Hi everyone,
I paid a visit to the Oregon state website to see what I could discover on the gasoline tax. The Department of Revenue site has some links to “tax expenditures”, in which Chap. 3 discusses “gas, use, and jet fuel taxes”. P. 301 gives these figures:
— current state tax rate $0.24/gallon, federal rate $0.184/gallon
— revenue expected in the 2003-05 biennium $806.7 million, and in the 2005-07 biennium $832.3 millon
So much for the revenue side, now the expenditure side. On the Budget and Management site, the 2003-05 ODOT actual budget totaled about $2.68 billion (p. G-5). P. G-6 says most of ODOT’s revenue comes from the gasoline tax and from licensing and registration fees. I couldn’t easily find the licensing revenue, but it couldn’t possibly account for 3-fold difference between the gas tax and ODOT expenditures.
It’s often said that gas taxes pay for roads, and some people resent gas taxes being used for other things (like transit). Yet it seems the state is taking in, in gas taxes, only 1/3 of ODOT’s expenditures. Where’s the rest coming from? Can someone help me reconcile this apparent contradiction?
Thanks!
Mike
63 responses to “Gasoline tax in Oregon”
Some data for 2005-2007 is available at:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/docs/otpPubs/funding.pdf
Page 4 has an overall chart that is especially useful.
Oregon’s share of federal gas tax covers some of that; also the OTIA program, which several $Billion in bridge repair/replacement is financed by bonds paid for by registration fees.
Federal funds, the weight-mile tax (trucks), and registration fees make up a lot of the revenue beyond the gas tax. But also, in the chart that “ME” linked to, it shows $800 million in bond sales as revenue. Are these bonds to be repaid out of future ODOT revenue, and what impact will bond service have on future spending ability? (And is this level of bond sales typical?)
It would be interesting to compare Oregon gas taxes to other states. I also think TriMet and various governmental entities should also pay into the gas tax pool as well. No more free riding!
And bicycles ought to be registered, licensed and taxed there by financially contributing to State Transportation Funds with no more freeloading and bicyclists paying for bicycle infrastructure.
I also think TriMet and various governmental entities should also pay into the gas tax pool as well
I once did a calculation to determine, if TriMet were subject to the gas tax, what it would have to pay. It turns out that it’s mere pennies per passenger. You could increase every TriMet fare by a nickel and cover the necessary tax.
Gas Taxes by state:
http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/gasoline/upload/State-Motor-Fuel-Tax-Rates.pdf
And bicycles ought to be registered, licensed and taxed there by financially contributing to State Transportation Funds with no more freeloading and bicyclists paying for bicycle infrastructure.
I believe there was a candidate who ran for Metro council a few years ago with this as an explicit platform plank. The candidate got something like 16.5% of the vote.
It looks like Oregon is too low — we should be between California and Washington.
And bicycles ought to be registered, licensed and taxed…no more freeloading…
Do school districts pay gas taxes, or is the young generation that is the future of our country a bunch of tax-poaching freeloaders too?
Do school districts pay gas taxes
In short, ANY vehicle that carries an “E” plate (“E”, by the way, stands for “EXEMPT”, as in “EXEMPT” from taxes and regular registration fees), or a U.S. Government/GSA license plate, is exempt from fuel or weight-mile taxes.
Further, School Busses when not owned by a qualified government body (i.e. Laidlaw, First Transit, Mid-Columbia Bus Company), can register their vehicles with a “school bus” plate which is a permanent registration and exempt from weight-mile taxes. However, a vehicle licensed as such is restricted to carrying school students on official business only; any vehicle licensed as such but operating outside of this (i.e. on a charter) MUST obtain a trip permit and pay the applicable taxes/fees based upon the mileage of the trip.
BTW, the registration fee for a school bus is $7.50 per vehicle.
Whether a school bus is exempt from **FEDERAL** fuel tax, I don’t know but I suspect they are.
GTinSalem Says:
I also think TriMet and various governmental entities should also pay into the gas tax pool as well. No more free riding!
I must be missing something important, because I don’t understand this argument at all. Taxes are something the people pay to the government, to give it funds to conduct its business. Why should the government pay taxes to the government? I don’t see the point of asking a government agency to send money to another agency, which only sends it back to the first agency in another form.
Mike
Mike –
I can see that there would be logic to it in some cases.
Let’s say I hire a contractor to write documentation for me. Over the course of the work, I find that the contractor’s people have eaten $500 of my food, even though the contract did not explicitly specify that I was to feed the contractor’s staff, and the staff had time off for lunch. Now, let’s say that I’m very satisfied with the work the contractor is doing for me, but over time those food bills keep adding up. Eventually I have to have a confrontation about this with the contractor and either A) can them for sneaking food without permission, B) lower the price of the contract to account for the consumption of food, or C) have the contractor pay me back for the food.
Now, if (just for the purpose of argument) ODOT is funding TriMet with money for Purpose A, and TriMet is doing that but in the process causes wear-and-tear that ODOT must pay to fix, is it unreasonable for ODOT to want the fair proportion of that money back?
Yes, it’s all just the same “government money” moving back and forth, but from an accounting perspective it brings a bit of clarity to the issues of who is responsible for what, and what things really cost.
In the case of some school districts contracting with Laidlaw and others to do the work (work which in some cases used to be done by public employees), does the issuance of “exempt” plates to vehicles owned by the private contractors represent a hidden subsidy? Would the contracts cost significantly more if the exemptions went away? (And if so, would the government entities have been more likely to keep the jobs in-house?)
