Initial Neighborhood Transportation Town Hall Survey Results

While this is a logical source of funding for roads and maintenance, the City is preempted from raising these types of fees. However the State and County have the ability to raise these fees. Sam lobbied extensively on raising the gas tax and registration fees at the state level. Despite support from the business community and other stakeholders, their was not adequate support for these increases. While there is hope that these funding sources will be raised in the future, the money will likely go to statewide congestion priorities. Any funds collected at the state level is shared across the state. Portland currently receives only 46 cents from every dollar that we send to Salem, essentially subsidizing the transportation systems of the rest of the state.

Keep your ideas coming Sam really wants your feedback.

raising tickets is not nearly as lucrative as you might think, at least not for PDOT.

We have to give about half (I think its around 60%)right off the bat to the state to underwrite the court system.

Then, the remaining 40-50% gets split with Portland Police, and we end up getting back at most a quarter on the dollar.

While we could in theory potentially change these arrangements, we certainly couldn't bank on being successful and at the very least it would likely be pretty difficult to do for legal and jurisdictional/turf issues.

I do agree with you, though, that these are good revenue sources for the transportation system. It combines the user pays principal with justice and you get to kill a couple birds with one stone.

One other consideration, though, is funding diversity. PDOT is where it is now largely because of over-reliance on the state gas tax. I think that if we can see it through, this could be a very good component of a larger funding package, though for the sake of stability I would be inclined to rely on it as just a part of a new funding package, and not the whole thing.

We'll definitely look into this more, to see if we can successfully climb the institutional hills on this one.

Where the heck did you get this 125 number? The post says they have 250 and keep getting more.

I attended the town hall, and I would say while it might have turned out a more civic-minded crowd, it was certainly "representative" in that there was an angry minority of anti-public investment people who would be opposed to anything. But they were minority.

Also, at the town hall, Sam shared polling data that showed likely Portlnand voters SUPPORTING a tax or fee for roads.

So before you go making up numbers and wrong assertions, maybe you should atted one of these meetings.

I went to one of these town hall meetings. I went in leaning against any new taxes. I came out supporting doing something on the issue.

Thanks for the invite to the town halls. I was not able to attend but I did watch it on cable tv. Sam, you did a great job moving through some complicated data in a manner that even I could understand most of it. I am most jazzed at the prospects of finally getting some help with adding sidewalks to my neighbrohood streets and dealing with the gravel road issue. I like idea of having a smaller increase on two or three new taxes and not loading it all onto just one.

I agree with others who have pointed out that this survey is interesting, but is more like a "telepoll," rather than a scientific survey with statistically reliable results. What I mean by that is representing the results as what "Portlanders" like or dislike is not reliable. The results are representative of what those who attended the forums felt -- yes, but that's it.

Regarding one proposal -- though -- the parking space fee . . . I assume this was referring to a street parking space fee, and not a fee owned by say, condo owners. Those spaces are already heavily taxed -- each parking space getting it's very own property tax bill each year to pay for schools, Tri-Met, the City, the County, etc. So I would hope this parking space fee that is proposed would be on metered parking spaces on the street, and the cost would be added in to the cost of parking there. Yes?

You are right- this poll is not scientific. It is a self-selected group of people who are not necessarily representative of Portland as a whole.

That said, we think that this is useful in as much as it captures the opinions of the Portlanders most engaged in their neighborhoods and civic affairs. Personally, I believe that the results -while they certainly need to be taken with a couple grains of salt- are a good indication that opinion-makers in Portland see the necessity of filling the funding gap caused by inflation and are willing to consider new funding measures to invest in our roads.

I should also note that we've conducted scientific polling (from a couple months ago, before we initiated this public conversation) that shows that likely Portland voters would tentatively be in FAVOR of a gas tax or monthly street maintenance fee to improve the city's streets and roads.

Those numbers weren't as overwhelmingly positives as this, but they were strong - 55-60%, and again, this is from before we started really discussing why we think it might be necessary.

.....As for the parking space tax, while there are a number of ways you could theoretically structure it, what we've been inclined to consider a tax on commercial parking spaces only. (So no taxes on condo or other residential spaces.)

We could do it either as a surcharge on paid parking (like the lots downtown), or on the number of spaces in any particular parking lot (including supermarkets, department stores, etc.).

I thought the town hall survey results were intersting in that they tracked reasonably cose with the earlier poll results done by the indepedent polling firm.

Jim-

We haven't made any proposal yet; that's why we're going out to the public with information to ask for feedback.

I am not sure what you are basing your assertions that we plan to use this money for "bus stops in the driving lane," because we've been clear that this money is going to paving and safety projects.

