Safe, Sound and Green


Commissioner Sam Adams has announced his “Safe, Sound and Green” plan to fund street maintenance and safety projects. See the Oregonian coverage.

This will be coupled with a Multnomah County proposal to help fund maintenance of the Willamette River Bridges and other critical County roads. Some of the County funds will also be shared with Portland and other cities in the County. The details of the County proposal are not available yet.

The Portland component will consist of two revenue sources: a new 3 cent City gas tax and a SMF (pronounced smiff, Street Maintenance Fee). The SMF will average $4.50 per month for residents and run from a $10 or $20 for small businesses to $1,000+ for large retail sites. The SMF will be collected on water bills and both residents and businesses will be able to earn discounts by voluntarily undertaking certain “green” activities.

The bulk of the Portland revenue will be spent on repaving or rebuilding arterial streets (which are currently rated ‘poor’) over a 10 year period. The program will also create 100+ miles of new low-traffic bikeways to provide opportunities for cyclists to use streets where they will not be in conflict with cars and trucks. There are also a variety of other safety projects, including adding sidewalks on major arterials where they are missing today.

It’s not clear yet which pieces of this plan may be adopted by Council and which may go to the ballot.

[Full disclosure: I’m a member of the stakeholder committee advising Sam on this plan.]

Sam will take this plan on the road to a series of town halls around the City:

Town Hall Meetings

Tuesday, October 16, 7-9 pm
Central Northeast Portland
Madison High School
2735 NE 82nd Avenue

Thursday, October 18, 7-9 pm
Northeast Portland
Jefferson High School
5210 N Kerby Avenue

Monday, October 22, 7-9 pm
East Portland
Menlo Park Elementary School
12900 NE Glisan

Tuesday, October 23, 7-9 pm
North Portland
Rosa Parks Elementary School
8960 N Woolsey

Wednesday, October 24, 7-9 pm
Northwest Portland
Metropolitan Learning Center
2033 NW Glisan

Monday, October 29, 7-9 pm
Southwest Portland
Wilson High School
1151 SW Vermont

Tuesday, October 30, 7-9 pm
Southeast Portland
Sellwood Middle School
8300 SE 15th Avenue


34 responses to “Safe, Sound and Green”

  1. Huh. I’m technically a “small business” in that I rent an office from which to work. I generate zero automobile trips and two person-trips per day (I bicycle or ride transit to work.) Am I gonna get dinged for $10 a month personally, or will my landlord get charged based on the number of business tenants renting offices?

    Not that I mind; I support the SMF and I can absorb a $120 a year hit without much trouble. I’m just curious how it this affects a “small business” of one guy in an office generating no customer traffic.

  2. Answering in reverse-order…

    For a home-based business, if you’re getting a residential water bill, you’re only going to get charged the residential fee.

    For djk’s case, who will pay depends on who gets the water bill. If djk gets the bill, the fee will be calculated on his square footage times a trip generation factor for his type of business (office presumably). That could be further reduced by a ‘green discount’, computed in part by compliance with the Employee Commute Options (DEQ) rule, which from djk’s description he would clearly meet.

    If the landlord gets the bill, the fee will be based on some computation of the different use types times the square footage. Discount eligibility for such a combined bill would probably be trickier. The bill design process has not been worked out to that level of detail yet (they are looking at best practices in other jurisdictions with a SMF).

  3. I just worry that the way they are calculating the residential fee, based on the number of cars registered to an address, may be a little regressive. This is especially true if the cost of the fee for rental buildings is passed on to renters.

    Of course, it could encourage some of the lower income auto collectors to divest of a few of their junkers and/or switch to transit… there should need to be an education effort that helps them understand what is generating the new fees and how to avoid them.

  4. Not that I’m complaining, in fact I think we need more ‘green’ taxes but:

    “and both residents and businesses will be able to earn discounts by voluntarily undertaking certain “green” activities.”

    I thought the point of the SMF was to hit everyone because ‘even people that stay home all the time and have everything delivered still depend on good roads.’ (Of course, they will pay for it anyways in the cost of delivery, but some people don’t notice things like that unless there is a line item on their bill…)

  5. Ah. So it’s tied to the water bill again. Well, I never see a water bill, so I guess my miniscule share of the building’s fee will wind up folded into my rent at some point.

  6. I thought the point of the SMF was to hit everyone because ‘even people that stay home all the time and have everything delivered still depend on good roads.’

    And they will. Even with the best discount, that $4.50 is not going any lower than $3 and change.