These are questions I cannot answer from direct experience, but they are worth exploring.
Why should the government pay taxes to the government?
So what happens if a TriMet bus in typical fashion blasts through a red light, keeping “on schedule” smashes into a city of Portland car? Should the state not have to pay the City in such a circumstance? After all, they are both funded by taxes.
Mike asked originally,
Why should the government pay taxes to the government?
Bob R. replied,
Yes, it’s all just the same “government money” moving back and forth, but from an accounting perspective it brings a bit of clarity to the issues of who is responsible for what, and what things really cost.
then GTinSalem weighed in,
So what happens if a TriMet bus in typical fashion blasts through a red light, keeping “on schedule” smashes into a city of Portland car? Should the state not have to pay the City in such a circumstance? After all, they are both funded by taxes.
Now Mike again:
I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t even play one on television, but it seems to me there’s a difference between assigning liability for an accident — reimbursing one agency’s budget out of another’s — and systematically moving money over and back between agencies.
If TriMet were paying gas taxes, that would increase its expenditures. That money would have to come from somewhere. “Somewhere” is either (1) the passenger through a fare increase; (2) the employer through a payroll tax increase; (3) some other state, federal, or local source.
Bob’s argument makes a certain amount of sense to me, in that it “keeps the books straight”, but GTinSalem’s assertion that TriMet is somehow “getting a free ride” makes no sense to me.
None of this is “free” — we are all paying for all our transportation modes, in one way or another. The debate is (as always in public policy discussions) over what color we paint the various piles of money, and the balance between tax dollars and individual expenditures.
Democracy is about sorting these issues out. There are few absolute truths, just reconciling the various preferences we have. For some, minimal taxes (indeed, no taxes at all) is desirable and each of us is purely responsible for him/herself; for others, a greater sharing of resources (that is what taxes are, after all) is desirable. A never-ending debate.
Mike
None of this is “free” — we are all paying for all our transportation modes, in one way or another.
Well TriMet should have some sort of transfer of funds because its giant buses which run empty more than not are very damaging to the streets and highways. People should have to pay much higher fares than they currently do because they are in essence all getting a free ride at the expense of taxpayers. Its the same as the expectation of “free” health care. Nothing in life is free!
GTinSalem Says:
Well TriMet should have some sort of transfer of funds because its giant buses which run empty more than not are very damaging to the streets and highways.
This has been discussed before, though perhaps not in this blog. TriMet has vans, 30-foot buses, and 40-foot ones. I don’t think your assertion that they are “empty more often than not” can be supported. Indeed, I’ve seen arguments for larger buses — doubledeckers or artics. Seattle has lots of the latter, and Victoria is buying a bunch of the former
Loads do vary over the day, but the question is whether drivers should deadhead to a garage (of which there are only 3 in the region) in order to swap a large bus for a smaller one for the wee hours. That costs fuel and driver time. We have to assume TriMet is doing the best optimization it can of these factors.
People should have to pay much higher fares than they currently do because they are in essence all getting a free ride at the expense of taxpayers. Its the same as the expectation of “free” health care. Nothing in life is free!
Well, I think you may just be venting, but I’ll take this up anyway. Here you’re making an ideological argument — it states your preference. Every government service takes tax money from all of us and spends it on public priorities from which some of us get benefits.
The kid in grade school is getting a “free ride” that’s partially “subsidized” by my taxes, since I don’t have kids in the schools. Shall we make every parent pay the full cost of his own kid’s education? If I call the police, should I pay the police for their time and trouble? Why should people who call the police get a “free ride” on my taxes?
So if you think tax-funded public schools and police are OK, why single out public transit as a “free ride”? You and I have an ideological difference here — we disagree on the extent to which public transit is a public good. I happen to think it is, and I moved here (in part) because I sensed a popular consensus on that.
OK, back to TriMet. How much is “much higher”, in your view?
TriMet realizes about 25% of its budget from the farebox. What do you think the “proper” percentage ought to be? The only consistent application of your ideology is 100%, so you’re asking for roughly a fourfold increase, that is, the current (roughly) $2.00 fare goes up to $8.00.
Do you think that’s too high? If not, you’re asking for some tax money to make up the difference. OK, fine, we can argue over the numbers, but neither one of us has a monopoly on truth, we’re just arguing over preferences.
I hope we can agree on that. The numbers get sorted out in the political process. Care to start a referendum petition on TriMet’s funding formula? Who knows? Maybe it would pass.
Mike
“Nothing in life is free!”
No sir, indeed, nothing in life is free!
HOWEVER;
The rich get richer AND;
they don’t pay taxes!
So the next time you want to whine about stuff, tell it to BILL GATES etc….
Al, it’s way off-topic but amusing enough that I thought everyone might enjoy it: Bill Gates does pay taxes, but the values are so huge that the regular IRS computers/software can’t handle his tax return, so they have a special computer just to handle Bill Gate’s taxes.
See:
http://www.forbes.com/2006/02/02/gates-irs-microsoft-cx_po_0202autofacescan03.html
(The article doesn’t mention just how much he actually pays when the tax bill is computed.)
Mike –
Pursuant to our discussion of inter-jurisdictional taxation, and transportation taxes — the Portland City Council is hearing testimony today about Sam Adams’ proposed street maintenance fee.
According to the Portland Mercury’s live blogging of the event, the fee would apply even to city bureaus:
See:
http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/2008/01/sam_adams_safe_sound_and_green.php
OK, back to TriMet. How much is “much higher”, in your view?