I suppose you could make a case that transit stops could hypothetically be comprised in our safety package, but if you look at the safety project list we posted above (and presented at the town hall meetings you attended), you'll see that that those projects aren't in there.

We're focusing on the basics here; it's not sexy, but what we're talking about are pavement and safety projects. Not transit, which is primarily TriMet. Not streetcar, either.

For you to imply we've proposed that is intellectually dishonest and I am dissapointed that you would make that charge, especially since you attended most if not all of the meetings.

Roland Chlapowski I am not sure what you are basing your assertions that we plan to use this money for "bus stops in the driving lane," because we've been clear that this money is going to paving and safety projects.
JK: Sandy Blvd paving, just completed put many bus stops so that the buses have to block traffic when they stop. When I brought this up, Sam did not give a clear answer that the practice would stop, therefore it is reasonable to assume that all new paving will incorporate this feature and thus increase congestion. Am I wrong?

Roland Chlapowski I suppose you could make a case that transit stops could hypothetically be comprised in our safety package, but if you look at the safety project list we posted above (and presented at the town hall meetings you attended), you'll see that that those projects aren't in there.
JK: No, I am referring to the several paving projects. But, of course, when Portland planners think of safety the think of mucking up traffic instead of safer designs.

Roland Chlapowski We're focusing on the basics here; it's not sexy, but what we're talking about are pavement and safety projects. Not transit, which is primarily TriMet. Not streetcar, either.
JK: Its, the pavement projects that appear to include Trimet’s dream bus stops that are guaranteed to block traffic by forcing the bus to stop in the middle of the travel lane. This is part of the long range plan of harassment of drivers to make driving as slow as transit so that we will suddenly abandon our cars for the crowded, crime ridden transit system per some idiot planner’s dream. (Before you laugh, I have seem such a presentation by a government official.)

Roland Chlapowski For you to imply we've proposed that is intellectually dishonest and I am dissapointed that you would make that charge, especially since you attended most if not all of the meetings
JK: Roland, it is sad to see you engage in personal attacks like some shill from the PDC or planning department. You must have noticed that Sam didn’t deny that future pavings would not include traffic blocking, congestion increasing bus stops when I asked the direct question. In the world of politics, refusing to deny is the same as an affirmative answer, especially in the context of all the crazy things that Portland’s pitiful planners do to us.

Thanks
JK

I drive the freeways everyday. So, I read with interest the Portland Tribune story about how the state police abondoned Portland's freeways 20 years ago and how now the Portland police do not have enough resources to do the job. I suppor the part of this proposal that would give resources to add more police on the freeways -- more enforcement of the basic freeway traffic laws will reduce congestion and wrecks that recently occured on the Terwilliger curves.

Jim Karlock, I googled you and the groups you support. You favor unchecked urban sprawl. You do not believe in global warming. You do not beelive we will ever run out of oil or that it will get so scarce we cannot afford it. I respect your right to have these points of view but I am glad that leaders in Portland do not hold them. J.D.

So, do you have any rational opposition to my points, or are just another mindless ad hominem attacker with no rational thoughts?

As to Portland leaders views, we are all already paying dearly for their screwy ideas, starting with us paying about double what we should be paying for a roof over our head.

How do you feel about your rent (or house payment) being doubled because of Metro's artificial shortage of land to prevent sprawl? Or do you thing we should not consider the human cost of bad policies?

Thanks
JK

You are right Jim, They need To explain where they have wasted all the money they rake in There is a little known Tax on Truckers that is the Exclusive Money Windfall of Oregon. Called the Weight mile tax. Portland gets a shre of this money but hates to acknowledge it.

I had a simular concern and somebody asked this question during the meeting I attended.

If I heard him right, Sam said that in terms of City capital $$$$ spending about 2% goes to bikes, 17% to sidewalks and crosswalks and foot paths and about 81% of city spending already goes to auto and freight projects.

I know from other research that I have done that gas tax dollars can only go to road projects, not transit.

Look at the details of those auto expenses and you find that many are really not for autos.

I really should do a detailed breakdown for DebunkingPortland.com

Thanks
JK

It is so easy to tax people more when you give bike riders a free ride. Is this fair? Collect revenue from bike riders via license fees and registration fees. They appear to want all (more?) of the rights of cars so they shoild pay for the privilege.

