PUBLIC FORUM ON TRANSPORTATION BUDGET PRIORITIES
Sam Adams
Please join me for the most important discussion on Portland's transportation priorities in years, and for years to come. It is only with the public's input that I will make the wisest choices on where to direct the Office of Transportation's budget. Please come - and be ready to tackle and seriously grapple with tough choices regarding the furture of Portland's transportation infrastructure.
Thanks,
Sam Adams
Download forum information flyer here.
Posted by Sam Adams on December 7, 2005
(19) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (1)
Filed Under Events, Front Page, Good Government, Office of Transportation, Our Initiatives, Transportation
Comments by site visitors
I urge you to defend funding for bicycling programs in the transportation budget. Support for bicycling as a viable commuter option is growing and Portland must retain its committment to reducing vehicular traffic and emissions and a quality of life we are all proud of. Bicycling is sound transportation method and needs increased support to be sure that there are safe routes to and from all parts of the city.
Thank you.
N. Portland resident for 21 yrs
Posted by: Gilah | Dec 11, 2005 4:10:27 PM
If there is a diversity of transportation user groups, preferably numbers equal in percentages to the current demographics of which mode people choose to use (this so the ballot box can not be stuffed by any one user gruup), there is one question regarding transportation funding equity that needs to be raised at the forum: Should bicyclists be directly taxed, and/or pay a fee for the special privilege of using exclusive taxpayer funded bicycle infrastructure and facilities, or continue to have immunity from paying their fair share of the price tag? Not only should this question be asked at the forum, but it should be asked to the general public as a ballot measure.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Dec 12, 2005 2:02:59 AM
Sam,
1. What new partnership requirements? (Mentioned in your invitation letter)
2. Stop building curb extensions until their safety is known. I say this because I just read an extended curb “safety” study that is was given to me by a PDOT employee which had nothing to do with safety, just with the probability of cars stopping for pedestrians. I hope PDOT didn’t try to pawn off the same study to you as being a safety study. The study is titled “PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPACTS OF CURB EXTENSIONS, A CASE STUDY” but has NO SAFETY DATA OR REPORT OF SAFETY DATA. Please read it if they gave it to you.
3. Did PDOT ever get you extended curb safety data as they promised when I raised the question at the Burnside town forum?
4. How many other traffic things are we spending money on with the assumption that they work, without really knowing?
5. Bicycles are reaching the point where they should be paying their own way for street usage through licensing of some sort. They appear to be taking a lot of resources and, unlike motor vehicles, not paying their own way. (I was told, twice by two different PDOT/city budget people that cars mostly pay their own way)
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Dec 12, 2005 7:39:05 AM
I encourage you and the PDOT to continue to support bicycle transportation as a vital part of the transportation budget for Portland. The City of Portland is known nationally as one of the top cities for bicycles. This helps in tourism and city growth. I strongly disagree that bicycles impact the transportation infrastructure as much as automobiles. I would argue that any increase (or maintenance) or bicycle commuters and ridership in Portland would help to maintain the current infrastructure due to less automobiles being on the road. Therefore, by supporting bicycle transportation the PDOT would be preserving the greater infrastructure for those that use automobiles.
Posted by: Jason Van Handel | Dec 12, 2005 7:54:15 AM
Please route as much money as possible to projects to get rid of the bottle necks created at Delta Park and the interstate bridge on I-5. These bottle necks are directly affecting interstate commerce through our city and making commuting to and from Vancouver a real head ache.
Posted by: Brett Carlos | Dec 12, 2005 4:52:14 PM
I am a bicyclist. I already think that I pay enough for the roads that I use through my income and property taxes. If there is a shortfall in transportation funding, then de-fund the tram, de-fund the street car, and de-fund off-street multi-use paths. Eliminate urban renewal districts. Eliminate tax breaks for transit oriented development, and for expensive condos in the Pearl district.
Posted by: Seth Alford | Dec 13, 2005 4:31:14 AM
Seth Alford,
Just FYI:
Property and income taxes do not go to local streets except, perhaps, for lighting according to what I was told by City employees. (At least to no useful extent, the last few percent is frequently hard to pin down.)
Roads are almost entirely paid out of motor vehicle taxes and fee as well as a subsidy to mass transit.
As to your comments about tram, streetcar etc: right on!
thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Dec 13, 2005 6:46:09 AM
I am a bicyclist who also owns a car. I pay those motor vehicle taxes, just as other drivers do; the difference is that I leave my car at home far more often than most drivers do. By doing so, I reduce pollution, road wear, and traffic congestion. Bicycling is one of the integral aspects of Portland's stature as a livable and environmentally responsible city, and reductions to funding for bicycling projects not only reduce our image, but also the reality of our commitment to those values.
