Transportation funding comments – Part 1
Let me be perfectly clear. I admire Commissioner Sam Adams for raising the issue of how to pay for transportation maintenance and improvements in Portland’s neighborhoods, and support his goal of providing needed infrastructure in our community. Contrary to some comments I’ve read, I don’t believe proposing to raise taxes/fees, no matter how worthy the funding need, is a politically opportunistic strategy in the run-up to primary elections next year. I think it’s brave of Sam to start this debate at this time. And I certainly agree that transportation improvements are desperately needed all over Portland, and that we need to identify ways to implement basic safety and comfort measures in neighborhoods as well as big-ticket regional transportation facilities. The Council hasn’t had a good discussion about how to plan and pay for neighborhood transportation needs since the failed attempt for a local gas tax proposed by Charlie Hales in 2001. The problems, like those in the Fire/Police Disability Fund, have been known for years. It’s past time to address and fix them, and I support Sam in taking the initiative to engage the community in finding solutions.
That said, Sam has started a conversation. There are many opinions worthy of consideration. When I asked during my vacation what the word on the street is regarding proposals for new funding for transportation system maintenance and improvements, I received a few longer thoughts by e-mail as well as the comments on this blog. I’m posting those I find especially useful to the discussion, and will welcome further communication from anyone wishing me to consider publishing your perspective.
Woodland Park resident, in a message sent to Commissioner Sam Adams after the forum at Central NorthEast Neighbors (CNN)
While unable to find seating at the most recent Town Hall Forum at CNN Headquarters, I was able to view most of the event on Cable Access.
-First, I might suggest a larger venue. Parkrose School District would be happy to invite you to schedule future town hall meetings in our facilities.
-Second, Thanks to your staff for their thoughtfulness and attention to participants. Attending the first event at City Hall, I found their candor helpful.
Discussion:
As an experienced City employee, high level bureaucrat, and influential adviser, it is difficult to understand how the transportation crisis came to the situation you so drastically describe.
Suggestion: provide a time line to chart the course of the Bureau, its leadership and decision making agenda. (Please, do not assume I suggest a ‘re-organization’- we are still trying to live through the never-ending Park Bureau re-organization).
– Question: if the Bureau had dedicated 1/2 of 1% for the past twelve years (or the duration of your participation), how many miles of roads could have been paved and sidewalks constructed?
Discussion: Explain how there is no (nor seemingly ever has been) any money for sidewalks. “Show me the money.” Where does it go, is it spent efficiently and what measurements are in place to assure accountability?
– Question: Why does the Bureau continue to sponsor speed bumps as a means to provide “Safe Routes to School”? A ‘Safe Route’ to school is a sidewalk and curb.
Discussion: Are speed bumps the immediate response by the Bureau without regard to long-term, permanent considerations for student pedestrian safety? A speed bump may slow a car down, but the car is going 10 miles per hour when it hits a child instead of 20?
– Question: When was the Bureau last audited? Can you provide results of that audit and the actions taken to address recommendations?
Discussion: How has the Bureau been managed? How does its staffing levels compare to other departments in similar sized cities across the country? Caution: Do not dismiss the importance of planners!
– Question: Can a revenue source, a ‘tax’ be justified based on efficiencies, quality control measures and citizen involvement in bureau priorities?
Discussion: East Portland citizens are disconnected from the Bureau’s leadership team in determining goals and setting direction.
– Question: Based on population (percentages and income), will revenue generated by the proposed ‘tax’ be equitably distributed throughout the City?
Discussion: East Portland receives transportation services on the ‘cheap’ – little regard to increasing property value, livability and future earnings when businesses and employers do not have the Bureau’s attention to ‘improve’ our streets.
– Question: During the Town Hall meeting you refer to unpaved streets as the responsibility of the home owner and to defer to an LID for relief.
Discussion: This position seems limited, inflexible and unimaginative. Times change, how streets once were paved, sidewalks poured and curbs installed is much different today than when Laurelhurst, for example, was platted and developed. Let’s use a little creativity.
Amanda chiming in again here. I think the core question in Alesia’s message is this one: Can a revenue source, a ‘tax’ be justified based on efficiencies, quality control measures and citizen involvement in bureau priorities? The answer may very well be Yes. The City and those running the Transportation bureau would probably earn more public support for something like a gas tax or street maintenance fee if citizens had more information, accurate and supplied in clear, understandable format.