Well Jim, we cyclists have *already* got those rights by law, so that's a moot point on your part. If you want to push this "user pays" crap, prepare yourself to start subsidizing me for new inner tubes and patches for every piece of windshield glass littering the bike lanes and right-edge of the right-of-way giving me a flat, because despite the fact that cars don't use bike infrastructure, cars are where most of that damaging debris is coming from, and what pushes that debris to the side. Or we could talk about how the weight of your vehicle contributes to cracking the asphalt, which eventually results in collateral damage to the space cyclists to use -less than buses, mind you, but a few tons of metal is still a rather significant mass and do cause damage. Or how that oft-abused unofficial 10mph speed limit buffer puts cyclists and pedestrians at substantially greater risk and with no sort of penalty for violating the law on your end, unless you overstep that buffer, because it's so incredibly important for you to be able to get where you're going quickly (but not *too* quickly).

Once again, you're screaming at one group to take full responsibility for their mode of transit while completely shirking every aspect of real physical damage that your selected mode causes. And as always, your lot's quick to discount the fact that the majority of cyclists own cars and *are* paying in already! Even those of us who don't have already expressed our willingness to pay in for a road maintenance fee, because that'd be fair for us to contribute to help sustain something we use (and we all would: even non-property owners are paying rent to someone who in turn pays property taxes), but we shouldn't have to pay more than that because we're not damaging it. See? User pays, destroyer pays, but it even goes beyond that: we'd even be paying in for all those more expensive traffic controls that are only necessary because of your high-velocity motor vehicle. Considering that this would be tacked onto the current method of having road users, period, paying for road infrastructure of any kind, it's a fair deal, so don't pretend it isn't.

As has been pointed out time and time again, registration/licensing for bikes creates EXTRA costs because you need people to run and administrate it, you need some sort of physical license/registration to be produced and readily available for enforcement (as random stops are a waste of police resources), etc. When bike trips make up more than 10% of total transit in Portland, *then* it might be a viable option, but for now, there's no point in generating additional bureaucracy and expense

When I was 8 years old The City of Baker Oregon Charged me .25 a year to ride my Schwinn This was in 1955 They even gave me a little license plate. If the City of Baker could do it then There is no reason to believe that Portland could buy the technology from them and Tax the Bicycles say 25.00 per year to run in Portland.

I consider the whole rail system here as an open invitation to fare evasion. About a month ago, I was with a group of about 10 people who took a walk from River Place to the new OHSU building, and returned by trolley. People were saying that the streetcar was "free," even though we were way outside fareless square. At least I had my Trimet monthly pass on me.

And how many riders on the MAX Yellow Line trains for example, are not paying?

Sure, fare evasion is a problem. How much revenue does TriMet figure it loses due to this, and how does it stack up against the on-going expense of more consistent fare-checking schemas? True, turnstiles or full-length locking roto-gates could be set up that require entry of a validated farecard or token, but then you need somebody present at each stop or station during service hours to not only make sure that people are defeating the devices (either by jumping turnstiles or doubling-up on roto-gates), but for the event where an entry device breaks down and it has to be opened manually. Then you need to hire or contract for on-demand maintenance of these devices, as well as replacement parts/units. Anybody know of a study where TriMet has addressed the difference between costs for such things vs. lost revenue due to fare evasion? How does it compare.

People who don't pay the fare are fools. Paying a small fare vs. risking paying a fairly hefty fine...it's a pretty easy choice. I'm not totally dismissing your observation (other) Nick, but you I'd say you, too, must believe that the risk isn't worth it, as you've got your monthly pass. :)

We are not going through the motions; we are trying to start a public discussion on a problem we are all facing together. And we really do want citizen input!

I understand that the average person who isn't wrapped up in all of the bureaucratic inner workings of transportation management views transportation as a seamless system. That is fair to do, because in reality it is a seamless system.

But when it comes to how things get funded and whose jurisdiction things fall under, things are not so seamless.

For instance, gas tax can only go to road maintenance. It, by law, cannot be used for light rail or streetcar or trams or anything else. YOUR GAS TAXES ONLY GO TO ROADS.

TriMet gets funding through a payroll tax, the Tram was paid for mostly by OHSU, PDC, and NO GAS TAX dollars were used to fund it. Issues of fare evasion on TriMet are legitimate, but they don't effect the amount of money that PDOT has to pave roads.

The reason we are in trouble is actually because of the strong relationship between gas taxes and paving roads. Gas taxes can only pave roads, and paving roads is mostly paid by gas taxes. SO- when we get less and less gas tax revenue from the state (in real terms, due to inflation), the roads suffer.

As for bicyclists, any licensing program for bicycles would likely cost more to administer than it would take in in revenue. Furthermore, while bicycles comprise over 4% of all trips, we only spend 1.5% of our capital budget on bike projects. The amount of money that goes to bikes is small and reallocating it wouldn't significantly dent the paving backlog. (And that 1.5% of the budget can take care of 4-5% of trips is incredibly cost-effective!)