I think $8-$10 a ride would be adequate to cover operating costs and make the system profitable. Well, that depends on where you get on, too, where you get off and how much overhead cost is associated with the route you take. They should also charge MORE, not LESS or NOTHING for downtown area rides IMHO, to align with how much extra auto owners have to pay. So let’s suppose a person commuting 20 miles each day to work (and for simplicity’s sake their car gets 20MPH a gallon) pays $3 each way and $10 a day for parking, that’s $8 each way plus wear and tear, insurance, etc. So I think riding the bus should be somewhere in that ballpark, too. Having people pay the full fare to cover the operating costs would make the operation more transparent, force it to be more accountable and also allow alternatives to compete with the publicly run transit system. Why should governmental agencies have the luxury of losing money while profitable enterprises have to generate revenue?
good one bob! always the man with the info!
Man, if I ever needed a person in charge of research, you’d be it!
Anyways, what Bill Gates pays in taxes is irrelevant, but interesting.
“Only little people pay taxes”-L Hemsley
Its hard for me to get worked up over street cars and transit subsidies anymore when we have a government spending $8 billion a month killing innocent people in Iraq and we have these folks here:
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/ceou/database.cfm
I mean, jeez louise, lets get real!
who gives a hoot about transit? Its nothing in the big scheme of things!
Why should governmental agencies have the luxury of losing money while profitable enterprises have to generate revenue?
If that is your opinion, then why don’t you answer Mikes earlier question as to whether people should pay police on a per-call basis? Should the police turn a profit? The fire dept? Should public schools only be open to those who can afford to pay, or at least only be paid for by those with children?
If it is your opinion that transit is a separate category because it doesn’t need to be a public service and can be efficiently operated by a for-profit business, that’s fine, but don’t pretend that the government as a whole should be profitable.
Rin tin tin,
ya know, you can be ridiculous sometimes!
Keep up the good work!
If that is your opinion, then why don’t you answer Mikes earlier question as to whether people should pay police on a per-call basis? Should the police turn a profit? The fire dept? Should public schools only be open to those who can afford to pay, or at least only be paid for by those with children?
Police and General Protection, NO. Except criminals should be responsible for their housing and all legal costs — if they can’t afford to pay then give them something absolutely dreadful that they CAN afford to pay! (I see your county spends $100 MILLION a year to house prisoners and its so bad they are thinking about letting the state of Oregon corrections dept. run it.) Non essential services like school and riding the bus, absolutely these should be run like a business and turn a profit. If you can’t afford it, then too bad. But this is my libertarian leaning opinion I doubt it would fly in this socialist loving state.
“If you can’t afford it, then too bad. But this is my libertarian leaning opinion I doubt it would fly in this socialist loving state.”
I’m sure criminals will be more than happy to pay for their incarceration!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rin_Tin_Tin
Can you imagine a world being run by GTinSalem?
People would be dying in the streets!
Criminals would have free reign outside of the gated “self sufficient” communities of the GTinsalem crowd.
GTinSalem, ya know, you were born about 100 years too late!
You would have done well in the old west!
GTinSalem Says:
So what happens if a TriMet bus in typical fashion blasts through a red light, keeping “on schedule” smashes into a city of Portland car? Should the state not have to pay the City in such a circumstance? After all, they are both funded by taxes.
Have you ever driven a transit bus? First, on TriMet busses the transmission has been programed to meet certain speeds at specific times. That is no matter how hard I press the gas pedal, the bus will only accelerate so fast. Therefore I think that your statement that a bus “blasts” through a red light is ridiculous. Yes, I have been in situations where I have had to make a choice between rolling through a light OR making a hard stop. It is my opinion that rolling or even accelerating through the intersection is the safest action…because once you get a bus rolling they are hard to stop. IIRC a bus moving at 40 mph takes 88 feet to stop safely.
Also, TriMet is self insured. So if a bus does strike another vehicle and it is the bus driver’s fault then TriMet pays for repairs. I believe that they have a fund set up that they pay into just for accidents.
Finally Mike,
Even your estimate of $8.00 per ride is off because the LIFT program is heavily subsidized with taxes too.
AL M says:
“Nothing in life is free!”
No sir, indeed, nothing in life is free!
HOWEVER;
The rich get richer AND;
they don’t pay taxes!
So the next time you want to whine about stuff, tell it to BILL GATES etc….
Wow AL,
That was one of your most logical and insightful posts on this site EVER!!! Thanks for clearing that up for us–truly you are WISE.
People would be dying in the streets!
Yeah right, non profit organizations and philanthropists would be more generous to directly help those in need since they wouldn’t be subjected to forced charity (aka taxation) as much. Government isn’t God!
GTinSalem says,
Police and General Protection, NO.
SNIP
Non essential services like school and riding the bus, absolutely these should be run like a business and turn a profit.
Well, now you’re being consistent. One could make a very-small-government case for government to “provide for the common defense” and nothing else. In Colonial times, fire protection was, essentially, up to the insurance companies. Then Ben Franklin and others came along and (socialists that they were) started organized municipal fire services.
If you can’t afford it, then too bad. But this is my libertarian leaning opinion I doubt it would fly in this socialist loving state.
Well, now you’re ranting. One-word epithets (“libertarian”, “socialist”) don’t get us very far.
