Impacts of a massive new transportation challenge facing our City.By Sam Adams
Friends, I want you to be aware of the impacts of a massive new transportation challenge facing our City. Gas prices are up 17%. Bio-diesel is up 20%. Yesterday, crude oil went for a record $120 a barrel. You feel the impact on your household budget of these higher fuel prices. So does the Portland Office of Transportation (PDOT), although in a different way than Portland families do. The first way PDOT is feeling the pinch of increased oil prices is a new multi-million dollar transportation department budget gap. Why? Oregonians are driving less, in part due to the cost of gas. PDOT's funding for taking care of local streets and bridges comes largely from state fuel taxes. The gas tax is based on the number of gallons of gas sold – not the price of that gas. So, the fewer gallons of gas sold, the less gas tax. For PDOT that means a $2.7 million current service budget hole for the fiscal year starting in July. Second, the skyrocketing cost of oil has put existing estimates for transportation projects out-of-whack. PDOT has about 40 projects in the pipeline for delivery in the next two years. Most of these projects used inflationary cost estimates that have proven to be low. Higher costs for petroleum–based materials like asphalt and tar and for materials that take lots of energy to produce like concrete and steel mean higher project costs. In response, to protect basic transportation services like street sweeping, pothole repair and bridge maintenance, I will be asking the Portland City Council to fill the $2 million budget shortfall for next year. And, I have ordered a 30-day review of the cost estimates in PDOT's project pipeline. If these trends continue, this ongoing budget shortfall also blows a $30 to $40 million hole in the proposed Safe, Sound and Green Street Initiative budget that I have slated to go to the voters in November 2008. Finally, I have also canceled the Sauvie Island bridge reuse project. I simply do not feel confident that we can bring this project in at the $5.5 million budget I have promised. To insure the integrity of the project, I asked for a rigorous review by transportation staff and outside engineers. On Tuesday morning, it became clear that the $5.5 million budget for reusing the Sauvie Island bridge could no longer be guaranteed. I will continue to pursue the construction of a new bridge over I-405 within the next three to five years. I believe that canceling this project is the right thing to do given the new financial estimates we have received over the past couple of days. But I want to make some comments about the bridge project before we leave the issue. The recycling of the Sauvie Island bridge was sadly--and unnecessarily--ensnared by political gamesmanship that did no credit to the critics, and obscured an important issue for the public. Last week, Mayor Tom Potter wrote an opinion article in these pages saying that we don't need a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over I-405 at Flanders Street. Mind you, this is a project that he voted for on 4 separate occasions. In fact, over the last six years two city councils have voted for this numerous times. But in his article, Mayor Potter argues that the West Burnside and Northwest Everett and Glisan streets are safe and that bikers and walkers in Northwest Portland do not need a bridge dedicated only to them across the I-405 ditch. That's flat out wrong. The West Burnside, Glisan and Everett streets injure and kill more bikers and walkers than any other street corridor in Portland: 280 injured and 15 dead over the past nine years. And I believe the Mayor was also wrong to use this issue to pit one part of Portland against the other. In my three years as transportation commissioner I have lead the council to focus on the top safety issues in each part of Portland, including:
When it comes to saving lives and preventing injuries, I believe that projects should be approved on the merits, community support and a clear picture of the budget. That is why everyone but Mayor Potter supported the Flanders Street bridge: it met all the criteria that we have used to put safety first. A bike and pedestrian crossing at NW Flanders has always been about safety. And while recycling the Sauvie Island Bridge may not be the means, I am committed to finding a safe way for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross I-405. I have asked transportation to study potential improvements we could make with little cost to address safety issues in the Burnside/Everett/Glisan corridor in the short term. I want to thank all of those who've supported the vision for this project. For more information on the actions we're taking in light of the budget shortfalls and increased costs in transportation, visit http://www.commissionersam.com/node/3682. My best, Sam Posted Thu, 05/08/2008 - 10:21am.
Great post. Too bad SamSubmitted by DaleEPaper on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 7:42pm.