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT MONEY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RAISING WOULD GO ONLY TO ROADS AND SAFETY PROJECTS.

Lastly, I would be remiss if I didnt mention that Sam DID dismiss the PDOT employees responsible for the tram fiasco. (Heads did roll.)

Roland, could you list the people who "heads did roll" and their job description and which bureau they worked for? Please clarify if they were "fired", "reassigned", or left on their own like Matt Brown. Also please give information on severance packages and other compensations given in this "head rolling". Do you consider Matt Brown's leaving as "head rolling"?

or streetcar or trams or anything else. YOUR GAS TAXES ONLY GO TO ROADS.
JK: Does that road only money include those concrete pads that are appearing around bus stops to stop the damage that buses do to the roads?
Does that road only money include the “bubble curbs” that are mucking up traffic around town?
Does that road only money include the “transit supportive extended curbs” that are mucking up traffic around town by forcing buses to block traffic?
Does that road only money include putting in those traffic slowing and fire truck stopping circles in NE Portland?
Does that road only money include striping bike lanes?
Does that road only money include putting in those islands in the middle of the street that seem to get hit a lot and with trees that block you view?
Does that road only money include equipment that allows buses to control traffic signals?
Does that road only money include narrowing travel lanes to allow more space for wide sidewalks, bile lanes an potted plants in the middle of the road?

I could name more, but I think you get the idea as to why we have just a little doubt as to what we are being sold.

Thanks
JK

The fact the the senarios presented focus on strenthening failing pavement and improving pedestrian safety on bus streets speaks to this issue. If the options where focused on expanding auto lanes, then I would have a problem with that.

Investing to reduce congestion and improve roads makes it easier to drive and encourages increased use. Maybe we need to suggest that these two goals be removed or reduced in importance.

Until we get out of this expensive game of catch-up, we will not have money for anything else in terms of more progressive transportation investments.

It is essential that we take care of our basic infrastructure -and we are only talking here about major arterial roads that are typically used by freight and transit (not neighborhood streets) - first, so that we can then do other more ambitious things.

I agree with you that we need to make some drastic changes, but we cannot seriously plan for things like that until we get out of the hole we are in right now.

Once we get ahead of the curve and can be the most cost-effective we can be on taking care of our current infrastructure, then we will have the money necessary to really start to tackle other transportation problems and priorities.

I also want to note that two things we are putting out there for public input are a gas guzzler tax/carbon tax and a gas tax. These two funding sources are about as green as you can get, they provide an incentive to drive less and buy more efficient automobiles, and they should help reach the goal you (and I) desire - reduction of oil consumption.

Please favor a percentage based tax so it will keep up with inflation and we won't be forced into this discussion again in 5 years.

Since when does transit reduce "carbon usage". Transit actually uses energy more than small cars. See http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/BusVsCarTEDB.htm

Thanks
JK

Ever since small cars stopped less than or equal to average cars?

...at least take the time to read the facts that Sam and his team labor to provide the public on this site!

To Sam and his team: I admire how you are willing to take on the tough issues and involve the public in the process in an open and respectful manner.

You are absolutely right, bs. Commerce and prosperity are dependent upon a transportation system that works well.

This is a big reason why we are only talking about finding more funding for Arterial Roads (that is, the bigger, busy streets). We are not asking for or planning on any investment for neighborhood or so-called "collector" streets (which are smaller than arterials, but larger than neighborhood streets) - except for whatever money might go to meritorious safety projects that happen to be on neighborhood streets.

Our rationale is that arterials are the most important to focus on for a few reasons. First, they are essential for freight mobility. Second, they are essential to our bus system. Third, they are simply the most used streets and therefore touch the most peoples' lives.

That said, freight mobility and economic arguments for transportation tend not to resonate with the electorate, for whatever reason.

Our polling shows that people care about safety and maintenance, freight is literally at the bottom of the list. Of all of the choices given to the poll respondants, freight was either THE last, or second to last (sorry... I forget which at the moment). And this was a SCIENTIFIC poll.

Sam deeply appreciates the importance of freight for Portland. We are living in one of the most trade-dependent regions in the entire country. Here in Oregon, our collective prosperity is intimately intertwined with freight mobility.

I hope you support the proposal that we ultimately develop with the community... It will greatly benefit the issues you care about.

I think the reason people bicycle is to improve their health, have a more enjoyable trip, save money, and improve their community by not using their car. So besides the impracticality of a bike tax, it goes against the goal of having a safer and more livable community.