  7. With a proposal like this one, Portland should change its motto from “The City that Works” to “The City that Discriminates”. Given the stacked deck committee that developed them and the one sided views of Adams’ staff policy people, it is not unexpected. With both a SMF and a gas tax, the proposal is double dipping when it comes to collecting dollars from motorist while allowing other the users of modes to continue to be subsidized freeloaders even though most of the money will be spent on non-motorist infrastructure. This is particularly true when the only street improvement proposed that actually has a target of improving conditions for motorists is the updating of signal timing. However, with the proposed pedestrian islands and curb extensions at transit stops included as part of the plan that cause transit vehicles to block other traffic by stopping in travel lanes when boarding passengers, any congestion improvements made by better signal timing are totally offset by the pedestrian islands and curb extensions, and therefore the money for both is being wasted.

    To end the discriminatory nature of this proposal, either the local gas tax needs to be deducted from households that own motor vehicles, and/or a bicycle and transit farebox tax must be part of the taxes and fees imposed.

  8. Terry wrote: “This is particularly true when the only street improvement proposed that actually has a target of improving conditions for motorists is the updating of signal timing.”

    Terry: Your characterization of the uses of the tax is incorrect. The funds, in addition to signal timing projects, will largely go to road maintenance and bridge repair projects.

    I think it is pretty obvious that improving arterials now categorized as being in “poor” condition will improve conditions for motorists.

    Furthermore, the safety projects will improve conditions for motorists by reducing the number of accidents and injuries suffered by motorists, and pedestrians. Reducing injuries to pedestrians not only helps pedestrians, but helps keep auto insurance premiums low.

    There are many nuances to how this tax will be paid. I think having a gas tax component is important, because it will generate revenues from at least some of the people who do not live in Portland but use our local streets — so long as they occasionally fill up within the city limits.

    A primarily bicycle-riding or transit-using Portland household will pay up to $54 per year.

    An Portland-based driver who buys every tank of gas within the city limits, driving 15,000 miles per year at 20MPG average, will pay $22.50 per year in gas taxes, plus up to $54 if they are also a homeowner.

    An out-of-area driver who travels perhaps 6,000 miles per year within the city limits, but only fills up for half of those miles while in town, will pay a puny $4.50 per year.

    Whether motorists or not, homeowners will be paying for the bulk of this program. Driving homeowners will pick up about 1/3 of their contribution via gas taxes. But out-of-area motorists will pay the least into the system overall.

    Personally, as a transit-using, home-owning motorist who occasionally bikes, and does a reasonable amount of walking, I’m generally in favor of the plan.

    – Bob R.

  9. What an innovative plan. I’m entirely for it — the cost to me seems miniscule in comparison to the benefits that we will all receive, in the form of fewer potholes, better signal coordination, and other transportation infrastructure improvements. I’ll happily pay this addition to my Portland water bill.

  10. I’ll happily pay this addition to my Portland water bill.

    Does that mean you’re back in town? Or do you pay a water bill in-absentia? :-)

    – Bob R.

  11. Does that mean you’re back in town? Or do you pay a water bill in-absentia? :-)

    – Bob R.

    Full disclosure: I own property in Portland, vote in Portland, and visit whenever I can. My family resides in Portland. Though I earn my income elsewhere, I hope to be back in town soon — though I may be paying the water bill for my property, it is currently generating no income, as it requires a new structure (the current one is uninhabitable).

    So yes, I’d be happy to pay this addition to my Portland water bill (which I do pay in-absentia), even if under my current circumstances I would not personally benefit more than a few times a year! Here’s to hoping that changes soon… :-)

  12. “Terry, we finally propose a tax that cyclists and transit users pay and you thumb your nose at it!”

    The proposed Street Maintenance Fee is neither a bicycle tax nor a transit user tax. Putting that kind of two wheel spin and transit twist on it is a diversion tactic to disguise the actual amount of motorist paid subsidies being consumed to provide bicycle infrastructure, and the huge sum of public indebtedness created with the construction of streetcar and other transit facilities. Furthermore, if the Street Maintenance Fee is implemented, there should be no discounts such as those potentially discussed for owning a bicycle or transit use. The only discount allowed should be for low income households.

    On page 15 of the PDOT Transportation Services Funding Survey Summary Report, in a second tier of ratings, implementing a 3 cents per gallon gas tax was 33 percent strongly opposed while implementing a bike license fee of $25 a year was 34 percent strongly opposed – only one percentage point difference. Additionally, only one bicycle tax question was asked while numerous motor vehicle taxing questions were asked. No transit or farebox tax questions were asked at all. The survey (in addition to the advisory group) was heavily weighted to provide bicyclists and transit users special privileges and immunities from paying their fair share for the infrastructure they use. Instead of being totally objective, the survey was designed to support a preconceived agenda with questions that could be combined for the most impact. That same combination however also applies as it relates to a bicycle licensing fee and combining it with other methods of collecting funds such as the Street Maintenance Fee. Therefore, if a gasoline tax or any other tax/fee assessed on motor vehicles is part of the proposal, with or with out a Street Maintenance Fee, a bicycle user tax and a transit fare surcharge or farebox tax must also be part of the proposal.