Bicycling is good for all of us, not just the bicyclists among us.
Posted by: Bonnie Lynch | Dec 13, 2005 8:53:14 AM
Dear Sam,
Please continue to fund Portland's excellent bicycling infrastructure. The more safe routes there are, the more people ride, and the healthier and safer our city will be.
Motorists who believe bikes should pay for roadways, please read Ken Kifer's excellent article on the subject:
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/advocacy/free.htm
And remember, cars don't pay for all their negative externalities: highway patrol, hospitals for injured and killed people, children with asthma, polluted water and air, etc. etc.
Grow up and ride a bike!
Posted by: Ben Salzberg | Dec 13, 2005 10:40:22 AM
The primary source of money for all transportation funding comes from taxes on gasoline and other motor fuels. Federal transportation dollar grants, no matter which mode the money is spent on, comes from federal taxes on gasoline and other motor fuels. Oregon also has a weight mile tax on trucks. License and registration fees contribute only a small part of road funding. Therefore, by leaving a motor vehicle parked, the owner is not paying taxes into the transportation funding pot. The users of motor vehicles, including trucks, pay for the roads and subsidize both transit and bicycle infrastructure. Transit user fares cover only 20 percent of operating costs. Bicyclists directly contribute zero dollars not only for the use for roads shared with other vehicles, but for exclusive facilities motorist taxpayers can not use. Having this special privilege, and the immunity of the user not to pay the price tag is spinning out of control. Sharing the road also must mean sharing the financial responsibility. Therefore, without a bicycle tax, the first cuts made in the PDOT budget must be for projects where the direct users do not contribute to the funding. Priority projects must be the ones that are user funded.
On another note, curb extensions at bus stops are harmful to the environment because they create congestion, require motorists to use more fuel by increasing engine idle times and make transit directly responsible for adding to global warming when busses stop for passengers in travel lanes and block other traffic. PDOT can save $50,000.00 for each intersection and $40,000.00 for each mid-block bus stop by eliminating curb extensions from the budget.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Dec 13, 2005 2:10:46 PM
If Portland is to continue to evolve an international reputation as a livable and sustainable city, it is critical that we continue to support bicycle transportation. As others here have commented, bicycles have a minimal impact on infrastructure and zero impact on air quality. Meanwhile, they help create positive connections between people and improve physical health. Supporting bicycle transportation actually reduces the costs of public infrastructure, public safety, and public health.
Posted by: Amy Stork | Dec 13, 2005 2:52:16 PM
Bicycles: Road costs at a capital investment level are minimal to Portlanders. The time, traffic and resource benefits to the vehicle drivers who may have no choice but to drive are great when many others choose to ride bicycles. Bicycles reduce the maintenance costs (and delays the need for new roads) of roads by alleviating use and by changing to to lightweight vehicles.
Please promote bicycles as a viable alternative and support safety for these citizens.
Worker Safety: Please take a look at the Albina Master Plan for the Bureau of Maintnance. This draft publication addresses current worker safety issues for our inner city employees who do so much for us in times of trouble (snow, ice, sewer, roads).
Thank you for looking at all citizens needs.
Posted by: Jean von Bargen | Dec 13, 2005 3:13:04 PM
I can't make the forum tonight, but I feel the transit studies published here on your blog either assume that the amount of traffic will stay high or get higher.
The brightest minds in the country on the both the Left and Right agree that fuel prices will continue to rise, and that means traffic levels will fall. People are simply going to need more public transportation options.
I want my city to make *all* of its plans, but especially transportation, with this in mind.
Posted by: Mitchell Santine Gould | Dec 13, 2005 4:56:24 PM
I'll briefly reply to Terry Parker's comments than suggest people can go to a private chat room to argue and not take up time on Sam's page. Please do legitimate research before making unsubstantiated claims. As of the 2005 budget, PDOT (not ODOT) receives 37% of it's funding from Gas Tax and Parking. Another 12% comes through federal grants. The rest is paid for by EVERYONE through PDC financing, property taxes, etc.
Sam Adams;
Thank you for hosting tonight's transportation forum. I would like to add a few thoughts which were outside of the spectrum. First while I do not believe that tax money will be well spent on increasing vehicle capacity (an oxymoron), I do believe in keeping our bridges in good repair (these were lumped together). I would also point out that the conflicts between bicyclists and automobiles most commonly occur (intersections aside) when the bicyclist must be in the road because of on-street parking.
I also encourage the city to have the courage to stop using tax money to clean up residents' leaf debris.
Thanks for this opportunity.
