Of the Oregonian:
I am befuddled by your editorial’s skepticism at the synergy between the Bureau of Environmental Services’ “green streets” program and bicycle boulevards (“Sewer money for bikeways: Does it pass the smell test?” March 15).
We are under a mandate from the federal government to better manage our stormwater. We have several ways we can do this:
1) Build expensive pipes underground. 2) Create green streets that manage runoff with bioswales and other treatments that improve our streetscapes at the same time. 3) Create those green streets strategically so that they also define and protect safe and comfortable bicycle boulevards.
Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Of course we need to be vigilant that sewer rate dollars are spent on water quality. But I’d be upset if the City Council were not looking for every way possible to make sure that each dollar spent is delivering as many different benefits as possible. Our tax and rate dollars are too precious to do otherwise.
We should be congratulating the City Council for this “twofer,” not chiding it.
CHRIS SMITH
Northwest Portland
Appearing in the paper and online today.
32 responses to “My Letter to the Editor”
My comments on the thing, updated to include your letter, are here…
When I turn on the radio on a busy, otherwise uneventful Wednesday, and agree with Terry Parker, Matt Davis, Victoria Taft (!), as well as most of the other callers and soundbites regarding bicycle boulevards and C-TRAN during the noon hour of her radio program, then something’s definitely wrong here.
Additionally, this is coming at a time when unemployment is at depression-level numbers, those who are working are making less money doing so, and everyone and their brother are asking for rate and fee increases.
As far as the letter, I couldn’t disagree more, and by now we all probably know what I’m doing (that I can’t actually mention here)!
It’s OK to mention that you’re running for office, Jason–you just can’t ask anyone to VOTE for you on this blog.
What’s wrong is that the pie has shrunk dramatically–but nobody wants a correspondingly smaller piece.
CS , I smiled when I read it in the ‘grown-up’
media , great job!
Beyond the money issue, bicycle advocates need to ask themselves if this will elevate their status amongst transportation modes. Situations like this peck away at people’s trust.
If the issue truly is about stormwater projects, why do bikes get the first dibs?
“If the issue truly is about stormwater projects, why do bikes get the first dibs?”
I would guess the answer to this question is: because a Green Street involves road construction, it just makes sense that it’s transportation issues that can be addressed at the same time. If Green Street construction – or some other project that mitigates runoff – allowed for easily improving playgrounds, or senior housing at the same time, they might have done that instead. But it’s transportation issues that can be addressed when you’re already ripping up the curbs and pouring new ones. And as the City has said: bikes infrastructure provides the best bang for our transportation buck.
My only concern is that we don’t prioritize any green street or bike infrastructure project over a more needed project that will be invisible to the taxpayer pipes under the ground. I hope that the money is used in a responsible manner, and I don’t mind if some of it is used on projects that meet the long term goal of reducing stormwater pollution that also happen to be bike or pedestrian projects. I just hope we’re not raiding money that could be better used elsewhere just to look bike friendly.
Scotty, on your blog you say:
And even then–I’d prefer a slightly different accounting be used–I’d use sewer money to do the actual drainage projects (possibly expanding the scope of the project somewhat), and use transportation dollars to fund the differential cost of the bike facilities on the top of them.
My belief is that this is EXACTLY what’s happening. BES dollars will ONLY build the bio-swales. Striping, signals, etc. will be funded with PBOT dollars.
I must admit that I am still surprised at the level of opposition to this. I’m trying to understand the basis. Could folks comment on which (if any) of these comes closest to source of opposition:
1) I don’t believe bio-swales and other “at the source” stormwater management tools are effective. BES should only build storm sewers.
2) When we commit tax or rate dollars to a category of projects, if one of the projects comes in under budget we should refund that amount to tax/rate-payers rather than using the savings for the next project down the list.
3) Government agencies shouldn’t try to find synergies with public purposes outside their agency’s mission.
4) I don’t like bike boulevards.
5) I don’t trust that City Government will do what they say they’re going to do.
6) I’m concerned that the bio-swale projects selected for this effort will have less impact on water quality than alternative projects that may be prioritized lower as a result.
7) Some other reason (please share).
I’ll tip my hand and say that I don’t think #1 through #5 are good reasons for making a decision on this. #6 is, and I’m open to having that conversation in robust detail (as I made clear in my City Council testimony).
Bring on the discussion!
If that’s the case, than good–I was under the impression that this was essentially a transfer of sewage dollars to transportation purposes. To answer your question above, I’m probably a 2–with the caveat that it doesn’t apply to general fund dollars.
I can appreciate the sentiment behind #2 (even if I don’t agree with it – because the backlog of need is so large), but it’s not the way it works. Absent the bicycle idea, the project savings would NOT have gone back to ratepayers. They would simply have gone on to the next project on the priority list. This effort is effectively just reordering the priority list.
I’ll bite that probably the largest dissatisfaction with this has to do with water and sewer bill RATES, as well as the fact that this is coming at a time when the city is asking “how do we continue to fund a base level of essential services?” (that was the main theme of a city budget forum/workshop a couple of Saturdays ago).