  13. I’m opposed to paying for transportation improvements via a water/sewer bill. If we need a city wide fee, it should be imposed in the right place–in our property tax bill. Otherwise, this should be funded via vehicle taxes, gas taxes, and other road use fees.

    This feels like a back channel way to impose hidden fees. How many residents will really notice that they’re suddenly paying transportation fees via their water bill? Is this really a step in the direction of transparent city government?

  14. Paul,

    I’m not sure why a property tax bill is more appropriate than a water/sewer bill. Property taxes are billed once per year, where water bills are every one or two months, which may be an easier payment cycle for many.

    As to transparency, Sam has done an immense amount of outreach around this.

  15. I personally take a very dim view of giving this city any authority to raise taxes/fees PERIOD.

    The city that works is in reality the city that wastes. From the police retirement& disability fund, to the Diane Linn, “lets give everybody a week off”, to the golden parachutes of the various school superintendents, to the jail that is still closed, to the fuel efficient cars that they paid 4 times what they needed to, to the tram costing five times more than budgeted, need I go on?

    And now that the school income tax has ended, did the schools all shut down, HELL NO!
    I don’t know about the rest of you but I really found writing that check to the city on April 15th almost caused me to vomit!

    THIS CITY IS IRRESPONSIBLE FISCALLY AND THE VOTERS SHOULD NOT APPROVE ANYTHING UNTIL THE CITY LEADERS CAN PROVE THAT THEY ARE CAPABLE OF HANDLING OUR FUNDS.

    Let them close the jails and the schools, let the streets turn into mud, hell no, I am not giving you folks a dime of my money! Tax or fee, it’s all the same!

    Keep allowing them to raise taxes/fee’s and there will never be an end to this!

  16. Let’s take that one apart, Al.

    The City reformed the Fire & Police disability and retirement system.

    Diane Linn ran the County, not the City, and the County income tax for the schools was replaced in part by a local option levy (approved by voters) for the School District.

    And there is no tax that the City collects that is due on April 15th. I believe again your are confusing it with the County tax which has not been with us for a couple of years now.

    I would also note that the City is NOT attempting to renew the Parks levy, and the amount that taxpayers will save by NOT paying this levy is roughly equal to the amount they will pay between the gas tax and street fee.

  17. What is the deal with the city/county anyway?

    Why do they have a city council and a board of supervisors?

    SEE WASTE!

  18. Its true, I can’t keep any of this straight, city/county, I don’t know what’s what, your right Chris!

    I AM CONFUSED, is it any wonder?

  19. Chris, let me answer your point with a famous quote

    “Any sufficiently advanced bureaucracy is indistinguishable from molasses.”

  20. Chris,

    I’m surprised that you don’t see a difference between a general property tax, which most taxpayers understand funds general government services, and a water/sewer bill, that most taxpayers think pays for their water and sewer usage.

    The billing cycle makes it easier to budget, but it also makes it easier to mask the true cost of this levy. And since many pay their property tax via their mortgage bill, I’m not sure the monthly/annual argument has much force.

    Besides, by that argument, we should pile all sorts of fees into the water/sewer because it’s so easy to budget.

    As to transparency, Sam has done an immense amount of outreach around this.

    On the need for fees, yes. On the revenue method, I don’t agree. I support paying more for street improvements. I don’t support putting it in the water/sewer bill.

  21. “I’m surprised that you don’t see a difference between a general property tax, which most taxpayers understand funds general government services, and a water/sewer bill, that most taxpayers think pays for their water and sewer usage.”

    The short answer is that they can’t raise the property taxes anymore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_5_(1990)
    And while people’s houses have been going up in value fast, property tax revenue has been only rising at 3% a year:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_47_%281996%29
    So the property taxes are already as high as they can be… (Although, don’t confuse property taxes with bonds, they are different.)

    In any case, the water/sewer bill hasn’t paid for just water and sewer for a long time: There is already a line item on there for cleaning up the Portland Harbor Superfund site, and another for wetlands maintenance. On top of that, a lot of your water bill is currently paid to PDOT to maintain the drainage systems for the streets. But more importantly, it is a bill that goes directly from your house to the city already, so they won’t have to spend a bunch of the money on collection or enforcement, unlike a new bill…

  22. Dear Commissioner Adams,

    The Rose Quarter Improvements will add a traffic signal and roadway striping to accommodate two-way, separated bike passage on NE Wheeler. They will also re-route buses so that there is reduced chance of bike/bus conflict. These are extremely important improvements for a transit hub that lies along a major regional bike route. The project will also improve pedestrian pathways and crosswalks, and ADA compliant access at the transit center. Please include the Rose Quarter Transit Center Multi-Modal Safety and Access Improvements in your “Safe, Sound and Green” plan — the Lloyd District is in great need of the significant benefits this project will bring.