Great post. Too bad Sam doesnt understand a word you said. » reply
Reality Ck-Broaden the tax base to other transport modesSubmitted by Terry Parker on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 8:42pm.
I agree – great post. Oil Sheik But let’s also look at another way: Sam, you are getting just what you and Metro want - “Drive less save more”. The problem is driving less and in more efficient vehicles also means less revenue for transportation projects since motor vehicle users supply the primary source of funds for ALL transport projects. Because of the proposed special interest discounts applied in your proposed Street Maintenance Fee, the majority of the revenue raised would still come from the same people who are already paying the majority of transport taxes as motorists. For that reason and because these are tough economic times, I consider the Street Maintenance Fee DOA on the November ballot. Furthermore, raising the gas tax would also continue the lack of equity in transport funding by still relying on only the motorists for revenue. Part of a reality check and non-discriminatory answer continues to be to broaden the base of transport revenue sources by taxing the alternative modes of vehicle transport. That requires you seeing the light and breaking ranks with your bicycle buddies by establishing a bicycle tax, toll, license and/or registration fee. It also requires adding a surcharge attached transit fares, possibly an extra nickel or dime a ride, to compensate for the heavy damage TriMet’s busses do to streets and roads. The bottom line is that if you want more funding for transportation without further crippling household budgets and the local economy at the same time, then you must, as much as you hate to, set your ego aside and admit that I am on the right track!!! » reply
Are you serious?Submitted by JamminS on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 10:02am.
You are actually going to argue that a bus damages the roads more than the numerous number of vehicles that would be needed to get the same number of individuals around town? Wake up. » reply
Cars better than buses for road longevitySubmitted by Oil Sheik on Sat, 05/10/2008 - 5:18am.
Heavy vehicles (bus and trucks) do much greater damage to the roads. They start and stop more often, they put significantly more weight on the road per axle or tire (especially when fully loaded). A good example of this damage is the rippling that occurs at intersections on bus lines and in front of many bus stops. There is plenty of scientific data to support this opinion: I won't bother linking to it because I don't think data is going to persuade a flat-earther like yourself: buses good, cars bad! If you really want to save the roads, then ban the evil Tri-Met buses and buy everybody a Prius. » reply
That is what Sam says: BusesSubmitted by jim karlock on Sat, 05/10/2008 - 1:54pm.
That is what Sam says: Buses cause most of the road damage. Of course Trimet does not pay - we do. Just another hidden subsidy to Trimet. Thanks » reply
Transit fares do increase. ISubmitted by dalas verdugo on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 4:34pm.
Transit fares do increase. I understand when they do. I would also be willing to pay a reasonable bicycle registration fee if it was used to fund alternative transportation. I'm not opposed to paying reasonable fees for services I use. » reply
Mayor Potter oversees theSubmitted by Mark on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 6:03am.
Mayor Potter oversees the bureau with the software installation overrun. He didn't even tell city council until last week. » reply
I actually disagree withSubmitted by Theresa on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 6:07am.
I actually disagree with you. I think we pay now, or my children pay even more. This is the same reason that social security will never get fixed. Same reason our deficit will bankrupt this country. People never want to pay, they just want everything. If Grand Theft Auto can make $500 million in less than a month, we have the money--we just want to spend it selfishly on ourselves. » reply
Grand Theft Auto...WTF?Submitted by Oil Sheik on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 6:17am.
Meds check? $500 million in national sales (to a U.S. Population of 300 million) for a video game has no correlation to a new $500 million tax levied on the 600,000 residents of Portland. This country also spends billions on pet food: maybe we should outlaw cats and dogs in Portland and spend the savings on our roads? Non-sequitur: you should google it. » reply
Google "ad hominem".Submitted by dalas verdugo on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 4:43pm.
Google "ad hominem". » reply
I think you all are missingSubmitted by PDOT employee on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 5:53am.
