CommissionerSam.com - Good Government

Why the Flanders Crossing will Save Lives, Save Money and Save Our Environment.

Sam Adams — Wed, 07 May 2008 10:56:38 -0700

During the political season some can feel pressured to make inaccurate or misleading statements for perceived gain, and regrettably the current season is no exception. Many inaccuracies have been uttered about the proposed new crossing at NW Flanders Street over Interstate 405 that would reuse the center span of the existing Sauvie Island Bridge. This is a terrific project as the facts clarify.

The Sauvie Island Span Moves to NW Flanders
On Wednesday, April 23 Commissioners Leonard, Saltzman, and I co-sponsored an ordinance that would direct the City to purchase the center span of the bridge currently connecting Highway 30 to Sauvie Island and relocate it to Flanders Street in Northwest Portland. When completed, this new connection between Portland's two most densely populated neighborhoods will save lives, money, and the environment.

An Easy Decision Compared to Others
As the city's transportation commissioner, I am pleased to support such a far-sighted project. Overseeing transportation in Portland is not a task for those who lack clarity in direction or detail. It's a difficult job that combines high public expectations with limited financial resources that are declining in real value everyday. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the most difficult decision I make for transportation, reusing the Sauvie span rates a 3.

Priority #1 is Safety
Knowing that expectations dramatically exceed dollars available, I prioritize projects that will save lives. That's why in 2006 I asked Transportation to identify the city's 25 most dangerous corridors and intersections and what could be done to improve their safety. Moving east to west, intersections on 122nd Avenue, 82nd Avenue/Foster Boulevard and West Burnside have the greatest number of crashes.

The Push for New Funding at City Council
That same year we held Transportation's first Safety Summit with the public. Together we prioritized locations for fixes and developed a detailed project list. I took that list to my council colleagues and secured $13 million from the city's general fund. Historically transportation has not received general fund dollars. But council supported my request because we demonstrated the needs were great, alternative funding sources were non-existent, and we had a detailed, transparent project plan approved by neighborhood and business associations that we could execute right away.

East Portland Arterials Come First
Given the concentration of high-crash corridors and intersections in East Portland, it's no surprise that we directed 76% of dollars earmarked for safety improvements there.

West Burnside Corridor is Next
As the data directed, we then turned our sights on West Burnside. Within the last month, some have made a point to dismiss the need for safety improvements in the West Burnside corridor. Apparently for some, the facts don't matter. And the facts are clear.

West Burnside kills.

As recently as October 11, 2007 the unsafe conditions of West Burnside took the life of Tracey Sparling, a 19-year old student traveling by bicycle from her apartment in Goose Hollow to her classes at the Pacific Northwest College of Art in the Pearl District. A cement truck, operating apparently in accordance with the law, ran over her at the corner of SW 14th Avenue and Burnside. She was in the bike lane. The driver never saw her.

It doesn't surprise me that facts are ignored or skewed for perceived gain during the political season. But it does dishearten me that community leaders would tolerate this tragedy by attacking a special opportunity with a uniquely wide range of attributes to improve the street environment. Tracey's plight only personalized for me what the data already show: poor bicycle and pedestrian conditions needlessly jeopardize the safety of those who travel by any mode between Northwest and the Pearl, the city's two greatest concentrations of people.

The Legal Requirement for Bicycles and Pedestrians
West Burnside's dangers immediately became clear when Transportation began to study reconstruction options for the Burnside/Couch corridor. When reconstruction occurs, state law compels the City to provide for bicyclists and pedestrians. I quote from the Oregon Department of Transportation:

"ORS 366.514, aka the bike bill, was passed by the Oregon Legislature in 1971. It requires the inclusion of facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists wherever a road, street or highway is built or rebuilt. It applies to ODOT, cities and counties. It also requires ODOT, cities and counties to spend reasonable amounts of their share of the state highway fund on facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists. These facilities must be located within the right-of-way of public roads, streets or highways open to motor vehicle traffic. The funds cannot be spent on trails in parks or other areas outside of a road, street or highway right-of-way."

Genesis of the Flanders Crossing
In 2002, the Burnside/Couch stakeholder advisory committee debated the best way to meet this obligation while accommodating the other goals for Burnside/Couch. Improving the safety of pedestrians crossing Burnside was their top priority, followed by wider sidewalks on Burnside and on-street parking. The group came to consensus there wasn't sufficient room to accommodate bikes in the Burnside/Couch corridor. The Bicycle Transportation Alliance made a proposal: they would cede the legal right to bike lanes on Burnside and Couch in exchange for the City designating Flanders a "bicycle boulevard" (a street designed to minimize but not eliminate motor vehicle traffic) and building a new 405 crossing at Flanders.

The Current Council Affirmed Support Three Times
City council, including Mayor Potter, has affirmed its support for the Flanders crossing three times: when it approved the Burnside/Couch proposal in 2007, when it approved the crossing as part of the list of priority projects eligible for Transportation System Development charges in 2007, and again in 2007 when it approved the study to test the feasibility of moving the Sauvie center span to Flanders over 405. The previous council also supported the Flanders crossing when it voted for the couplet in 2002.

A Correction to Potter's Assertion
On April 19, 2008 Mayor Potter issued a press statement from more than 6000 miles away while traveling in China to blast the council majority's decision to move forward with the Sauvie center span at Flanders. Potter doesn't support the move because "This bridge will give the Pearl District three overpasses in a three-block span. And while one accident is one accident too many, the N.W. Flanders site is not on PDOT's list of dangerous intersections for either autos, bikes, or pedestrians."

