bicycle registration fee to pay for bicycle infrastructure; and Sam keeps protecting this status quo free ride and freeloading for his bicycle babble buddies by keeping bicycle taxes and fees off the table. To correct this image Sam needs to openly discuss and reverse his stance against bicyclists paying for bicycle infrastructure and bicyclists need to be directly taxed with license and registration fees.

What’s wrong with this picture? The so called progressive movement is socialism in disguise. Politicians that embrace the progressive agenda have become dictators using the tax codes as a means that attempts to control the transportation choices people make. To correct this image, the tax codes need to be changed so the users of alternative modes of transit pay for the government services they receive and socialistic politicians need to be replaced with civil servants that will NOT attempt to dictate lifestyles. .

What’s wrong with this picture? The Street Maintenance Fee lacks tax equity and is a back door approach with a back room deal to have the public pay for bicycle infrastructure instead of charging the bicyclists themselves with a bicycle tax. The entire program has been stuffed with this kind of a socialistic spending agenda. To correct this image the Street Maintenance Fee must ONLY be used to pay for street maintenance and repair with NO residential household discounts based on mode.

The "so called progressive movement" has made Portland one of the finest places in the world to live. We have decided we want everyone to be safe on our roads. Does that make us socialists?

Dictate lifestyles? Freeloaders? No, it is about internalizing your costs. Automobiles make our public roads dangerous and discourage alternative forms of transportation. If there were no automobiles, there would be no need for sidewalks, sound barriers, pedestrian overpasses, crosswalks, or bike lanes. It is automobile traffic that poses a hazard to other roadway users and it is automobile users that should pay to correct the problem.

Then there is the plug in hybrid. Charge it overnight, run the first 10 miles pure electric. If you can charge at work, you can be gas free if you live in inner NE/SE and work in Beaverton.

The great part is that as technology improves the range, even fewer trips will need gas. Pretty soon the only time you fill up will be to take a trip to the beach.

Don’t forget the alternative oil products:
Tar sands.
Oil from coal.

Thanks
JK

He'll use it for about 4 years worth of road repairs and then start siphoning off money until about 8 years from now none of it will go to street repairs. Then we'll need ANOTHER permanent fee to fix the roads, when will voters catch on to this! There is no guarantee any of this money is dedicated to road repairs (Or worse yet thrown at SoWa improvements), just his word as a politician and our memory as voters.

This is the same thing with all the reserves we should have saved for 20+ years to fix sewers and now we need a new fee to pay for sewers. No one on council wanted to use any of the $30M upside to fix roads. Just realize the last thing this council wants to do is fix roads.

You could say that about anything! Why not build a subway now, before the population doubles: it will certainly be cheaper to build a subway now than in 30 years (when we'll have the necessary density).

Why not double the capacity of all our water mains now, before the price of pipe goes up.

Construction inflation is a fact of life: it doesn't mean we can afford to neglect our current needs to build light rail and trolley across the entire city.

Light rail is not the future; it's just a very expensive way to move a small number of people.

Cars are a money-sucking pain in the ass, hence why I sold one of mine. I now save nearly $1000/month by living in the city and not owning a car. Freedom? Fuck yeah!

JK: I hope you pay your full cost each time you step on a Trimet vehicle - about $10.00 (about 3x the cost of a car trip of same length)

Thanks
JK

BTW the average monthly car cost, all inclusive, is about $300/month, not the grossly inflated number you used.Presumably, you can do it cheaper with older cars.

Thanks
JK

Paul: Tri-Met costs me $1.75 one way if I need to go 2 zones, but I only spend about $35/month on Tri-Met.
JK: The real cost is about $8.75, and $175, the taxpayers are paying for 80% of your Trimet usage. You are effectively on welfare.

Paul: My car payment was $550/mo.
JK: WOW! You really like to drive in style, don’t you. $550 x 12 = $6600 / year. Save that up for a year and a half and you could get a brand new KIA, with a 5 year guarantee that gets around 30 MPG. Or just buy one and pay under $200/mo. Buy a used one and probably pay close to $100/mo. Sorry to see that you have wasted so much money (My car was paid for many years ago.)