I do think you’re correct that yours is a minority view. If Oregon is too socialist for your tastes, consider moving to another state.:-)
Or alternatively, get together with Bill Sizemore and see if you guys can draft up a ballot measure or two.:-)
Mike
I do think you’re correct that yours is a minority view. If Oregon is too socialist for your tastes, consider moving to another state.:-)
No I think our hybrid socialist/capitalist system is working quite well. The socialistic organizations just need to be more efficient, IMHO.
Folks …
Several of the recent comments have ventured into personal territory. Let’s try to keep it about the merits.
As much as I find GT’s views on society to be troublesome, I’ve been on the receiving end of “why don’t you move elsewhere” types of arguments, and they’re not particularly productive.
Bob R said
As much as I find GT’s views on society to be troublesome, I’ve been on the receiving end of “why don’t you move elsewhere” types of arguments, and they’re not particularly productive.
My apologies. I didn’t mean it as a personal slur, but as a commentary on GT’s dislike for Oregon’s “socialist” leanings. It’s better for all of us to avoid these 1-word characterizations.
GT doesn’t really want to live in a pure libertarian environment:
No I think our hybrid socialist/capitalist system is working quite well.
and goes on to say
The socialistic organizations just need to be more efficient, IMHO.
I don’t think anyone here would disagree with you that government ought to be as efficient as we can make it. People can disagree in good faith about the balance between government services and private ones, and about how best to make government efficient, and that debate is useful, and that’s what the political process is about.
I was only half joking about ballot measures!
(ASIDE: I might add that it’s nice for private businesses to be efficient too, and cite much of the health-care industry as an example of where considerable improvement would be welcome.)
I don’t think it’s productive to label everything government-related as “socialistic”. Some people (not you, in general) even go farther and say “the government services I like are just fine, and the others are socialistic.”
There’s no need to take the extra step and toss 1-word epithets around. That’s just being belligerent, and what turns civil and productive discussions into rant-a-thons.
Mike
About the only thing I see coming out of this discussion which has become a bash-government discussion, rather than of the merits of the gasoline tax, is that I do not think that the various government agencies take serious to heart the impacts of their motor pools and their employees’ motor vehicle usage
Yes, so the Water Bureau has a few vehicles that burn biodiesel. So what. The “Portland Utilities Customer Services” has a large motorpool of various vehicles for their meter readers.
Here’s a concept – automate meter reading using radio. (Say it can’t be done? My company is doing it – TODAY!! (albeit not in Portland, yet…)) That would eliminate all meter readers (and their vehicles) save for maybe two or three individuals to check on meters that are unreadable. PGE is close to implementing automated meter reading.
Portland Police – why do they need a huge fleet of Crown Vics, Explorers and Expeditions? Many European police agencies use compact cars, with the “souped up” vehicles only for freeway patrols. Most police cars in Europe aren’t designed to haul off criminals to jail, they call the Paddy Waggon. Why can’t we replace all of those Crown Vics with Focuses (and motorcycles)?
Development Services – well, why do they need a motor pool at all, given that there is a major bus stop located right outside their front door?
Portland State University Public Safety, OHSU Public Safety – why do their “officers” even need motor vehicles? Come on, get on a bike! It’s not like you have 150 square miles to patrol!
And TriMet…we’ve already discussed their fleet of gas-guzzling SUVs despite owning over 600 busses and a light rail fleet.
Maybe charging government agencies a gas tax DOES make sense. There are things Portland (and other agencies) could do TODAY, with minimal impact to its function, to save on motor vehicle usage and dollars and cents, but simply chooses not to. It’s one thing to tell someone else to not drive – Portland needs to take the first step.
For starters, Tom Potter can sell his E-plated Prius. There’s a bus stop outside of City Hall. A Prius might be better than a Ford Expedition, but a bus is better than a Prius.
For starters, Tom Potter can sell his E-plated Prius. There’s a bus stop outside of City Hall.
You assume the mayor has nowhere to go that isn’t readily served by transit. I’ve seen the mayor walk to nearby destinations, so it’s not like he uses the thing for every trip.
A Prius might be better than a Ford Expedition, but a bus is better than a Prius.
You seem to be of the belief that if public transit is available, then all trips MUST be taken by public transit. I don’t recall anyone in City Hall dictating that all citizens MUST abandon their cars and take ALL trips by walking/bike/transit. There is a clear push to increase the availability of these options, but you seem to be implying there’s some kind of hypocrisy if Fred Hansen or the mayor dare to go somewhere in a non-transit vehicle. That just plays into the false stereotypes of a minority of anti-transit critics.
An interesting comment was made by Sam Adams today at the Street Maintenance Fee hearing. He said something on the order of: the backlog of Portland streets needing repair has increased 221 miles since the gas tax was last increased in 1993. By comparison and what was left out: how much spending on bicycle infrastructure has increased during that same period of time, and how much spending on misguided agendas like curb extensions has increased during that same period of time.
Bringing everything into the consideration undoubtedly would demonstrate gas tax revenues have been diverted from roadway projects to being used as socialistic fund for infrastructure that attempts to dictate how people travel.
Responding to my comment “And bicycles ought to be registered, licensed and taxed there by financially contributing to State Transportation Funds with no more freeloading and bicyclists paying for bicycle infrastructure” in a previous Bob R said: “I believe there was a candidate who ran for Metro council a few years ago with this as an explicit platform plank. The candidate got something like 16.5% of the vote.”