I think you all are missing the point for a few reasons: 1. Of course PDOT and Sam knew that costs were going up. We've been cutting PDOT's budget for the past six years or something. But we got updated numbers from ODOT about gas tax revenue at the beginning of this week that we then had to adjust the cuts we already were making in the upcoming budget year. $800,000 we thought turned into $2.7M. PBJ has a good article about the issue. 2. You don't seem to want to acknowledge that federal and state transportation policies create different pots of money for different things. Four major sources: contractual (we do work for ODOT or TriMet or PDC-- capital projects), SDCs (State says it must be used for capacity building for vehicles, pedestrians or bicycles), and General Transportation Revenue (gas tax, parking and 40% of traffic & moving violation revenue). GTR is our only source of maintenance funds (though Sam has gotten us general fund dollars in the past three years). This is the source of funds that are shrinking faster than we had anticipated back in November when we submitted our budget--though the rest are shrinking too. 3. Gas taxes are just that--taxes. They are NOT user fees. Their point is to generate General revenue. And the vast vast vast majority of that revenue goes to supporting motor vehicles. 4. We do tax for alternative modes of transportation. TriMet's payroll tax. But I agree we need to look at other forms of revenue generation. The long term solution is more like a carbon tax, not a bike tax. I know that some of you don't believe in global warming, but I hope we don't have to have that argument here. 5. Terry you're wrong about Safe, Sound & Green discounts. Those are for businesses, not individuals. A great great majority of people, with a car or not, pay the same amount. 6. I don't know why I bother writing all this. You people are not open to hearing contrarian views backed up with logic and data. » reply
Re Missing the PointSubmitted by Terry Parker on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 9:57am.
PDOT employee said: “GTR is our only source of maintenance funds” The very reason why the users of alternative forms of vehicle transport that also use roads should be taxed and help shoulder the burden. PDOT employee: “Gas taxes are just that--taxes. They are NOT user fees.” I totally disagree, gas taxes were designed as a user fee to pay for roads and only roads - the more you drive the more you pay. Today the fund has become all encompassing similar to what has happened to Social Security, a pay all for bicycle infrastructure, transit infrastructure, sidewalks and anything that can come under a loose definition of being associated with roads. It is only the political forces that continually want a piece of the gas tax for other than roads that make the disclaimer the gas tax is not a user fee. PDOT employee: We do tax for alternative modes of transportation. TriMet's payroll tax. This is a tax on business to “subsidize” an alternative mode of transport, not a tax on the users of the mode. Transit fares only cover 21 percent of just the operation costs of transit. Maybe there should be a payroll tax to maintain roads too so motorists as well as transit riders receive the same kind of subsidy. PDOT employee; “The long term solution is more like a carbon tax, not a bike tax.” Again I disagree. First the carbon tax would only make sense if the gas tax is TOTALLY eliminated. Otherwise it would be double taxation on the same users (motorists) and not broadening the tax base for transport projects. Second, a bicycle user tax absolutely makes sense, particularly when Sam and PDOTare so intent on spending oodles of money for specialized bicycle infrastructure (while not maintaining city streets) and City government is so intent controlling how people move about including attempting to move people out of their cars and onto bicycles. Furthermore, people pay a user fee to use municipal golf courses, to use tennis centers and some sports fields, for basic services like water and sewer, to pay for garbage recycling programs, to park their cars downtown and elsewhere – I could go on and on. It only makes sense that bicyclists also pay for the use of bicycle infrastructure. Sam and his bicycle buddies need to stop protecting their own special interests and require bicyclists to pay user fees to cover their fair share of transport funding. These are the people that need to open up and start accepting some financial responsibility for the infrastructure they want and use.. PDOT employee: “Terry you're wrong about Safe, Sound & Green discounts. Those are for businesses, not individuals” If that were true, there would be no discounts on residential utility bulls for people that do not own a car, people that own a hybrid car and people that have a monthly transit pass, etc. – all of whom already pay less or nothing in transport taxes as compared average motorists who not only pay for roads, but who also subsidize the users of alternative forms of transport. » reply
OK, I'll biteSubmitted by Steve on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 4:33pm.
Can you give us any examples on what PDOT has done to try and save money? Like maybe cutting staff and outsourcing some of the work to priovate contractors? "You people are not open to hearing contrarian views" Contrarian views is code for new taxes/fees. I think all of these items are Mr Adams angling for a new tax/fee to hit us with. » reply
Gas Tax a lousy user feeSubmitted by Another PDOT employee on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 11:54am.
The gas tax might make sense as a piece of a larger package but it has very little correlation with the driver's impact on the system. Does a 73 Ford Grand Torino getting 8-10 mpg impact the system 5 times more than a 2008 Hybrid getting 50 mpg? It pays 5 times the gas tax. Don't argue weight: it probably only weighs twice as much and car weight is not the cause of wear and tear -it is the weight of trucks & busses as well as weather. The real money is not in asphalt alone: ROW purchase, cleaning, signs, signals, striping lights, planning, etc. all cost plenty and have nothing to do with vehicle weight. ODOT is researching alternatives like a VMT fee. As cars get more efficient revenues go down with a gas tax. » reply
$500 millionSubmitted by R on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 2:11pm.
Oil Sheik- » reply
$500 million is just the startSubmitted by Oil Sheik on Sat, 05/10/2008 - 5:30am.
Theresa trotted out the $500 million figure in reference to the opening week sales revenue of the new Grand Theft Auto videogame. I pointed out that you can't compare DISCRETIONARY PURCHASES made by 300 million Americans to a tax which Sam originally intended on impose on Portland water users WITHOUT A VOTE. The only correlation between the two is the $500 million number. In fact, we know that Sam isn't going to stop with just a water tax: higher gas taxes, real estate transfer fees, and LOTS OF NEW BOND ISSUES are going to raise our property taxes by 50% in the next decade. Theresa's argument is fallacious because it assumes that any population that CAN AFFORD to pay more taxes SHOULD BE OBLIGATED to pay more taxes. That they should be allowed to spend some of their own earnings on discretionary spending strikes Theresa (and other Socialists) as selfish. How ironic is that: they're being selfish if they would prefer to spend their own money rather than let the government take it. » reply
The City of Portland needs aSubmitted by RedFlyer on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 6:43pm.
The City of Portland needs a real proffessional to manage its transportation department and the city. Someone gravitating to politics has proven to be a failure. » reply
"And I believe the Mayor wasSubmitted by Erik H. on Sat, 05/10/2008 - 9:45pm.
"And I believe the Mayor was also wrong to use this issue to pit one part of Portland against the other." No, the Mayor did not use the issue to pit one part of Portland against the other. YOU, Commissioner Sam, did. That's because YOU, Commissioner Sam, spent far more time and effort on this ONE project, that benefits ONE SMALL PART of Portland (largely inhabited by well-to-do folks who have already received far more public attention and subsidy), WITHOUT providing any benefit to the rest of Portland. Only now do you bring up some of the other projects that you've tried to get done. Never mind that you had years to correct the imbalance of attention towards East Portland - a part of Portland that was begged to annex into the city with promises of investment that the city then reneged on its promise and have left to flouder. Never mind that there are still streets in Southwest Portland that are unpaved, lack sidewalks, and have bus stops located directly in the middle of intersections. Shouldn't maintaining what we have so that ALL OF PORTLAND has a basic level of service come first, instead of giving more handouts to wealthy Pearl District residents who already get tax breaks and city streets that were paid for by taxing everyone else in the City? When I build a street in SW, the city makes me pay for the street - AND build it to city standards. In the Pearl and in SoWa, who built those streets? Were they built to the same standards or did they get exemptions from the standards (i.e. less parking, narrower streets)? The Mayor was right to call you on your unfair treatment. Don't blame him because he is the Mayor of ALL OF PORTLAND. If you think he's wrong, then maybe you should prepare a document that shows the amount of money spent by PDOT for each neighborhood - and do it retroactively for each year that you were the PDOT Commissioner. That way you can prove that every neighborhood received the same amount of money (either equitably amongst the neighborhoods, or based upon population). » reply
We do have this map.Submitted by PDOT employee on Sun, 05/11/2008 - 3:06pm.
We do have this map. Download it here. But I think it's still not always the best way to determine distribution. Streets are in varying condition. Should we pave more based on need or population? And what about when we use revenues that we can't use elsewhere? For instance, we can't use "pearl district" PDC dollars elsewhere. So when we use these dollars, it actually doesn't affect the amount of other dollars for maintenance elsewhere in the city. PDOT builds and maintains all major arterial streets--including the streets downtown. Not neighborhood streets. So PDOT will not build your SW street in front of your home, unless you live on Capitol Highway, or Terwilliger, or Multnomah. That's the same throughout the city. » reply
Portland RulesSubmitted by Steve on Sun, 05/11/2008 - 4:50pm.
"we can't use "pearl district" PDC dollars elsewher" Maybe, but we sure can take SDCs from all over town and spend them in the Pearl DIstrict. Again, I'd love to hear what PDOT has done to become more efficient and not just save money by cutting projects. » reply
transportation costsSubmitted by weather2050 on Sun, 05/11/2008 - 9:11am.
There is an upper limit to how much some Portlanders can spend on taxes. We may not be completely typical, but our household of two people actually have $100 between us for one week's groceries, gas, meds, etc. We are all in favor of sustainability, parks, road repair etc. but the two of us can't take on much more tax load. If it gets much more expensive, we won't leave the inner city, but we will suffer the loss of our marginally "middle class" lifestyle. We are 72. » reply
Post new comment |
NavigationGet Our UpdatesRecent blog posts
Sam's Snapshots
Recent comments
 Popular contentToday's:  Syndicate |
Home |
Sam's Calendar |
Sam's Priorities |
Sam's Portfolio |
I Want To... |
Your Neighborhood |
Archives
PRINT
CoP taxes are going higher: blame OPEC?
This is old news, Sam. From the 1998 lows, the price of oil increased more than 600% from 1998 to 2006.
In constant 2007 dollars, the price of oil peaked at $104.06 (per barrel) in 1979. It bottomed in 1998 at $10.00 and rose sharply from $30 to $68 from 2003-2006.
Here's a chart: http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_Adj_Oil_Prices_Chart.htm
Oil only exceeded the 1979 "peak price" in March 2008, and many analysts believe that $20 to $30 dollars of the current price is the result of speculators (like hedge funds) who can run the price down just as fast as they ran it up.
Unless you're planning on drilling for oil on City of Portland property, the supply/demand characteristics of the energy complex seems kind of academic.
Given that construction material and energy inflation was widely recognized as a problem for municipal governments in 2006 and 2007, I must question your effort to bring this matter to our attention in 2008.
Here's my take: now that you have decided it may be imprudent to put a new "transportation tax" on our water bills without first seeking voter approval, you are forced to persuade us that a tax increase is necessary. If you can blame the recent spike in oil prices as being the root cause of the problem, then the City's failure to maintain our infrastructure or anticipate price increases is diminished.
So long as you continue to pursue the Trams/Trains/Trolley school of transportation funding, I will continue to believe that you have intentionally negelected our existing road/traffic safety infrastructure in favor of shiny new things.
So long as the City blows $12 million of ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS for a software installation without so much as press release explaining how this MASSIVE screw-up occurred (and who is being held accountable), I will vote against every new tax or bond issue which reaches the ballot.
I have very little confidence in the City Council's administrative capability or willingness to manage to do more with less during a downturn. Your willingness to spend $6 million on a bike bridge speaks volumes about your profligate spending habits; the idea that your even willing to consider $1.4 billion for a new light rail bridge defies logic.
There are lean times ahead: shrinking tax revenues, rising unemployment, and declining property values. It is high time to plan for making do with less. If you simply try to solve the problem with new and increased taxes, you will force the middle class to flee for the suburbs.
The taxpayers of Portland are not a limitless pool of prosperity: many of us earn less than a City Commissioner and we don't get annual cost of living adjustments. Many retirees live on a fixed income, and have no way to pay for higher gas prices, so they make fewer trips and/or take the bus. We have been experiencing the pain of higher energy prices for 5 years now: please don't use that inflation as an excuse to raise our taxes and further diminish our standard of living.