As a review of the Burnside to Glisan crash data map reveals, Potter has identified precisely why Flanders was chosen as a bicycle boulevard. Flanders is the safest reasonable alternative to bike lanes on Burnside and Couch and substandard facilities on Everett and Glisan. A bridge at Davis would be unduly complicated by an on/off-ramps between I-405 and NW 14th Avenue. Everett and Glisan are intended to serve, and do serve, concentrations of motor vehicles at higher speeds between the two neighborhoods as well as access points to and from I-405. The data shows these have been high-crash corridors.

Each Existing Crossing is Dangerous
Burnside, Couch, Everett, and Glisan all provide sidewalks of sub-standard width on just one side of the street due to the collection of ramps connecting to I-405. Even with one substandard sidewalk per side, a pedestrian must avoid motor vehicles traveling at high speeds to or from the freeway. It's intuitively dangerous, and the data confirms that.

Why the Sauvie Span at Flanders
With the need for the Flanders crossing addressed, the remaining question is whether reuse of the Sauvie Island center span is a good fit for Flanders. I base my decision on value and values. Would reuse be a good use of taxpayer money at the projected $5.5 million? And would reuse be consistent with Portland's expectations for itself?

In both instances, reuse comes out ahead of any alternate scenario. Much has been made of the original low-confidence estimate that a brand new span would cost the city $3.5 million. We need to explore that number in greater detail.

$3.5 million represents a low-cost estimate for a 15-foot wide design-unfriendly span that was under contract for construction today. It does not account for real-world provisions like the cost of inflation. Prior to the opportunity to relocate the Sauvie center span, Transportation originally had planned to see the new span built as part of Burnside/Couch reconstruction. Planners estimate the project will break ground in 5 years. Construction costs in transportation have been inflating at a rate of 5% annually. Thus a span estimated in low confidence to cost $3.5 million today would be projected to cost $4,375,000 in 2013.

A new span at 15 feet of width is inferior to the Sauvie's 30 feet of width. Not addressing real world constraints, a new 30-foot span today would be projected in low confidence to cost $7 million. (There is no bulk discount in bridges.) But more realistically, the bridge would more likely be built five years out at a projected cost of $8,750,000.

The Utility of 30 feet in Width for Non-Motorized Uses
Some suggest 30 feet in width for non-motorized uses is extravagant. An analysis of high volume corridors suggests existing widths that vary between 10 feet (Hawthorne Bridge) and 15 feet (Eastbank Esplanade) are inadequate to handle peak travel. Transportation projects 2000 daily crossings between Northwest and the Pearl District, the city's two densest neighborhoods. Bicycle ridership has risen steadily in the last 10 years and risen dramatically in the last 5 years. A 30-foot crossing should better accommodate demand for decades to come.

Funding Sources and Constraints
The Sauvie center span move is projected to cost $5.5 million. Sources are:
• $2 million in Transportation System Development Charges;
• $2 million in River District Urban Renewal funding;
• $1 million in Transportation Enhancement funds from the Oregon Department of Transportation;
• $500,000 from the Safe, Sound & Green Streets program; and
• Private contributions.

Some have suggested these funding sources could be redirected to other parts of town. SDCs must be used to enhance capacity, but otherwise do not have geographic constraints. Growth in the Northwest District has generated $4.3 million in SDCs but Transportation has spent just $740,000 in SDCs there. River District URA funding must be spent within the geographic boundary. ODOT's Transportation Enhancement funds are available only for projects that "enhance cultural, aesthetic or environmental values in the transportation corridor." Routine transportation improvements, like basic sidewalk development, are not eligible for TE funds. As mentioned, the Northwest District targeted the Flanders crossing as its highest priority, which is why it's included in the Safe, Sound & Green program. And finally, it's the specific opportunity to reuse the Sauvie center span at Flanders that has encouraged private citizens to seek private fundraising.

These are the reasons I support the Flanders Crossing. I know that when the facts are available to Portlanders they support strong decisions that make our city safer. This project will save lives, save money and help each Portander do our part to save the environment.

Sam

Related Documents

11 Million in PDOT One Time General Fund Safety Projects

Portland's Most Dangerous Corridors

Facts on Flanders Crossing

Ordinance

City of Portland Receives Credit for Innovations in Government

The Office — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:27:50 -0700

Harvard Picks Lobbying Registration Code and Home Again - part of the 10 Year Plan To End Homelessness - as Two of the 50 Most Innovative Government Programs

The Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard Kennedy School today announced that the City of Portland's Lobbying Registration Code and the Multnomah County and Portland's Home Again made the Top 50 Programs of the 2008 Innovations in American Government Awards competition. Selected from a pool of nearly 1,000 applicants, these 50 programs represent the best in government innovation from local, county, city, tribal, state, and federal levels. Each of the Top 50 programs underwent several rounds of rigorous evaluation from a committee of practitioners and policy experts from Harvard Kennedy School as well as renowned institutions nationwide. Representing a range of jurisdictions from across the country, the Top 50 programs include seventeen cities/towns, four counties, six federal agencies, three school districts, nineteen states and one tribal government.

The City of Portland's Lobbying Registration Code requires entities that lobby city officials (over 8 hours a quarter) to register with the city and to report what city officials they talked with, the subject discussed, the amount of money expended and when the lobbying occurred. That information is then made available to the public via the auditor's website. This is the only system in the country that focuses on actual lobbying hours as well as gifts and contributions.

After a year of shaping the lobbying regulations draft through public input, the regulations were passed by City Council at the end of 2005, and registration started in early 2006. Commissioner Adams is honored to have the regulations recognized by the Kennedy School. As a result of the regulations, over 217 lobbyists, representing 57 lobbying entities, have registered their activities with the City Auditor. As well, City officials publish their calendars. Commissioner Adams said, "It is an honor for Portland to be nationally recognized in our efforts in increasing transparency and accountability in local government."