    DO IT!!!!

  23. Me and a friend just started commuting to work on our new bicycles. It’s a great way to get exercise and reduce traffic on our roads. Plus it’s fun!! What a great city to ride to work in!! Please make us feel welcome with any safety improvements you can.

  24. Dear Commissioner Adams,

    As an every day commuter into the Lloyd District and Rose Quarter the proposed changes below would mean a great deal. There are many days where I have a close call with vehicles that are not particularly anyone’s fault. The more we can do to segregate drivers and cyclists will help alleviate potential accidents.

    The Rose Quarter Improvements will add a traffic signal and roadway striping to accommodate two-way, separated bike passage on NE Wheeler. They will also re-route buses so that there is reduced chance of bike/bus conflict. These are extremely important improvements for a transit hub that lies along a major regional bike route. The project will also improve pedestrian pathways and crosswalks, and ADA compliant access at the transit center. Please include the Rose Quarter Transit Center Multi-Modal Safety and Access Improvements in your “Safe, Sound and Green” plan — the Lloyd District is in great need of the significant benefits this project will bring.

    Thanks for keeping cyclists needs in the transportation plan,
    Randy
    PDX

  25. Dear Commissioner Adams,

    Please include the Rose Quarter Transit Center Multi-Modal Safety and Access Improvements in your “Safe, Sound and Green” plan — the Lloyd District is in great need of the significant benefits this project will bring.

    The Rose Quarter Improvements will add a traffic signal and roadway striping to accommodate two-way, separated bike passage on NE Wheeler. They will also re-route buses to reduce possible bike/bus conflict. These are extremely important improvements for a transit hub that lies along a major regional bike route.

  26. Dear Commissioner Adams,

    The Rose Quarter Improvements will add a traffic signal and roadway striping to accommodate two-way, separated bike passage on NE Wheeler. They will also re-route buses so that there is reduced chance of bike/bus conflict. These are extremely important improvements for a transit hub that lies along a major regional bike route. The project will also improve pedestrian pathways and crosswalks, and ADA compliant access at the transit center. Please include the Rose Quarter Transit Center Multi-Modal Safety and Access Improvements in your “Safe, Sound and Green” plan — the Lloyd District is in great need of the significant benefits this project will bring

  27. Dear Commissioner Adams,

    Please include the Rose Quarter Transit Center Multi-Modal Safety and Access Improvements in your “Safe, Sound and Green” plan. The proposed Rose Quarter Improvements will add a traffic signal and roadway striping to accommodate two-way, separated bike passage on NE Wheeler. The proposed improvements will also re-route buses so that there is reduced chance of bike/bus conflict.

    From the perspective of a cyclist that regularly transits this congested transit hub, these are extremely important safety improvements. I have had way too many close calls cycling through here – and I am a ‘conservative’ (i.e., I follow all rules of the road) cyclist. I am really surprised we haven’t had a bike fatality here yet.

    The proposed improvements will also improve pedestrian pathways and crosswalks, and provide ADA compliant access at the transit center.

  28. Dear Commissioner Adams,

    I’d also like to speak in favor of the Rose Quarter Improvements described above. I live in SouthEast but am often at Metro and ride my bike often in the RQ.

  29. Did someone somewhere post a link to this site when they should have posted a link to commissionersam.com? I mean, Sam Adams may indeed read this site, but it still seems like a weird place to be posting a form letter…

  30. Dear Commissioner Adams,

    Please include the Rose Quarter Transit Center Multi-Modal Safety and Access Improvements in your “Safe, Sound and Green” plan. The proposed Rose Quarter Improvements will add a traffic signal and roadway striping to accommodate two-way, separated bike passage on NE Wheeler. The proposed improvements will also re-route buses so that there is reduced chance of bike/bus conflict.
    Thanks

  31. Bike boulevards, streets in which car and truck traffic is greatly reduced or absent, is a great idea.

    The current system of squeezing bike lanes between the traffic lane and a row of parked cars on busy streets such as Broadway and NE Glisan doesn’t work. These bike lanes are death tunnels in which a car door opened carelessly completely blocks the entire bike lane.

    A car door was opened in front of me on NE Glisan and I slammed directly into it which flung my bike and me into the traffic lane. My bike was run over and crushed by the same car that missed my head by about 6 inches.

    Just one month prior, a motorist cut a quick right hand turn across the bike lane on NE Broadway without signaling or even braking. I slammed on the brakes and luckily wasn’t moving very quickly when I crashed into the back corner of the car’s trunk.

    Bike lanes on busy streets are disasters and fatalities waiting to happen as my experiences have painfully taught me time and time again. The only solution is to create bike boulevards that run parallel to the main streets like Broadway and Glisan, which have little or no car and truck traffic.

Leave a Reply to paul g. Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *