The latest polling reveals reasonable support for a combination of funding sources to help pay for reducing Portland’s $422M street maintenance backlog and helping fund a variety of safety projects. The PDOT press release is copied below. You can also find the overview presentation on the polling on portlandonline.com. And here is the Oregonian coverage.
Key indications are:
- There appears to be support for a City gas tax up to about 3 cents per gallon, but not much more.
- Support did not vary much across several levels of Street Maintenance Fee (a fee added on to your water bill) up to about $6/mo for an average household.
- A number of optional features that made the package more ‘green’ had popular support.
- Support for bicycle boulevards was reasonably strong under the logic of ‘reducing conflict with cars’ rather than providing more bicycle connectivity.
- There is interest in a regional component to the package to help provide funding for maintaining the Willamette River bridges.
The final configuration of the proposed package will be determined after another series of neighborhood open houses.
Public Opinion Survey Shows Support for Local Funding
Options to Tackle Maintenance and Safety Backlogs on
Local Streets and Willamette River Bridges
Citizen Stakeholder Committee Reviewing Options; Neighborhood
Public Open Houses Scheduled for September; Board and
City Council Consideration in January, 2008(PORTLAND, OR) – Repairing streets, neighborhood and pedestrian safety improvements, signal synchronization to help with congestion, repairs to the Willamette River bridges, and bike boulevards to reduce motorist/bicycle safety conflicts are at the top of Portlanders’ transportation “To Do” list.
These results were revealed in a recent scientific, city-wide survey of 900 Portland voters conducted by Davis, Hibbitts & Midgall, Inc. The survey also found majority support among likely voters in the May 2008 election for any of the following funding sources: a 3 cent local gas tax, a monthly residential street maintenance fee between $2.60 and $4.50, and a $27.00 annual vehicle registration fee. The survey also showed likely voter support for a combination of these fees, when each fee was at a lower amount.
The survey was completed as part of an effort by Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams and the Multnomah County Board to explore local transportation funding options to address the city and county’s combined $747 million transportation related backlog in street paving, bridge maintenance and safety measures.
“There is strong support out there for a funding package that includes fixes for roads, Willamette bridges, and signal improvements. Reducing car/bike safety conflicts was also ranked very high,” said pollster Adams Davis. “When asked in general terms, around 70% of people asked said they would support spending up to $6.25 a month for transportation improvements. And when asked about specific funding options, at least three get a majority support and the ‘greener’ you make each option, the better it does.”
County Commissioner Maria Rojo de Steffey, who has long advocated for better Willamette River Bridge maintenance, said, “I appreciate the public’s support for fixing our local streets and Willamette River bridges.”
Rojo de Steffey, Adams, and the “Safe and Sound Streets” Stakeholder Committee were briefed today by Adam Davis on the survey results.
The City is facing a transportation maintenance backlog of $422 million to repave roads in poor or very poor condition; replace old and failing traffic signals; add sidewalks to arterial streets that currently lack them; repair city bridges in disrepair (not including those that cross the Willamette River); and make safety improvements for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. The cost to repair Portland’s transportation infrastructure will continue to increase by $9 million each year if nothing is done to address the issue.
Multnomah County is facing a $325 million maintenance backlog on its Willamette River Bridges, including the cost to replace the aging Sellwood Bridge.
The Stakeholder Committee of over 70 community leaders from businesses; neighborhoods; bicycle, pedestrian, and transit communities; elected officials; and the traffic safety community met with Commissioner Adams to discuss Portlanders’ local transportation priorities and potential funding sources.
Davis’s presentation also outlined the projects with strongest public support, which include adequate maintenance of bridges and overpasses (81%), signal timing on major city streets to reduce congestion and environmental problems (81%), focusing on long delayed maintenance that will reduce the future cost of repairs (79%), an expansion of programs that promote travel options other than driving alone (68%), and the development of bike boulevards to minimize conflicts between bicyclists and motorists on some of the city’s busiest streets (68%).
Residents surveyed previously showed support for a funding package that balances the burden between businesses and residential properties.In his presentation to the citizen’s committee, Adam Davis emphasized that the complexity of transportation responsibilities and funding is not understood in great detail by the public.
TriMet, the City of Portland, and Multnomah County are often conflated as the general providers of transportation services, regardless of their specific duties over the transportation system. The group discussed the importance of making it clear to the public that funding sources being used for many new projects, such as the proposed eastside streetcar extension, are not available for basic paving and maintenance. “We must be clear with the public that money is not being taken out of our maintenance budget for things like streetcar and MAX,” said Commissioner Adams.
The citywide survey findings mirror results of the less scientific surveys conducted at the neighborhood district Town Halls led by Commissioner Adams in June and July. “There is a growing understanding about the problem and increasing agreement that now is the time to come up with a solution,” said Commissioner Adams.
A series of Open Houses are scheduled for September, and another round of Town Hall meetings will be conducted in October where residents will be given another opportunity to learn more about the problems faced by Portland’s transportation system and lend a voice in shaping the possible maintenance and safety projects for their neighborhoods.
The “Safe and Sound Streets” Stakeholder Committee will guide the process to address Portland’s transportation problems and solutions and to formulate a funding package that will be reviewed at the October Town Halls. The funding package will be fine-tuned through a rigorous audit process.
Complete results of the survey were made available at the meeting and are available online at www.portlandonline.com/transportation, under the “What’s New” heading on the right of the screen. To provide your input on this effort, visit the web site or call (503) 823-1394.
12 responses to “Maintenance, Safety Funding Packages Looks Viable”
Why are people willing to pay over $6 / month for this, but not more than 3 cents / gallon for it?
Do people really use more than 200 gallons of gas per month? (200 gallons * 3 cents/gallon = $6)
It’s not going to be an either/or. We’ll get to the $422M (or some significant portion of it) over 10 years by combining 2 or 3 different sources.
That said, I can’t find any rational basis for attitudes about gas tax versus other revenue sources :-)
People aren’t rational. A lot of people think, “Gas is too expensive,” and that is that. A couple dollars a month on your sewer bill, (since most people don’t even look at the thing and don’t have a clue what it says in the first place,) to not fall into the river is fine, but when you start mentioning raising the price of gas, you might as well be suggesting that we teach the Quran in schools.
That said, a gas tax is too easy to avoid by just going across the city lines. If gas was consistently cheaper in the suburbs, you’d fill your car up more often when you were out there, than when you are in the city… A metro or state wide gas tax would be better, fewer people leave the metro or state on a regular basis.
Why are people willing to pay over $6 / month for this, but not more than 3 cents / gallon for it?
People aren’t rational.
Indeed, this certainly proves an interesting look into the human psyche: “I’m more willing to pay a specified fee infrequently than I am a fraction of that fee frequently, even if the total sum of the frequent fees amounts to less than that of the infrequent.” Weird.
Support for bicycle boulevards was reasonably strong under the logic of ‘reducing conflict with cars’ rather than providing more bicycle connectivity.
So do we conclude – preliminarily – that the majority of those surveyed would support ripping out bike lanes on roads nearby and parallel to bicycle boulevards? That idea certainly seems logical to me (at first glance), because we’re probably not going to get more arterials than we already have and we’ve been reducing capacity on many arterials (in Portland, at least) to build bike lanes. Moving the bikes (not just creating new bike capacity) away from (but near to) the major arterials seems like a good move in the interest of safety, and if it frees up room to add a lane on that arterial (even just a reversible peak-direction lane or a dedicated bus lane), then why not?
That said, a gas tax is too easy to avoid by just going across the city lines.
The experience however is that for a few cents they don’t. Tigard and a few other cities have local gas taxes and they have not seen shifts in buying patterns. In fact the fuel dealers lobby has indicated they would prefer a statewide tax over local taxes, but is unlikely to oppose a local tax if it’s limited to 3 cents.
A metro or state wide gas tax would be better
Policy-wise that makes sense, and we might see a County tax to help with the bridges, but I don’t think we’ll see it Metro-wide. Metro is more focused on making the regional system work, which is going to take capital well beyond what a gas tax is likely to fund, so I think you’re more likely to see a property tax proposal out of Metro for a multi-modal construction package.
So do we conclude – preliminarily – that the majority of those surveyed would support ripping out bike lanes on roads nearby and parallel to bicycle boulevards?
I don’t think you can make that leap from this polling. The polling is about funding, not about reconfiguring the current system. I’m simply pointing out that ‘reducing conflict’ is a better frame than ‘providing capacity for bicycles’. There’s a pretty good case that bike lanes are also a conflict reduction tool.
“The Stakeholder Committee of over 70 community leaders from businesses; neighborhoods; bicycle, pedestrian, and transit communities; elected officials; and the traffic safety community met with Commissioner Adams to discuss Portlanders’ local transportation priorities and potential funding sources.”