Since the 10-year Plan to End Homelessness was announced in December 2004, the City and County have housed more than 1,200 homeless individuals and more than 1,600 homeless families. Over 1,000 units of permanent supportive housing (where services such as mental health treatment, addiction treatment and job training are provided onsite) have been built. Home Again is the City and County's effort to end peoples' homelessness.

These two programs highlight Portland's innovative approach to government.

Finalists among the Top 50 will be announced on June 3, 2008. On June 12, finalist programs will make presentations on their initiatives before a National Selection Committee, chaired by David Gergen. Winners will receive $100,000 to replicate their efforts in other communities. Additional information about the Ash Institute is available at http://www.ashinstitute.harvard.edu.

NYT: Building Costs Deal Blow to Local Budgets

Guest Author — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:39:59 -0800

By WILLIAM YARDLEY

SEATTLE - State and local governments in many parts of the country are struggling to pay for roads, bridges and other building projects because of rising construction costs, adding another burden to budgets already stressed by the troubled housing market.

The problems have come as many governments pursue ambitious projects to improve roads and airports, build schools and upgrade long-neglected water and sewer systems. Many of the projects were conceived when money from property, sales and income taxes was steady and interest rates low, but officials say the ground has shifted beneath their feet.

"Everybody's scared," said Uche Udemezue, director of engineering and transportation for San Leandro, Calif., which will soon put out a request for construction bids on a retiree center and a parking garage. "You don't know what you're going to find when you go out to bid."

Costs have jumped for projects as varied as levee construction in New Orleans, Everglades restoration in Florida and huge sewer system upgrades in Atlanta. The reconstruction of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis, a $234 million project, has been fast-tracked for completion by December, and state officials say it is too soon to know whether it will come in on budget.

The impact has been felt in different regions at different times, and not every project has been high-profile. In Oregon, high costs have forced the State Department of Transportation to slow the rate at which it upgrades roads and bridges. In Seattle, school building projects were put on a fast track this fall because of fears of cost overruns...[Read the rest at NYT.com]

Oregonian: Moving Beyond a Gas Tax - Sam Adams has sealed the case for the city to create a new utility fee for transportation

The Office — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:18:28 -0800

OREGONIAN EDITORIAL - Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Seven years ago, then-City Commissioner Charlie Hales tried to add a novel road-repair fee to Portland utility bills. In the rear-view mirror, it's beginning to look like a smart maneuver. At the time, it felt like a swerve, both fast and slick.

Understand, it had then been eight years since the gas tax had increased. Hales' fee -- about $2 per month per household; $1,000 for some businesses -- was based on a theoretical trip-generation formula devised by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. While Hales convinced the Portland City Council his fee was fair, or fairish, or at least expedient, he failed to convince the community.

Grocers, restaurant owners and other high-traffic businesses balked at paying this ta --, er . . . fee, and staged a mutiny. We weren't too complimentary either; a couple of times, we called it "road kill."

Now a version of the utility fee has come roaring back to life. It would be larger for households -- $4.54 per month -- and average $83 per month for businesses (though most would pay less). Clearly, Commissioner Sam Adams learned from Hales' rocky experience when Adams was chief of staff for then-Mayor Vera Katz. Adams isn't just trotting the idea out to see whether he can make it stick. He has cemented a coalition in favor of it and brought the community along behind him.

At a public hearing today, there may be some testimony against the fee. But many businesses, citizens and interest groups now support it, recognizing that the health of the economy is directly dependent on safe, efficient streets.

Plus, the 89-member group convened by Adams to study the issues has recommended a number of safeguards to structure the fee more fairly, provide an avenue for appeals and ensure that the $24 million a year it generates will be spent repairing arterials, upgrading dangerous intersections, adding 20 miles of sidewalks and making other vital improvements.

Adams has held more than 20 town hall meetings, described in detail exactly where the money will go and tried to anticipate -- and answer -- any question voters might have about it. Given what Adams has run, which amounts to a campaign, it's fair to ask why the issue shouldn't go to voters for an OK.

Roughly 20 cities in Oregon have enacted such a fee. Yet it's still novel enough that, ideally, voters would have the chance to approve it. (It could still be referred to the ballot; threat of referral is what derailed the fee the first time around.) The trouble is that if voters flatten the idea, it's hard to imagine anyone picking it up again or any better idea coming along.

Meanwhile, it's been 15 years since the last legislative increase in the gas tax went into effect. Salem's making hopeful noises, but Portland shouldn't just wait and hope for state action.

What enhances confidence this time around is that Adams has engaged in a very public and thorough kicking-of-the-tires.

Based on that process, the council should go ahead and enact the fee. It no longer feels slick, but the fast is still there. And when it comes to our road system, fast is sounding better by the second.

1,130 Transportation-Related Citizen/Biz Requests Handled in 2007: Whew!

Cevero Gonzalez — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:12:52 -0800

As Sam's Public Advocate for transportation, the year 2007 continued to provide me with abundant opportunities to assist citizens with their questions and concerns regarding City services and projects. Specifically, the insightful and passionate inquiries we received challenged me, along with other bureaus throughout the City, to "think outside the box" and in turn to provide action-oriented responses to citizens seeking results.

Generally speaking, over 1,130 requests for assistance were received in our office this year [see table below]. In addition, but not included in the table below, we also received and responded to over 1,000 constituent inquiries relating to the proposed renaming of N. Interstate Avenue, as well as over 300 e-mails, letters and phone calls from citizens concerned about improving cyclist safety on Portland City streets. All tolled, we had a very busy but exciting year - addressing and resolving issues to the best of our ability. A brief listing of the types of concerns we addressed includes - but is not limited to:

• Parking enforcement, including suggestions regarding ways to improve parking access;
• General assistance and referral - to internal bureaus within the City, and other external partners throughout the city and county such as local non-profits and housing agencies;
• Motorist and pedestrian safety improvements;
• Paving and other street maintenance concerns;
• Street signage and street lighting issues;A break-down of the 1340 or so annual constituent contacts and requests, by month

* Requests for assistance through December 16, 2007.

Of course, every request for assistance or direction is unique. That being said, however, an in an effort to better highlight the types of concerns and issues addressed this year, following are a few brief examples of inquiries for assistance received in 2007.

OVERVIEW

Abandoned Autos: Priscilla in Northwest called the Public Advocate to request assistance with an abandoned auto that she indicated had remained parked on her residential street despite several attempts to contact the City's Abandoned Autos Program to have the vehicle removed. Not only was the vehicle an eyesore, Priscilla offered, but there was a potential that the debris surrounding the vehicle presented a safety and public health risk. Working on Priscilla's behalf, I contacted the Abandoned Autos Program and investigated the matter further. As a result, the vehicle in question was "tagged" for tow within four hours of Priscilla's call, and shortly after removed from her street altogether. Priscilla called back, once the vehicle had been removed, to thank me for working so diligently and speedily to address and resolve her concern.

Crosswalk Request: Tony in Northeast contacted Commissioner Adams to request his help with the installation of a crosswalk near his neighborhood. The challenge, as Tony indicated, was that the Office of Transportation (PDOT) continued to refuse his request for assistance specifically indicating that no safety improvement was warranted - however, Tony and others in his neighborhood believed otherwise. Working with PDOT engineers and managers, the original request for a crosswalk installation was reinvestigated and surprisingly a final determination was made to rethink the original decision. A crosswalk was eventually installed in the neighborhood. In acknowledgement of our efforts, Tony and others in the vicinity contacted our office to offer their thanks for all the work initiated on their behalf.

Garbage Pickup: Ken in Southwest called to ask for assistance in dealing with garbage collection services in his neighborhood, specifically indicating that his attempts to address and resolve the issue on his own had proven unsuccessful. On Ken's behalf, I contacted several departments within and outside of City bureaus and eventually identified the neighborhood's garbage hauler. Then, after consultation with Ken and his building's management staff, I contacted the garbage hauler and informed them that they might not be in compliance with City guidelines regarding refuse pickup times and other policies. Ken called back after two months time and informed me that the call on his behalf had "done the trick," since he had not experienced any further disruptions since my initial call.

Parking Control - Construction: Dan in Northeast called to request assistance with parking and construction issues in his neighborhood. Specifically, Dan indicated that PDOT had blocked off access to the street in front of his business resulting in a significant loss of parking and easy access to sidewalks. Further, Dan indicated that PDOT had not provided advance notice to affected businesses, in turn causing unneeded disruption to business operations. I spoke with PDOT staff about Dan's concerns and indicated that communication regarding any parking or construction disruptions was paramount to ensuring that alternative plans by affected parties could be considered. Additionally, I asked PDOT to reopen sections of the street - and more pointedly to restore parking - in areas not currently needing to be restricted. Dan called back, once the corrections had been made, and thanked me for working so quickly and thoroughly to resolve his complaint.

Parking Control - General: Michael M., a business owner from the Lloyd District, contacted me to request assistance with parking challenges his patrons were experiencing as a result of an abutting property owner removing parking without property City authorization. Working with PDOT staffers we were able to quickly identify the potentially offending parking removal and return it to its original state. Michael M. called me back once the correction had been made and thanked me for working so quickly - and thoroughly - to resolve his complaint.

Parking Control - Handicapped Access: Helen and her husband John, residents of the Hollywood District, called to request assistance with the installation of handicapped parking near their residence - indicating that they contacted me because they had received a denial of their request by PDOT. As senior citizens with disabilities, they offered, it was difficult to find available parking near their residence. I contacted PDOT staffers on Helen and John's behalf and challenged them to rethink their original assessment. Thankfully, and after much negotiation, PDOT reconsidered their initial decision and agreed to install handicapped parking near Helen and John's residence. Once the installation was completed, Helen sent a thank you letter - with pictures attached - acknowledging our offices efforts on her behalf.

Parking Enforcement: Robert called to voice his concerns about inappropriate treatment he believed he experienced at the hands of a Parking Enforcement Officer. Specifically, Robert indicated that while he did not dispute the validity of the parking citation he had received he did not believe that the citing officer needed to act in a matter unbecoming of a City employee. I investigated the matter further by contacting the Manager of the Parking Enforcement Office and we spoke at length about Robert's concerns, identifying strategies that might be used in the future to improve customer service for all. Once my investigation was completed I contacted Robert again and updated him on the status and result of my inquiry. Robert acknowledged his appreciation of my efforts on his behalf, again acknowledging that he did not dispute the issuance of the parking citation.

Paving: Paul from Southwest called to request that certain street and paving improvements be made on W. Burnside, leading from Tichner to the Multnomah County line. Further, Paul offered that previous attempts to get this matter addressed by City staff had proven fruitless. As a result, I called and e-mailed several staff within the City to find out the status of Paul's request. Surprisingly, I discovered that the street improvement Paul had identified was scheduled to be implemented later in the year. That being said, no one within the City had responded to Paul about his request. I informed Paul of the impending improvement and too, offered my apologies for the lack of response he had received from various City bureaus he had contacted, including PDOT. Paul thanked me for providing the requested information and indicated that it was nice to simply receive a response to his inquiry.

Permitting - Construction: John in Northwest contacted the Public Advocate to voice a concern he had about impending construction in his neighborhood. Specifically, John indicated he was concerned that a developer in the area would not fulfill his obligation to complete repairs to an unimproved street. Further, John indicated that attempts to secure a response from PDOT regarding this matter fell on deaf ears. On John's behalf I met with PDOT staffers to determine the status of the request. We determined, after reviewing contracts and permits, that the developer would be required to make the agreed upon improvements and to guarantee that such improvements were made the City had required that the developer sign a performance bond. John was grateful for my efforts on his behalf and the matter was closed with no further action.