Not bad for an unknown that entered the race at the very last minute spending somewhat over $1000 on a campaign including filing fees and inclusion in the voter’s pamphlet. The message must have been correct because that is only about $64 per voter percentage point vs as much as $400 or more per voter percentage point for the other guy – a well known incumbent with the advantage of incumbency – whom was reelected. And oh yes, the other guy, was status quo about continuing to give bicyclists a free ride and thereby had the pedal pusher vote. It only proves you can still buy an election in Portland with campaign dollars to win over the majority and free perks for the minority groups. The bottom line remains that bicyclists ought to be paying a user tax of their own to pay for exclusive bicycle infrastructure. Sharing the road must also means sharing the financial responsibility. Paying for bicycle infrastructure is not a motorist responsibility.
It only proves you can still buy an election in Portland with campaign dollars to win over the majority and free perks for the minority groups.
Once I looked up the actual results for the 2004 metro council election, I found that the incumbent “other guy” won with over 72% of the vote, and the person who lost also lost nearly 3:1 to undervote. Not many elections go so lopsidedly if the majority are truly uneasy about the direction of the incumbent’s policies. “Free perks for minority groups” does not get _any_ candidate to 72%.
You are right, however, about the power behind incumbency. I hope that the voter-owned-election system can prove itself reliable and field-leveling in the long term, and that it might then expand to regional and state races. Properly implemented, it can give a candidate who doesn’t have access to large initial funds but has the support of a significant percentage of people a chance to run a good campaign.
I am pleased, however, that two people who feel strongly enough about their opinions and policy proposals to run for regional office find the time to occasionally comment here.
the pedal pusher vote
It’s been over 24 hours since I’ve driven an automobile but I seem to recall that whether accelerating or braking, it involved pushing a pedal.
Bob,
When one candidate spends a little over $1000 on a campaign and the other candidate, who also has the advantage of being the incumbent, has over $30,000 ready in the bank to spend, it sort of affects the outcome. And since you like figures, that is a possible 30 to one which helps to explain the lopsided vote.
Oh and by the way, since you believe that pushing the gas and brake pedal when driving is the same as pushing the pedals round and round on a bike, then you also must agree that all vehicles with pedals must be taxed equally to pay for roads. Thanks for supporting a bicycle tax paid by bicyclists!
Oh and by the way, since you believe that pushing the gas and brake pedal when driving is the same as pushing the pedals round and round on a bike
Never said that.
then you also must agree that all vehicles with pedals must be taxed equally to pay for roads.
That does not follow.
The candidate got something like 16.5% of the vote. Not bad for an unknown…
The surest route to happiness is low expectations.
The perfect example of the status quo around here was reported in two Tigard stories this week.
One was about their 3 cent gas tax for road and congestion work was not bringing the revenue as planned. Seems it will only bring in $3.5 million of the $5 million over 5 years as needed. So they’re considering raising the tax or extending the 5 year tax.
The other story is about Metro granting to Tigard $2.4 million in Fed highway funds for their new green streetscape project. Which is part of their $40 million Urban Renewal-Main Street makeover/commuter rail staion project.
Also known as Smart Growth.
Is there any doubt that money for the green improvements will be go down as money spent on roads?
Typically, Metro coudn’t find any money for the the real road/intersections/congestion projects and Tigard didn’t earmark any of their $40 million Urban Renewal money for that work either.
Even though their UR Main Street TOD makeover and needed road/intersection/congestion projects are right next to each other.
See how this works?
Region wide, billions of dollars have and billions more will follow this same path.
It’s called good planning.
Here are a couple of links to news articles regarding what John E. just posted:
Tigard Times:
Survey: Tigard is just all right with me
A random survey of 400 residents in November shows that they are basically satisfied with the city
Excerpts:
Beaverton Valley Times:
Grant leads to greening of Tigard’s Main Street
The city receives a $2.54 million grant from Metro utilizing federal transportation dollars for the project
Excerpts:
Based on these articles, it appears that Tigard and Metro officials are acting in accordance with the wishes of a majority of Tigard residents.
The point is public officials are directing road dollars to non-road uses then claim there’s a need for a new tax for roads.
Theses two stories are a perfect example of that.
And with both bureaucracies having plenty of money to wrap it in lovely things with free-like money, and the press never putting both ways of the spending in the same story the beat goes on.
It is easy for the agencies to make it appear as though Tigard and Metro officials are acting in accordance with the wishes of a majority of Tigard residents. Darn easy for you to cast it that way too.
Unfortunately the poll after poll in the Tigard, Tualatin area show traffic as the number 1 concern while both of these local agencies, just like Portland, ignore it.
At the end of the day, there in Tigard will be a new commuter rail station, a smart growth makeover of their downtown, little or now additional affordable housing, congestion getting much worse and around $60 million in debt needing around 40 years of property taxes to retire.
All brought to them by City officials who sold their plan as $22 million vital neccessity/ beautification/sense of place that would be paid for entirely with Urban Renewal TIF. TIF that wouldn’t effect basic services and that their City Attorney testified will ALL come soley from the New Development. One of the more eggregious and blatant UR lies I’ve witnessed.
There’s more to their UR story but I digress.
The point is, again, that this model is exactly what is underway with the CoP and the rest of the region.
While countless millions and even billions have and are being directed towards things like the Milwaukie light rail extension/bridge taxpaying voters are told roads and the Sellwood bridge require new taxation. Adding insult to injury Adams and company, to get a few more people on board, are claiming they’ll be using much of the new taxation for congestion relief.
But not enough people know or care. So nothing matters.
The point is public officials are directing road dollars to non-road uses
What are the non-road uses in the Tigard example?