Paul: Gas ~ $200
JK: That should get you 18,000 miles per year at typical mileages - about 70 miles per day – did you live in Gresham and work in Hillsboro?

Paul: Parking ~ $150/mo.
JK: Sounds like another reason to avoid downtown.

Paul: ... I'm 34 and have owned around 12 cars.
JK: 12 cars in 16 years! Simply amazing. The best way to hold down car expenses is to buy a few year old car and drive it for years and years. I am on my 4th car. I assure you that I pay a WHOLE lot less than what you give above.

Thanks
JK

Awesome rebuttal, Jim. I'm curious if Paul will have the eggs to respond.

And where the heck is Sam, or Roland? They post an article trying to bolster this policy, but won't rebut sensible arguments against it.

What about it, Sam? What do you have to say about all the gas tax millions that were siphoned off for light rail, bike paths and trolley cars? What about the UR, TIF and general fund monies that were given to the likes of Homer Williams? Over the years, the CoP has squandered millions on "density" while infrastructure has crumbled. Now you want to stick us for your mismanagement? Unbelievable.

P.S. Roland, please don't bring up the "federal funds" canard, I've already proven that we get back the same amount as we give.

Sounds to me like someone needs to get a life.

Evan Manvel We need to serve the 25% of the population who can't drive,
JK: What 25%?
* Those under (pick an age) 10 years old - how many parents would let them ride transit alone?
* Those able bodied, over 16 who choose not to drive should pay their own way, not just 20% of their cost.
* Low income people who can drive will be best served with help getting a car.

All I can see that need transit assistance are low income people who cannot drive (and children of the low income between 12-16). I would guess that we are talking very few people who would be better served by a subsidized door to door service instead of a 5 BILLION toy train network that stops 1/4 mile away.

Evan Manvel and to provide choices for all of the population.
JK: You want choices? Then, you pay for them, don’t expect others to pay 80% of the cost of your choices.

Evan Manvel Compare your list of $121 million with the $4.2 BILLION Columbia Crossing project,
JK: That Columbia Crossing project is a light rail plus welfare for construction firms project. It is not a transportation program. What we actually need is a few additional bridges at different locations, probably for 1/4 - 1/2 Billion each. They will carry more people than the whole MAX system plus freight, as does the current bridge.

Evan Manvel and you realize that those who can't drive are getting the short end of the stick.
JK: We need to help ONLY those in need of help, and quit building toy trains for yuppies.

Thanks
JK

Evan Manvel said: ”with the $4.2 BILLION Columbia Crossing project, and you realize that those who can't drive are getting the short end of the stick.”

I wonder if Evan saw the big picture of the proposed bridge(s) recently published in The Oregonian. The computer generated rendering shows three bridges; one for northbound traffic, one for southbound traffic; and one for light rail and bicycles. Yet the funding proposal being discussed by the Columbia River Crossing Task Force only places a toll on the two highway structures, and not for the separate light rail - bicycle structure. Additionally, the task force has yet to even divulge to the public the costs of providing the bicycle infrastructure portion.

To suggest that those who can’t drive are getting the short end of the stick is deceptive rhetorical propaganda. Without a surcharge or increasing transit fares to pay the local funding for the light rail portion of the project, and without a toll on bicyclists crossing the river to pay the local funding for the bicycle infrastructure; it is the motorists that are getting the short end of the stick while transit riders are highly subsidized and bicyclists continue to be FREELOADERS!!!

Furthermore, the federal Funding for the all three of the bridges comes from the Federal Highway Trust Fund that only motorists pay into through the gas tax. Therefore, even at the federal level, motorists are the ones receiving the short end of the stick with transit riders feeding off of the taxes motorists pay while bicyclists continue to be the indisputable FREELOADERS!!!

JK:
Anyone want to speculate on how much is going to be spent on that bike lane? More or less than $200 million?

Thanks
JK