Permitting- Sidewalk Vendors: Jeff in Southwest called to share a concern he was having with the City regarding his street vendor cart and the location of said cart on the City street as a result of downtown construction. Of note, Jeff indicated that attempts to secure a response from the City had not been successful. First, I met with PDOT staff to identify the lack of response Jeff was receiving regarding his original request. Second, I worked with staff to secure a proper location for the vending cart. The matter was resolved within four hours of receiving the complaint. Jeff contacted me to offer his thanks and praise for working so quickly on his behalf.

Pothole Repair - Commercial: Roy in Southeast called Sam to complain about the lack of response he had received from PDOT regarding his original request for a pothole improvement near his business. After investigating the matter further, I was able to send out a PDOT crew to make the requested improvement; all within 48 hours of Roy's direct request to Sam's office. Roy called back once the pothole had been repaired and thanked me for such a prompt reply.

Pothole Repair - Residential: John in Southwest called to request the repair of three potholes in his neighborhood. Too, John indicated that he had received no response from PDOT regarding his original request. That being said, John's request was investigated by me immediately and crews were sent out to the identified area within 24 hours. Days later I received a return call from John thanking me for working so quickly to resolve his citizen's complaint.

Referral - ODOT: Tina from Southeast called to request assistance with a few traffic calming concerns for her neighborhood, specifically at a street that intersected with Powell Blvd - a state owned highway. I contacted ODOT on Tina's behalf and shared her concerns with ODOT staff. ODOT in turn contacted Tina and to this day they continue to work with Tina on possible and future solutions to the traffic calming issue she brought to our collective attention. Tina e-mailed recently to thank me for working so diligently on her behalf to address her concerns, and further for helping to steer her in the right direction.

Revenue Bureau: Greg from downtown Portland called to request assistance from the Public Advocate with a situation he continued to experience with the Revenue Bureau. Specifically, Greg indicated that he continued to receive billing statements from the City for a business that he had no association with. I contacted the Revenue Bureau directly to discuss the matter further and after considerable review it was determined that the billing statements were being sent in error. As a result, the Revenue Bureau indicated that they would make the correction immediately and cease sending inaccurate billing statements to Greg. For his part, Greg called to thank me for working so quickly to address and resolve his issue - which he indicated had been going on for several months.

Sidewalk Access: Nick in SE contacted Commissioner Adams to request assistance with a business in the neighborhood that was blocking proper access to the public right of way. Additionally, Nick indicated that he had, in the past, contacted City staff on several occasions in hopes of addressing his concern but had been told "nothing could be done." On Nick's behalf, I worked quickly to find a reasonable solution to his complaint. City crews were called upon to notify the offending business of the need to ensure proper access to sidewalks and within days the business was in compliance. Nick called later to offer his appreciation for the quick results.

Street Cleaning: Emily in Southwest contacted me to voice her concern about street sweeping procedures in place within the City whereby businesses are often left with little, if any, parking access as a result of the sweeps. Working with PDOT crews I was able to get the street sweeping crew to better manage their efforts so that minimal parking was impacted. Emily called me back after the sweeping had occurred to thank me for making her issue a top priority.

Street Signs - Directional: John in Southeast called to request improved street signage on a couple of streets in the Hollywood District. His intention in making this request was to help motorists navigate and manage parking while shopping in the area. John also indicated that his original request to PDOT had been denied. I consulted with PDOT about John's request and after some additional conversations regarding the need to make any improvements PDOT reevaluated their original decision and improved street signage per John's request.

Street Signs - Safety: Jerry in Southwest contacted Sam to request assistance with a safety problem he believed existed on his residential street. Further, Jerry indicated that attempts to resolve this safety issue through PDOT channels had proven unsuccessful - specifically because PDOT did not consider the requested improvements were warranted. After considerable debate with PDOT staff and a plea to have them "think outside the box," Jerry's suggested improvements were finally made. Jerry contacted me once the improvements were implemented to thank me for continuing to work so diligently on his behalf.

Street Striping: Tom in Old Town e-mailed Commissioner Adams to request his help with much needed upgrading to street striping in the area. Specifically, Tom indicated that he and other businesses in the area were concerned that the striping in front of the Portland Police Precinct station needed to be improved and better identified so that motorists would be able to accurately determine available parking and not risk being towed. At my request, this matter was investigated immediately by PDOT staff and striping completed. I e-mailed Tom later to verify that he was satisfied with the work performed by the City. Tom indicated that "yes," the City had acted quickly. He also expressed his thanks to Sam for taking this concern so seriously.

Traffic Calming: Mary K. from Southeast called to request assistance with an issue she confronts on a daily basis as a commuter. Specifically, Mary indicated that when exiting from the Morrison Bridge and onto 3rd Avenue the streets are not clearly marked and because of this motorists experience confusion regarding appropriate travel lanes. According to Mary K., her efforts to address this issue in the past have proven unsuccessful. Working with PDOT staff the area was investigated immediately and PDOT eventually determined that lane improvements should be clarified. Mary K. called me after the improvements had been implemented to offer her thanks to me and Sam for working so quickly to resolve her traffic safety concern.

Traffic Signaling: Jill in Southwest called to complain about traffic lights not synching properly during her morning commute in Southwest. Working with the Street Systems group within PDOT we were able to address the synching concern immediately. I contacted Jill to let her know the final outcome of her request and she in turn contacted me to let me know that her morning commute had improved significantly.

SUMMARY

The role of Public Advocate continues to provide me with many rewards and opportunities for assisting and connecting with the public. Mind you, while not every issue can be resolved to the satisfaction of the citizen, I will continue to make it my goal to work on behalf of the public. I look forward to the challenges and blessings of 2008.