(Or do you equate sidewalk/pedestrian safety improvements, stormwater mitigation, lighting upgrades, and street trees as non-road? I can see an argument in regard to the trees and decorative lighting upgrades where the current lighting is fine, but what percentage of the project budget is really spent on those things? The stormwater and pedestrian improvements are an important part of town center streets, IMHO.)
Is it really a “tax increase” when a municipality aims to collect $5 million but only collects $3.5 million and then restructures an existing tax to collect the full $5 million? The number of pennies per gallon might change, or the duration might change (or both), but if the public originally approved a $5 million revenue plan, what is so wrong with making the necessary adjustments to reach that $5 million?
Darn easy for you to cast it that way too.
Darn easy when in that case the voters approved the urban renewal district and when a telephone survey shows that residents support modifying the tax to raise the originally-planned revenue.
Bob, you sure are a good dancer.
Yes the non-road uses are “sidewalk/pedestrian safety improvements, stormwater mitigation, lighting upgrades, and street trees”
But you left out the white elephant in the room. The commuter rail station, parking lot etc. in the middle of it all.
Why would even ask? You mean you haven’t even picked what rail transit/smart growth critics consider non-road? Or do you just want to divert into a lenghty and useless dialogue about what road and non road are?
The whole project is a green makeover, involving a couple existing streets, but it’s not so much a road project.
Of course stormwater and pedestrian improvements are part of any street. But this is a heavily emphasized green streescape enhancement and new town center. The real roads and real road projects, Hwy 99, Greenberg and Hall are getting none of the UR money or Metro Money.
So if you are having trouble ever again with figuring out the differecne in road and nonroad uses this Tigard story can help you.
Town Center/Greenstreet/commutter rail=nonroad
Hwy. 99/Greeburg/Hall= road
The same example can be found in SoWa.
Streetcars/Tram/streetscapes/ped/bike for private development=nonroad
I-5 ramp/Macadam/ North portal/south portal=road
Which ones are getting the funding?
Now back to the funding priorities and use of fed state and local road dollars.
It was a tax increase when Tigard adopted the 3 cent tax increase.
I never suggested their remedy for the lack of projected revenue was anything.
Were you diverting again?
Sam Adams has, is and will be leading the further emphasis on non road uses with road money. With or without this new tax scheme of his.
Yes, the voters approved the urban renewal district. Did you read any of the city’s pitch or news coverage prior to the election?
Probably not.
I noticed you avoided commenting on the most germane.
The city attorney claims.
A telephone survey shows squat and who cares anyway. That whole story about the 1.5 million shortage is petty. And besides the greater point. They’ll simply increase the time or amount of the tax any time they need to to fill the shortage while Metro feeds them millions in Fed hwy funds for their town center.
And you didn’t comment on funding the Mil. light rail bridge ahead of the Sellwood Bridge.
Right there is another $1 billion about to be directed towards more nonroad uses. At the same time Sam and company are crying there’s not enough money for roads.
Take into account all of the nonroad agenda around here with all the agencies expenses/ planning/projects/bureaucracies and 100s of planners and the spending is enormous yet NEVER conveyed to the public.
I’m, or course, not trying to convince you so don’t get too worked up. It’s hopeless. Your will not be turned. I suspect it willbe another 15 years or so before the greater effects of the chaos finally reach the rudder around here.
In the mean time we can expect Sam to be elected Mayor and Milwaukie light rail, convention center Hotel and all sorts of similar “investments” to move forward.
Bob, you sure are a good dancer.
…
But you left out the white elephant in the room. The commuter rail station, parking lot etc. in the middle of it all.
Nothing in the two articles I found indicates that “road money” is being “diverted” for non-road uses, which was your original claim. It does mention that “flexible funds” are being allocated for this purpose.
If you do not believe that federal flexible transportation funds (which no doubt are funded significantly by federal gas taxes) should be allocated to “non-road” projects, you should take that up with your congressional rep or favorite senator — Instead, you’re blaming local officials for spending federal money in the manner in which those funds were intended to be spent by Congress.
I’m glad you admit, however, that you consider pedestrian safety, sidewalks, and stormwater mitigation to be “non-road” spending.
And you didn’t comment on funding the Mil. light rail bridge ahead of the Sellwood Bridge.
Perhaps because it wasn’t mentioned in either _Tigard_ article.
You didn’t bring up either Milwaukie or Sellwood until _after_ I posted two articles which didn’t fully support what you asserted.
Who’s dancing now?
And you still avoid the most germane points.
Dancer.
You can’t even focus on the central point here.
Which is that officials have made and continue to make deliberate non-road choices with road, “Fed hwy funds, “flexible funds”
ODOT, PDOT and Urban Renewal funds while KNOWING full well our roads and bridges were being neglected.
There’s no mystery here. They are the neglectors. And now they are crying because they haven’t enough money to keep making the same negligent choices without being held accountable for the worsening road problem they created.
So they want more,,, and really for to make the same choices.
All the while they contune to make things worse.
It’s all about the choices they make.
All you have to say is they are “spending federal money in the manner in which those funds were intended to be spent by Congress”.
Oh how perfect. That’s almost like they had no other choices. Ha Ha.
So let’s review.
You have no comment on a city attorney lying about Urban renewal.
You have no comment on the City and Metro funding the Town Center with all sorts of road and “flexible funds” but not the identified projects for congested roads next the district.
You have no comment on the choice to fund a billion for a light rail bridge ahead of roads and the Sellwood Bridge.