Once again missing from this list are the primary transportation tax paying stakeholders. Mode representation should be quantitative based on the current mode split. The committee appears to be loaded up and weighted with streetcar activists, transit advocates, the BTA bicyclists, pedestrian coalition folks and many other people that already serve on just about every other city and/or regional transportation advisory committee. To be truly objective, the committee must have a full complement of motorists and commuter motorist representation. The word “stakeholder” represents someone that pays, in this case transportation taxes, thereby having a financial stake matter. In that bicyclists currently are directly taxed zero for bicycle infrastructure, and transit riders pay only an average 21 percent towards the costs of operating the service, how then can these groups genuinely be called stakeholders? They are only on the receiving end, and of course partial to having those welfare like specialized infrastructure payments from motorists to keep on rolling in and continue to have what are now called safety improvements to be totally subsidized. Not only is there a tax fairness principal of user pays that was presented at Sam’s previous town hall meetings, but there are also fairness principals that should be employed when forming a citizens committee making them truly a cross section and a reality check everyday life representation of the public. Stakeholders that pay the most are under represented, if truely represented at all. The make up of the Citizen Stakeholder Committee is yet another characterization of Portland’s stacked deck citizen committee reputation that embodies taxation with out representation.
“Once again missing from this list are the primary transportation tax paying stakeholders.”
Why limit ourselves to just the taxes? We need to have some of the children from Ockley Green on the committee, since they are the people that will be paying, with their lives, for our transportation choices. A couple dollars in taxes here and there is nothing compared to not being able to breath.
“Mode representation should be quantitative based on the current mode split.”
If only we’d started that process 100 years ago, we’d have some really good bicycle routes in this city. Ohh, wait, we do, the only mistake was that we let the cars start driving on them.
No significant arterial capacity has been sacrificed for bikes. Name one? OK, NE B-way went from 4 lanes to 3, but who needs 4 lanes anyway. Same with excess capacity on NE Glisan.
I will never vote for a gas tax because, by state law, it must be used for roads only. Would this state law apply to a local tax? or would we have flexibility. Now a gas tax to fund more transit or to build bike facilities makes sense…remember, I can be in my car in front of you (and I will be) or on my bike alongside of you (and out of your way). What a deal…you get one less car, and I get better bike routes.
Mode representation should be quantitative based on the current mode split. The committee appears to be loaded up and weighted with streetcar activists, transit advocates, the BTA bicyclists, pedestrian coalition folks and many other people that already serve on just about every other city and/or regional transportation advisory committee. To be truly objective, the committee must have a full complement of motorists and commuter motorist representation.
Part of the reason why the “transit advocates, the BTA bicyclists, pedestrian coalition folks and many other people that already serve on just about every other city and/or regional transportation advisory committee” is because these are the folks that are interested in participating, and are willing to take time out of their schedules to devote to the issue. Otherwise, most of these folks are just like motorists, with families, jobs, kids in school, other obligations, etc.
Additionally, most bikers, pedestrians, and transit folks realize we’re a fraction, so we’re vocal about promoting our mode of transit.
I once e-mailed a morning show on a news/talk station and suggested that if single-occupancy-driving motorists who feel they are the majority (and/or have stats to back it up) applied for citizen committees and/or public office, then we’d probably have some very different public policy in the region than what we have now.
We are almost all motorists. I think there are a lot of motorists who see people who walk, bike and ride transit as their allies. It leaves more space on the road for them.
“I walk every day. From my door to my car. And that’s all the walking I’m going to do. But if other people are willing to walk or bike or ride transit, more power to them. That just means more room on the road for me.”
– paraphrasing a comment by one participant in a focus group on transportation issues.
“No significant arterial capacity has been sacrificed for bikes. Name one?”
Interstate Avenue
Williams Avenue
Burnside Bridge Westbound
Glisan
SE 7th Avenue
NE 12th Avenue
Broadway/Weidler
“Part of the reason why the “transit advocates, the BTA bicyclists, pedestrian coalition folks and many other people that already serve on just about every other city and/or regional transportation advisory committee” is because these are the folks that are interested in participating, and are willing to take time out of their schedules to devote to the issue.”
Many of those serving are anti-tax themselves people wanting the government (other taxpayers) to pay for their lifestyles. Furthermore, there is often a litmus test required to serve so the deck can be stacked for and against specifics, and so a preconceived agenda can be forwarded. Token representation is sometimes added but the majority of the time objectivity and membership balance is usually missing.