Cevero Gonzalez, Public Advocate for the Office of Commissioner Sam Adams

CIty Creates Labor Management Committees

Terry Richardson — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:29:02 -0800

In June 2005 Portland City Council agreed to endorse the Framework for Labor Management Committees in City Bureaus prepared by Bureau Innovation Project Team #6 to guide the establishment of Labor Management Committees within each City bureau Resolution # 36434

The project called upon city to form a joint work group of labor and management representatives to formulate a citywide scope of work for Labor Management Committees within each City bureau. The intent of the Labor Management Committees is to improve the delivery of services and responses to our citizens. Employees of all levels can contribute to the solutions with out retaliation. Workers feel valued for their skills and ideas. Management can learn to be a partner with the unions. The rate payer is ultimately served efficiently.

38 representatives from all the organized labor unions, Key Bureau management and staff from each council office meet several times and agreed to the basic frame work for all Bureau Labor management committees.

Each Bureau of 12 or more employees will have a LMC. The cost of creation and training would be split between the labor unions and the city. The city wide LMC is formed to oversee the process in each bureau and to be a resource to those Bureau committees. LMC can resolve work site issues; from training and sick leave, to distribution of the work load. The committees can address most any issue that gets in the way of the delivery of services.

In Bureau of Maintenance LMC agreed to emergencies procedures for an ice or snow storm. It potentially, can the save the city many dollars and still provide needed services for our customers.

In Bureau of Environmental Services is working on safety equipment at the East Side Big Pipe project. The committee found that some safety boots were not suited for the work. The result is a safer work place with no injuries.

LMC's are not new for the city. There are a few bureaus that have long standing LMC's since the late 90's. This is a renewal of a city's commitment working collaboratively with labor to resolve work issues. Portland is the city that works.

Equal Benefits in the Marketplace

Jesse Beason — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:18:51 -0800

It has been a year since City Council approved Sam's proposal to enact an Equal Benefits Ordinance (EBO). The EBO requires that contractors doing work on behalf of the City do all they can to offer equal benefits to their employees with domestic partners and employees with spouses.

How is it working? Well, out of 197 contracts covered by the EBO, 98% were in compliance with only 4 contractors being granted waivers. Moreover, 24 were in "delayed compliance," meaning that 24 employers would be amending their benefits to cover for domestic partners in the coming year.

The success of the first year of the EBO means expanded health coverage, family leave and retirement benefits for many employees' domestic partners, with little to no additional cost to employers.

Related Documents

Purchasing Bureau - Equal Benefits Program

Our blog

More transparency in government by reducing the threshold for lobbying registration

Shoshanah Oppenheim — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:11:00 -0800

On Wednesday August 8, Portland City Council unanimously voted to reduce the hourly threshold that triggers a lobbying entity's obligation to register with the auditors offices. The City Council believes that the threshold reduction will require more entities to disclose their lobbying activities. This action builds on Commissioner Adams' efforts to "daylight" political decision making and create a more accessible city government.

Under the changes, lobbying entities who spend more than eight hours "attempting to influence the official action of City officials" must register with the auditor. Under the original ordinance sponsored by Sam, elected officials and bureau directors must publish their official calendars. This is an effort to disclose who is meeting with city leaders and whose interests are being represented in the decisions of the council.

Sam is pleased with the threshold reduction and said that "Portland is a very engaged City. Residents deserve to know how their money is being spent, how decisions are made, and why."

Please give us your feedback on this issue and how we can make the city more accountable to you.

Related Documents

Copy of Ordinance

Media Mentions

Blogs

Council Unanimously Votes to Reduce Threshold for Lobbying Activities

Roger Geller explains PDOT’s position, plans for bike safety improvements

Roland Chlapowski — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:02:45 -0800

“PDOT has strongly endorsed the design that enhances separation… similar designs are employed in the world-class cycling cities… whose ridership levels, policies and practices we hope to emulate.”

Originally posted on BikePortland.org by Jonathan Maus (Editor) on November 1st, 2007 at 12:31 pm

In the light of two recent “right-hook” crashes resulting in fatalities, Commissioner Sam Adams and PDOT have recommended a pilot treatment at 14 targeted intersections to create safer conditions for bicycling. People following this issue — motorists and cyclists alike — legitimately have questions about the effectiveness of the proposed design and how we selected the 14 intersections.

Following these crashes, there arose two leading and opposing options for treating intersections. One of these options eliminates the separation of cyclists and motorists as they approach intersections; the other maintains and enhances the separation. PDOT has strongly endorsed the design that enhances separation. Our approach is based on two guiding principles:

To increase bicycle ridership in Portland we need to create comfortable conditions for people to ride. The more people who ride, the better will be conditions for cycling,
Bicycling is safer when awareness and visibility of road users is enhanced and movements are well defined and universally understood.

We are further encouraged in our decision by the fact that similar designs are employed in the world-class cycling cities throughout Europe whose ridership levels, policies and practices we hope to emulate.

Figure 1: Colored Bike Lane/Bike Box
Treatment
All graphics by PDOT
(Click to enlarge)

The design we propose consists of three main elements: a bicycle lane that is colored as it approaches the intersection, a bicycle box at the intersection, and a colored bicycle lane leading away through the intersection (see Figures 1 and 2).

Other elements will include signing that alerts motorists to the presence of the bicycle lane and expected motor vehicle and bicycle movements through the intersection, a prohibition against turning right on a red signal, and, where feasible or considered necessary, flashing warning signing triggered by the presence of a cyclist approaching the intersection.

Figure 2: Advanced Stop Line
without Bike Box
(Click to enlarge)

The primary intent of this design is to increase the visibility of cyclists at the intersections.