You have no comment on the CoP choosing to fund the Streetcar,Tram, green stretscapes/ped/bike improvements but not the I-5 ramp/Macadam/N & S Portal road improvements.
The examples of choices are every where.
The CoP chose to fund the Eastbank Esplanande by unlawfully using $10 million in Fed restricted gas tax dollars.
Metro chose to give Beaverton $4 million dollars to help them expand the Beaverton Round town center.
Wilsonville has chosen to prioritize another new ped/bike bridge over the Willammette. $40 million.
I could go on and on but you’ll likely not get or avoid the point.
You had no comment on the all of the nonroad agenda around here with all the agencies expenses/ planning/projects/bureaucracies and 100s of planners and the spending is enormous yet NEVER conveyed to the public.
The CoP has around 120 planner, PDC 200, Metro another 100 and another 150 at all the municipalities and three counties.
The current 5 year budget for SoWa has
$18 MILLION earmarked for Staff and Administrative costs.
On and on we go and none of it matters, right?
Metro is choosing to use “flexible funds” for all sorts of thisgs from Gresham to Wilsonville to Tigard and Beaverton an d Portland.
And many choices around the region are being made WITHOUT available revenue sources.
SoWa has a severe problem entirely predictable for years.
Only the most reckless and irresponsible people could condone this series of poor decisions which have been made while fully recognizing that infrastructure and basic services would be neglected.
But none of that matters either.
As long as enough people are dancing.
What we need here and may someday get is a FBI investigation like is happening at the Port Of Seattle.
It’s interesting the reports of officials and bureaucrats refusing to hand over documents.
That’ll happen here too. But it won’t fly at either locale.
John E. said
SoWa has a severe problem entirely predictable for years.
Please take a couple of minutes to describe — without hostile rhetoric — this severe and predictable problem in a way that lay people can understand.
It’s really getting tiresome to slog through the belligerent rhetoric, full of generalizations with few usable facts. If you’re not just ranting but are actually trying to persuade others to come over to your point of view, you’ll have more success (certainly with me, maybe with others) by toning down the shouting.
Mike
The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments.
William H. Borah
You can’t even focus on the central point here.
You can’t even stick to the original points you raised, when the news articles don’t quite support what you originally asserted.
There’s no mystery here. They are the neglectors.
Glad you could clear that up for us. And with so many clearly-referenced facts.
And now they are crying
Did you see tears? Put the video on YouTube.
All the while they contune to make things worse.
That’s your subjective opinion, and you’re entitled to it, but you’ve presented little evidence to support that opinion.
The CoP chose to fund the Eastbank Esplanande by unlawfully using $10 million in Fed restricted gas tax dollars.
Does nobody have standing to sue? If they do have standing, why haven’t they? Or is your definition of “unlawfully” a subjective one that hasn’t yet been tested in court?
Do the people of the City of Portland (the voters) believe that the Esplanade, in retrospect, was a waste of this “unlawfully” allocated money?
Wilsonville has chosen to prioritize another new ped/bike bridge over the Willammette.
I trust that the voters of Wilsonville will see this horror show you are describing and vote the bums out, right?
I could go on and on but you’ll likely not get or avoid the point.
You have gone on and mostly you’ve posted opinion and invective.
You had no comment on the all of the nonroad agenda
I think I’ve commented plenty on what you consider to be “non-road”. Let’s recap: To you, sidewalks, pedestrian safety projects, and stormwater runoff are “non-road”. You’ve made that quite clear. The other project components are debatable, but I’m squarely in the camp that sidewalks, pedestrian safety, and stormwater runoff are _very_ much road-related. If you want to convince me otherwise, you’re going to have to make a strong case, a case which involves more than hurling insults and invective.
The CoP has around 120 planner, PDC 200, Metro another 100 and another 150 at all the municipalities and three counties.
What is your source for this information, and what definition are you using for “planner”? How do these totals compare to cities of a similar size throughout North America? What do you consider to be an appropriate staffing level? Half that? 10% of that? None of that?
Only the most reckless and irresponsible people could condone this series of poor decisions
Therefore, anyone who does not agree with you is reckless and irresponsible. (And apparently, there is no middle ground for you. Can someone support the kinds of projects that happen around Portland and also call for greater transparency in government? Or will you reject an alliance with pro-transparency people if they are also pro-“Smart Growth”?)
What we need here and may someday get is a FBI investigation
If there’s evidence to support kicking off such an investigation, I would have no problem with it. You see, I’m one of those folks who is for greater transparency. I just happen to disagree with you in principle about urban renewal districts, tax-increment financing, smart growth, transit-oriented development, etc. So therefore you think I’m “reckless and irresponsible”, according to your definitions. So why should we ever work together for greater transparency? (Clue: I’ll work for greater transparency and openness where I can, despite what you think of me and despite your invective.)
It should be noted that Highway 99W, A.K.A. the Pacific Highway West, A.K.A. Oregon Highway 91, is an ODOT maintained highway that begins at the intersection of Naito Parkway & Clay Avenue in downtown Portland, and continues all the way to I-5 in Eugene.
Given that logic, I am hard pressed to understand why Tigard should have to pay for the entire cost of upgrading the street given it is a highway of state-wide significance. As such I’m sure Tigard residents have no problem with city dollars going to city services, instead of subsidizing the state.
Now, who dictates regional transportation planning on major streets in the Portland metro area? Why, it’s Metro. Yes, Metro actually holds the purse strings that even tells ODOT (a state agency) what to do.
So, ultimately, whose responsibility is it to provide for transportation solutions on Highway 99W????????