Posted by: Aaron Tarfman | Dec 13, 2005 10:25:42 PM
Some policies are holistically beneficial. They improve nearly all aspects of our lives. Building and improving bicycling infrastructure so that more people are encouraged to use bicycles as a means of transportation is certainly one of them. In addition to the health, safety, community, and environmental benefits already cited above--which are benefits to everyone, not just cyclists--I would also like to suggest that increasing the number of cyclists on the road benefits the local economy. Beyond the money spent on taxes and repairs, much of the remainder of the several thousands of dollars per year it takes to maintain and operate an automobile goes somewhere out of state. Every time someone chooses to ride a bike over driving an automobile, they are saving money that is more likely to be spent locally, which in turn helps to generate jobs in our own region. It is true that automobile-related businesses provide thousands of local jobs, and those aren’t going away. It would seem plausible though that cycling generates enough local economic activity to help justify making it a transportation priority. Considering all of its numerous benefits, it would seem to be a policy that pays for itself, and then some.
Thank you Commissioner Adams for all of your excellent work and for hosting the transportation forum.
Posted by: Wes Kempfer | Dec 14, 2005 8:29:58 AM
PDOT must Manage, Maintain and Market Portland’s outstanding transportation options
Faced with limited resources and growing demand, I expect PDOT to do what any private sector organization would do…increase operational efficiency by:
Focusing on key customers…i.e. managing demand and
prioritizing maintenance accordingly; then investing in low cost capital projects that support the management and maintenance strategy, and last,
marketing the hell out of a great product….Portland’s Transportation Options!
Key customers: offer better service to freight and non-discretionary auto trips that support economic development by reducing number and length of discretionary auto trips.
· Encourage shorter trips:
Support retail revitalization in local neighborhoods (invest in street design projects…wider sidewalks, curb extensions, better lighting, trees; calming or redirecting through traffic)
Improve bike, walk and transit connections between employment areas and adjacent neighborhoods (invest in sidewalks, crosswalks and curb extensions, bike lanes, bikeways)
· Reduce number of discretionary auto trips:
Complete the city-wide bicycle network…(invest in filling in gaps, improved signage and better general visibility of bike network.
Give preference to transit…(invest in signal preemption, stops at curb extensions)
· Aggressively market new & existing transportation options …TravelSmart and PDOT Options…insure that citizens know that they have travel choices.
· Extra benefits: reduced energy usage, reduced air emissions including CO2, reduced storm water run-off from streets and parking lots.
Prioritize maintenance on Main Streets and multi-modal (freight, transit &/or bike) arterials that link employment areas to neighborhoods and to regional routes.
· Maintain the integrity of freight routes, major transit streets and bike network.
· Fund replacement of weight restricted and aging bridges that serve industrial/employment areas.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Dec 14, 2005 8:33:28 AM
Aaron Tarfman
Please do legitimate research before making unsubstantiated claims. As of the 2005 budget, PDOT (not ODOT) receives 37% of it's funding from Gas Tax and Parking. Another 12% comes through federal grants. The rest is paid for by EVERYONE through PDC financing, property taxes, etc.
JK:
I think that 12% Federal is from gas tax. The rest may be pass through for particular projects that may or may not be roads. Also, does TriMet pay for its road use, like those concrete pads springing up at bus stops in place of the rippled pavement caused by heavy buses, or extended curbs at bus stops?
Sam please give us the real info on this subject.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Dec 14, 2005 8:43:03 AM
As a bicyclist, I am very willing to help fund maintenance and creation of new and existing bicycle facilities with new funding options. Saying I am not paying “my fair share” right now though is a stretch at best.
First, while I use my bicycle most of the time, I own a car and pay all the associated fees (and get less ‘per mile usage’ out of those fees than if my car were my primary mode of transportation.) While it’s true that my gas-tax bill is lower at the end of the year, my road mileage total is lower as well, it’s a trade off. Most bicyclists are also car owners.
Secondly, even if the premise was sound and I was getting a benefit I didn’t “pay for” by riding my bicycle, there are many instances of this in almost any tax-benefit analysis. For instance: I attended Christian private schools throughout my academic life, including college. I have no children, and do not intend to have any. By the logic of “fair share” I ought to be able to opt out of paying for public schools, although they benefit me in many indirect ways. More to the point, they benefit my fellow citizens for whom the cost of educating their children would be monumental and unmanageable without the assistance of the community they live in. Let’s not forget, we are all in this together: Continuing to make Portland the most livable city in the United States.
Posted by: S. Sander | Dec 14, 2005 10:53:07 AM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
Any money to be spent on the Tram in 2006? If so, cut that first. Talk about a boondoggle and utter waste of public money.
Posted by: Michael K. | Dec 10, 2005 6:22:58 PM