We wish to heighten motorist’s awareness to the presence, or potential presence of cyclists. We want to remind motorists to look for cyclists who may be crossing their paths as they proceed through the intersection. The blue lanes approaching and leading away from the intersections are intended to be the primary trigger for this awareness. By coloring blue the approach, and especially the trailing lanes through the intersection, we will send motorists a clear message to expect cyclists moving through the intersection.

“Separation without safety doesn’t serve anybody well.”

This practice of using color to define a cyclist’s path through an intersection is a common design feature in the bicycle-friendly cities of Denmark, The Netherlands, and Germany. It is also common in those countries to keep cyclists to the right of the roadway — in their own designated space-and to the right of right-turning motorists. Why? Because, those countries have determined, through the repeated feedback from their citizens and following decades of experimenting and refining their designs, policies, and approaches to managing traffic, that people riding bicycles want to stay separated from motor vehicles.

[Editor note: Learn more about PDOT’s blue bike lanes, and view a study of their effectiveness here.]

It is this separation that creates comfortable conditions for bicycling. It is this feeling of comfort that serves to encourage more people to bicycle. Creating more cyclists, and having fewer people driving cars, makes bicycling safer.

Geller addressed Commissioner Adams’ Bike Safety
stakeholders meeting last week.
(Photo © Jonathan Maus)

Of course, separation without safety doesn’t serve anybody well. In this case, safer conditions will be achieved, in part, by clearly and unavoidably making known the presence of cyclists at the approach to and through the intersection. We believe the colored bicycle lanes in Portland, as in Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Muenster, and in bicycle-friendly cities throughout Europe, will encourage motorists to stay out of the bicycle lane when approaching an intersection, and look for cyclists before executing their turn through an intersection.

The bicycle box is a separate but related part of the design and is intended to do two things:

It will allow cyclists to go to the head of the line when the light is red so that they are more visible to queuing motorists and allowed to proceed through the intersection ahead of them,
It will allow the entire queue of cyclists to come up to the head of the line, so that when the signal turns green there are none or few cyclists moving through the bicycle lane to the right of motorists.

Additional signing and flashing lights would reinforce to motorists the idea to expect cyclists. We feel comfortable testing these designs in Portland because of their successful use in Europe.

However, there is another approach that encourages mixing motor vehicle and bicycle traffic when approaching and going through the intersection. This second approach encourages cyclists and motorists to share either the travel lane by dropping the bicycle lane before the intersection, or to share the bicycle lane, by allowing motor vehicles into the bicycle lane in advance of their making a right turn (Figures 3 and 4).

Figure 3: Bike Lanes Drop
(Click to enlarge)

This is an approach based on a “vehicular cycling” model, which suggests that bicycles, as vehicles operating on the roadway, should behave the same as the primary vehicles for which the roadways were designed: automobiles. The benefit of this approach is that it takes cyclists who are going straight through an intersection away from the path of a right-turning motorist. It conforms to standard automobile operating rules, in which a vehicle going straight is always to the left of a vehicle turning right.

We believe there are a few problems with this approach.

The main problem is that vehicular cycling is generally best used by those cyclists who are already the most fit and confident. While knowledge of vehicular cycling and the skills it encourages are beneficial to all cyclists, requiring such behavior at each intersection would not feel comfortable to the vast majority of Portlanders — the very people we are working to attract to bicycling.

Figure 4: Bike Lanes Skipped
to Intersection
(Click to enlarge)

Keep in mind that Dutch cyclists (and motorists) are perhaps the best trained in the world. They are taught throughout elementary school how to ride a bicycle. They generally begin riding a bicycle very young and continue to ride well into old age. Despite this intensity of training, the Dutch have firmly decided that maintaining separation between cyclists and motorists is what creates the most comfortable conditions for bicycling.

The other main problem with this approach is that cyclists and motorists will still cross paths at some point. Either motorists will merge into the bicycle lane (under the California law approach) or cyclists will have to weave across the path of cars (under the dropped bicycle lane approach). In either case, there will still be multiple conflict points. Instead of having one conflict point at the intersection, it is now moved some indeterminate and varied distance back from the intersection. Cyclists can still be in a motorist’s blind spot when the motorist merges to the right.

We believe that inviting motorists into bicycle lanes creates three conditions that will be uncomfortable to most cyclists.

First is the merge itself. It is not clear where this merge will occur and it still allows cyclists to be in a motorist’s blind spot when the motorist moves to the right.

Second is the blocking of the bicycle lane. One of the advantages of having a bicycle lane-the uninterrupted flow for the bicycle-would be eliminated at almost every intersection where there is a line of motorists waiting to turn right.

“We believe that inviting motorists into bicycle lanes creates… conditions that will be uncomfortable to most cyclists.”

Third is the weaving behavior this will encourage of cyclists, who will understandably not be content to stop in a bicycle lane, near the intersection, when the signal is green, and who will instead move left into the travel lane around the right-turning automobiles.

There are places in Portland where we have dropped bicycle lanes before an intersection. We hear many complaints from cyclists where that occurs. We don’t do it to create safe conditions for cyclists. Instead, we drop bicycle lanes in order to better serve motorists at the intersection. Typically dropping the bicycle lane in order to add an additional turn lane.

If Portland is to be successful in attracting the general public to bicycling as a main means of transportation, then we need to create conditions where cyclists both feel comfortable and are safe when operating their bicycles. Dropping bicycle lanes shy of an intersection and encouraging or requiring cyclists to merge left into the travel lane, is not the ticket.

We developed the list of 14 targeted intersections from three primary sources:

Comments received from the cycling public at the June 2006 Portland Bike Summit
Feedback from Portland’s Bicycle Advisory Committee regarding deficiencies in the city’s bikeway system
Feedback from the general public and analysis performed by technical staff as part of the city’s work to define existing conditions for bicycling in Portland as part of the city’s process to update the bicycle master plan.

We have chosen a design approach that we believe will create comfortable conditions for cyclists, improve safety by clarifying what we expect of motorists and cyclists, and continue to encourage increased bicycle use among more of the general public.

We recognize that intersection design alone does not create safe conditions. Appropriate user behavior is crucial to an individual’s safety. Being aware, looking out for others, yielding to others, and operating at slower speeds all help promote safety for all. This is true no less for cyclists than it is for motorists.

Roger Geller
Bicycle Coordinator, City of Portland Office of Transportation
(503) 823-7671

Roll and Stroll with Portland Citizen's Disability Advisory Committee (PCDAC)

Roland Chlapowski — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:47:49 -0700

Roll and Stroll with Portland Citizen's Disability Advisory Committee (PCDAC)

To raise awareness of how people with disabilities get around Portland, the Transportation Subcommittee of Portland's Citizen's Disability Advisory Committee (PCDAC) is hosting a special "Roll and Stroll" event from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on Friday, September 14, outside City Hall. City Commissioners Sam Adams and Dan Saltzman, along with PDOT Director Sue Keil and PCDAC members, will have a chance to use mobility devices that include but are not limited to wheelchairs and goggles along with white canes to assimilate what people with disabilities use daily to access Portland streets and sidewalks.

The event will bring attention to how the built environment can impact mobility and livability for people with disabilities. Concerns among people with disabilities include limited mobility, loss of control over the environment, isolation in community, and limited access to education, employment, and other opportunities. The goal of this event is to raise awareness how the built environment and travel options influence these issues to some extent.

When: 11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m., Friday, September 14

Where: 4th Avenue entrance to City Hall, 1221 SW 4th Ave

Who: Scheduled participants:
City Commissioner Sam Adams
City Commissioner Dan Saltzman
Sue Keil, Director, Portland Office of Transportation
City Hall staff
PDOT staff
PCDAC members

Last Friday, September 7th, PCDAC sponsored another "Roll and Stroll" with the Chiefs of Staff from both Commissioner Erik Sten and Sam Adams' offices. PDOT staff as well as Commissioner Adams' Senior Policy Director for Transportation also participated.

For more information about the event, contact PCDAC Vice Chair Michael Levine at 503-504-2585 or levine.ada@gmail.com. Levine is also Chair of the PCDAC Transportation Committee.
#

Come to the Come Back Fair!

Daniel Ronan — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:15:11 -0700

Portland Public Schools, in collaboration with the Portland Schools Foundation and the alternative educational options are sponsoring a Come Back Fair.

The Come Back Fair is an opportunity for youth that are no longer in school to get back on track and find an educational program that fits their needs.

It's a one-day event (Saturday, September 8), held at Holladay Park, and youth can stop by anytime between 12 pm - 5 pm. The 20+ alternative educational options that PPS provides will be represented, and other service providers will be there as well.

It's like one-stop shopping for youth thinking about dropping back in; they can investigate the different options that are available to them and connect with the programs that best fit their needs.

It'll be a fun event, and the whole family is welcome. Lots of free food will be available.

Jammin' 95.5 will be present along with local youth bands. There will be also be a raffle, with chances to win i-pods, a bike, Nike gear, a $100 Adidas gift certificate, and many other great prizes.

Everything is free and open to the public.

Come to the Come Back Fair and get back on track!

MARK YOUR CALENDARS. Next Round of Neighborhood Transportation Meetings

Roland Chlapowski — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:28:44 -0700

We will be holding our next round of neighborhood open houses on transportation priorities and potential local funding options in September.

Please note the date of the next town hall closest to you and mark your calendar.

Of course, if for some reason you cannot attend the open house nearest to you, you are always welcome to attend a meeting outside of your neighborhood, as well.

ALL OF THE MEETINGS ARE 7pm- 9pm

Central Northeast
September 10th
Firehouse #12
4415 NE 87th Ave.

Southwest
September 17th
Multnomah Center
7688 SW Capitol Hwy

West/Northwest
September 18th
Friendly House (Keystone Room)
1737 NW 26th Ave.

East Portland
September 20th
East Precinct (Community Room)
737 SE 106th Ave

Southeast
September 24th
St. Philip Neri - Calvin Hall
2408 SE 16th Avenue

Northeast Portland
September 25th
Kind Neighborhood Facility
4815 NE 7th Ave

North Portland
September 27th
Kenton Firehouse
8105 N Brandon Ave.

For special accommodations, please contact Jamie Waltz at (503) 823-7101.

American Society of Civil Engineers: Oregon's Infrastructure Report Card

Roland Chlapowski — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:11:01 -0700

In 2005, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) gave the nation an infrustructure report card. Overall, the U.S. got the GPA equivalent of a "D." America's total investment needs to shore up our infrastructure totalled $1.6 TRILLION, a number that increases as time passes.

Done years before recent high-profile tragedies, this report outlines a nation chronically under-investing in its infrastructure.

You can review America's overall infrastructure grades here. If you want to read the actual report, you can download the entire document here.

A quick summary of some of the state's transportation problems:

Roads

51% of Oregon's major urban roads are congested.
38% of Oregon's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition.
Vehicle travel on Oregon's highways increased 31% from 1990 to 2003. Oregon's population grew 25% between 1990 and 2003.
Driving on roads in need of repair costs Oregon motorists $684 million a year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs --- $264 per motorist.
Congestion in the Eugene area costs commuters $162 per person per year in excess fuel and lost time.
Congestion in the Portland area costs commuters $733 per person per year in excess fuel and lost time.
Congestion in the Salem area costs commuters $258 per person per year in excess fuel and lost time.

Bridges

25% of Oregon's bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.

You can read more about Oregon's infrastructure ratings here.