METRO!!!!!!!
What is Metro doing about it? (I hear birds chirping in the distance…)
Well, OK, Metro is doing something:
1. Not providing for a road infrastructure to accomodate the over 50,000 vehicles per day (on average) that use 99W between I-5 and downtown Tigard.
2. Not providing adequate mass transportation options through the systematic disinvestment in bus services, and failing to recognize the Portland-Tigard-King City-(Tualatin)-Sherwood corridor as a significant transportation corridor, despite the fact that the corridor transports far more people than many of its own chosen corridors.
3. Focusing regional transportation dollars on a small “streetscape” project that will do nothing towards regional transportation dollars, under the guise that it will provide for dense investment in an area that is geographically constrained (by having the 99W berm to the north, Fanno Creek to the west, the P&W railroad in the center of it, and wetlands to the south.
If there is a solution to this, it’s that the City of Tigard can pay for their own streetscaping project on Main Street – local cities are a local, not regional, priority.
Metro can focus on regional priorities, and Highway 99W is CLEARLY a regional priority. A monkey at the (coincidently, Metro operated) Oregon Zoo could tell you that.
“John E” writes, “I could go on and on but you’ll likely not get or avoid the point.”
Much like Steve, a former frequent poster here, you do go on and on. I’d appreciate not being lectured like I’m in kindergarten.
“There is no such thing as a good tax.”
Winston Churchill
It is interesting that the author of this post calls for “civil and intelligent” blogging on his introductory post, but then tells GT of Salem to “move to another state”, plus several other savory remarks.
lw;
lol;
civility at Portlandtransport.com ends if you don’t support the prevailing point of view.
I did a video blog about this blog:
http://amargul.blogspot.com/2007/12/pin-heads-of-portland-transportcom.html
It is interesting that the author of this post calls for “civil and intelligent” blogging on his introductory post, but then tells GT of Salem to “move to another state”, plus several other savory remarks.
It is interesting to note that the moderator (me) already made a point of showing what was wrong with that comment, and that Mike apologized, all in less than an hour of the original remark being posted.
Five days ago.
Thanks for bringing it up again.
lw Says:
It is interesting that the author of this post calls for “civil and intelligent” blogging on his introductory post, but then tells GT of Salem to “move to another state”, plus several other savory remarks.
lw, I think you’re referring to me, and quoted me out of context. GT said:
But this is my libertarian leaning opinion I doubt it would fly in this socialist loving state.
To which I responded,
Well, now you’re ranting. One-word epithets (“libertarian”, “socialist”) don’t get us very far.
I do think you’re correct that yours is a minority view. If Oregon is too socialist for your tastes, consider moving to another state.:-)
Or alternatively, get together with Bill Sizemore and see if you guys can draft up a ballot measure or two.:-)
I don’t see anything uncivil in this. I thought GT’s one-word characterizations were unhelpful. On the other hand, if he wasn’t just ranting, and really is uncomfortable as a “libertarian” in this “socialist-loving” state (his words, not mine), I do wonder why he chooses to live here. I didn’t label him or slur him.
GT obviously understands that his is probably a minority view, but OTOH ballot measures are one effective way Oregon uses for minority views to be voted on, and maybe to prevail. It might be more effective than just venting on a blog, in a thread I started to stimulate a serious discussion about the gas tax.
Mike
I am not moving out of Oregon. My roots are very deep here. My pioneer family has been in the Portland area since the 1840’s. My gggg-grandfather started the town of Multnomah City (now known as West Linn) years before his neighbors Lovejoy and Pettygrove (famous for their coin toss) went North and staked their claim to now what has developed into Portland! I love it here!!! despite that I am in disagreement with the prevailing political viewpoint. Now carry on….
Mike, I doesn’t appear that I quoted you out of context.
“Ranting” isn’t a pleasant word, it also is a one- word epithet. I won’t bother to point out other epithets.
I am not defending Bill Sizemore, but your comments, and your not condemning past condemnation of Sizemore with epithets by others in your post doesn’t help your defensive position above.
But I am glad you posted about Gas Taxes. It seems from your opening post that your few months here in Oregon has limited your knowledge of the complicated operations of ODOT and it’s gas tax sources and distribution, and not unexpectedly.
“but your comments, and your not condemning past condemnation of Sizemore with epithets by others in your post doesn’t help your defensive position above.”
Before getting lost in layers and layers of rationalization and passive double negative justifications over something which everyone seemed to have moved past five days ago, how about we just return to the topic of gas taxes in Oregon? Hmmm?
Bob R says:
…how about we just return to the topic of gas taxes in Oregon?
Good idea.
The post with which I started this thread was trying to understand the fact that gas taxes cover only about one-third of ODOT’s expenditures. Bob and others pointed out that other road-related taxes, registration fees, etc., cover another third. The rest is covered by bonds.
Bob asked then,
Are these bonds to be repaid out of future ODOT revenue, and what impact will bond service have on future spending ability? (And is this level of bond sales typical?)
I don’t think anyone has answered this. For me, the issue is whether ODOT revenue is entirely provided by road-related items. If so, then it’s correct to say that road users are “paying their own way”. If not — if, for example, those bonds are paid out of other funds — then road users are not paying their own way, thus road users are “subsidized” by other sources.
Can anyone provide a clear answer here?
Mike
then road users are not paying their own way, thus road users are “subsidized” by other sources
It seems that everything is subsidized by everything else. Withtout this massive subsidy bureaucracy called government we’d be much more efficient as a society.