October 27, 2006
Next Phase of the RTP Exercise
I want to thank everyone for their participation in generating outcome visions. It started a little slow, but it really picked up steam! Thanks for (mostly) following the rules.
Keep adding those comments, even as we start the next phase.
What happens next is that I am going to comb through the outcomes and pick a set of 12 that I think collectively represent a great vision for our transportation system. As you might guess, they'll most likely describe a rich set of transportation choices supporting a pattern of compact development.
But I'd also like to get some other picks. Adron has agreed to do a set that focuses on a minimal-government-intervention scenario. If anyone has input for Adron into this, send your e-mail address to email@example.com and I'll pass it on to him.
Jim Karlock has also agreed to put together an auto-centric set of outcomes
Once we have our vision sets, we'll subject each one to the next set of questions in Metro's exercise, one at a time:
- What is working well to achieve the outcomes?
- What are some challenges to achieving the outcomes?
- What are some solutions to achieving the outcomes?
So remember, ONLY TWELVE bullets in each outcome set, and we'll start in on the next phase early next week.
October 27, 2006 1:36 PM
Doesn't there need to be an "are these outcomes compatible with the policies" step? Some of the outcomes posted for some of the polices seem to be contrary to the policy. Or are we assuming this vetting will be done by the party selecting 12 bullets for a vision?
October 27, 2006 2:56 PM
Chris Smith Says:
As we've seen, the goals behind the policies mean different things to different people. I think it's fair to take the different visions through the next part of the process to see what kind of detailed policies they might point to.
October 28, 2006 7:21 AM
rex Burkholder Says:
I am looking forward to the results of these three "scenarios" for the RTP. I will only ask that all three include the final question we ask all of our stakeholder groups which is about fiscal stewardship. Same set of questions (what does this look like, what is working, what isn't and solutions). Transportation costs money, please talk about how each scenario can be fiscally responsible.
October 28, 2006 7:58 AM
That this exercise is more like a public meeting with a facilitator than a discussion in an internet forum is slowly reaching my brain, despite your many earlier efforts to clue me in. Sorry I'm a bit slow.
I am anxious to see what the next part looks like.
October 28, 2006 10:11 PM
Ron Swaren Says:
At last the libertarians ( Adron, JK) will have to put their cards on the table. I.e., moving beyond critique to crafting a consistent program.
Conversely, I know that unlimited taxation and lack of discipline--my take on the liberal/progressive mindset--isn't going to succeed, either. Seems, there is a little thing called "foreign competition" that upsets its calculations. Of course, such competition isn't a big problem if you are an international labor union leader.
"Transportation costs money, please talk about how each scenario can be fiscally responsible."
Yeah, and if the US Congress would do that on consistent basis we would balance the federal budget pretty fast. Well, Oregon could lead the nation in this respect---Anyone game to try? Or is Washington DC merely the hub of the Pork Exchange?
October 28, 2006 10:55 PM
"At last the libertarians ( Adron, JK) will have to put their cards on the table. I.e., moving beyond critique to crafting a consistent program."
Hey Ron Please check out "Market Demand Cascades Service - ROUGH DRAFT" for exactly that. I've not had time to get to the specifics of the local transit (i.e. Trimet & Portland) even though I will post what I have soon. I'm trying to get past some of the legal loopholes with the company I just did research for. I have quit the bundle of documents on the local transit propositions... all excluding Government involvement and being provisioned by inidivuals via incorporation and operation with legal precedant under city permission.
...of course we lost that in our first round of questions. The simple fact at local level in PDX is individuals/corporate entities cannot get legal right to operate actual "mass transit" service anymore especially when the competition (Trimet) gets 80% or so of their costs covered by the city. Kind of hard to break that market.
...anyway, on to working on the RTP. :)
October 29, 2006 2:08 PM
Paul Edgar Says:
Today's Oregonian brought focus again on a major problem and that is how we fund a significant amount of the new transportation infrastructure investments.
Currently UR Districts or PDC is one of the most used methods that has brought real dollars for transportation investments.
A UR Districts or PDC upon establishment of a new district set a property tax base for geographic boundary of the new district.
As new building and investments get brought into a UR District and create new obligations for public safety (Police and Fire) and needs of new residents for access to libraries, parks and other general fund supported services dollars in property tax generated from these new investments do not go to cover the cost/fixed obligations of providing these additional services.
What that means is that all of the property tax payers who are not in UR Districts or PDC end up picking up the tab for services rendered to those who are in UR Districts or PDC area.
This means a person like myself, retired on a fixed income, who supports the libraries, parks, schools and our obligations to the poor pay more then we should to UR District or a PDC area funded transportation infrastructure investments.
I hope people understand UR Districts take dollars that would gone to general government from real property tax and force new service obligations to be paid for by everyone else.
This is not tax-fairness! It is the wrong way to shift monies into funding new transportation infrastructure.
I support more funding and support the use of gas tax revenue for transportation investments.
As a senior if I drive less I pay less. If I use transit, I pay the spot ticket price. If I walk because I do not have the money, I do not pay anything.
October 30, 2006 2:09 PM
What you point out about Urban Renewal districts requiring a temporary subsidy from the rest of the city during their lifetime, in order to cover other costs associated with their growth, may be a valid externality caused by Tax Increment Financing, but it's not a reason to discard TIF financing for transportation projects.
Because it can be shown that a majority of the increase in value, due to increased development, that happens in these districts is directly CAUSED by the transportation project in question. If that project causes the increase in the tax base, why shouldn't it be funded in part by a portion of the increase? This is a simple user fee -- those properties closest to the project, which receive the most direct tangible benefit, themselves will pay the most to make the project happen.
Cities like London are using this principle on a larger scale as they discuss options for expanding their underground system. As you might imagine, a new subway line can cause billions in increased value (new development) in areas that it travels through. Why not tap this to partially pay for the line?
Finally, I haven't seen you prove that your actual individual tax obligation has gone up as a result of Urban Renewal Districts. I don't think it has. Your tax obligation is a function of the value of your own property, as well as your annual income level. These are both set. If you happen to live in an Urban Renewal District, you may have a different (but valid) complaint, that a new transportation project has added too much benefit to your neighborhood, and your property taxes have risen beyond your means as a result.
Otherwise, your tax burden has remained the same. The only thing that has changed are the decisions made at City Hall as to where they allocate the resources of government. These decisions are always a shell game anyways -- take money from the West Hills to pay for upkeep on streets in Southeast, or take money from Southeast to pay for increased police patrols in Northeast. That's why we have a municipal government, to provide services to all according to their need, and to tax all according to their ability to pay.