Also, I find it highly ironic that the amount is $20 million… the SAME amount of money that TriMet says it is short for transit services for the entire region for the next fiscal year. The numbers on the Portland Plan website state that 8% of Portlanders commute by bicycle, whereas 15% use public transit. Therefore, the perception is that only 8% of people in Portland will benefit from this.
http://www.portlandonline.com/portlandplan/index.cfm?c=51314
IMO, the $20 million should be applied to Big Pipe debt to give ratepayers a break. Boring, I know, but rather necessary. (I still like my political contributions tax idea, but that’s probably for another website.)
Jason, I can appreciate the frustration with rates, but NOT doing the bike plan synergy would not cause the rates to go down (or go up less). It would just cause a different selection of water quality projects to get done.
Chris,
I get the sense a lot of the opposition is based on a misunderstanding of what we’re actually talking about here, and an irrational, emotional dislike for some aspects of the plan.
For instance, it’s not so much, “I don’t like bike boulevards” as it is a perception that this money is going to bike *lanes*. Even the Mercury’s Matt Davis said that; something along the lines of: why should this money be going to bike lanes? I really think a lot of this could come down to a lack of understanding of what a bike boulevard is: just a very quiet, traffic-calmed street, mostly without bike-specific markings.
Then there’s a lot of very emotional dislike for Sam Adams swirling around, and the assumption among his opponents that he’s pulling a fast one to benefit his “pet project,” i.e. bikes.
And you know, there’s some measure of emotional dislike for bikes out there too. There’s a sense that bike riders are getting special treatment, particularly in Portland. Which is, frankly, nuts. Look at the sheer volume of real estate devoted to the movement and storage of autos. Compare it to what bikes get. But now that things are moving toward giving bike riders a more equitable slice of the pie – or more importantly, creating an equitable share of safe infrastructure for those who want to use a bike for transportation, but are too scared to – well, suddenly that’s an “entitlement.”
Oh, and then there’s the sense that bioswales are “greenwashing,” with no comprehension that they are one kind of solution (stormwater mitigation) that negates the need for another, very expensive solution (underground pipes).
In short, there’s a lot of ignorance of the facts, stoked by any number of smoldering animosities, flaring up into what should have been predictable opposition.
Matt Davis also asked why bike advocates aren’t standing up and questioning what he perceives as the shenanigans going on with all this. But for myself, as a fan of bike infrastructure, my main hesitation about the plan was that it seemed like they were really just funding Green Streets, while at the same time acting like they’re funding the Bike Plan. And don’t get me wrong, I like Green Streets too. But I suspected at first that saying a storm water plan could also act as bike infrastructure was just a meager bone thrown to the bike supporters.
I’m now starting to get the sense of how this might actually be a legitimate “twofer,” but if others felt as I did, the City might not be getting as much of the support they could be from the bike side of things.
Maybe it all just takes a little more explaining.
I think it has to do more with people just don’t want to have to pay for sewer at all, and just have their shit go straight in the river.
I would like to volunteer my neighbors to use buckets to go to the bathroom!
Maybe it all just takes a little more explaining.
I’m trying :-)
Thanks for the thoughtful analysis. I think you’re right about the public misunderstanding this request on multiple levels.
I’m with Chris on this one.
I’m concerned that the bio-swale projects selected for this effort will have less impact on water quality than alternative projects that may be prioritized lower as a result.
It makes complete sense to me to go for the two-fer, building bio-swales that also help with bike boulevards. However, since the money is coming from sewer dollars, the swales should be top-tier projects to capture run-off, with the bike benefits being incidental.
Sadly, smart public policy frequently plays poorly among low-information voters. I remember a few years ago when the road fee was being discussed, the city came up with the very sensible idea to add a line to the water bill instead of creating a completely new billing system with all of the attendant duplication of staffing and costs. But that proposal somehow morphed into a “tax on water” among the low-information crowd, and probably contributed to the ultimate withdrawal of the proposal.
I suspect that a lot of people have already decided the new plan is to “raid surplus sewer money to pay for bike lanes” and will stick to that no matter how carefully anyone explains it, even using short sentences and lots of pictures.
There’s a lot of vested interests in town who would rather that the money NOT be spent on this project, and are happy to encourage the LIVs in the manner you suggest.
Commissioner Fritz does an excellent job of explaining this and why she’s going to vote for it.
She makes a point that I missed, these projects (versus returning the money to the rate payers) will generate about 280 jobs.
A fine letter. My guess is most of the letters in the daily rag are “con” because the “pro” folks gave up on The Oregonian long ago and get their news and views elsewhere.
Regardless, its sad and disappointing to read this anti-bike stuff. Bicyclists should be honored (and paid) for obvious reasons…no imported oil consumed, no air or water pollution generated, no GHGs emitted, no noise, no wear and tear on roads, no death & destruction (except our own), and as anyone who rides knows…we do it at some risk to our own life and limb.
re who pays for Big Pipe…why not a state fee on oil, gas and tires to cover some of the cost; most of the pollutants we are capturing with the $1.5B system come from those three sources off streets and parking lots. But its all on the ratepayers.
Chris Smith:“Jason, I can appreciate the frustration with rates, but NOT doing the bike plan synergy would not cause the rates to go down (or go up less). It would just cause a different selection of water quality projects to get done.”
ws:That just means fewer projects won’t be retired and they’ll be on the books longer. And then something in the future happens to the sewers, the reservoirs need covers, etc. and the city increases water rates even more.
You act as if it’s free magical money, when in reality it’s just created more costs for the city at a bad time.
Chris Smith:“She makes a point that I missed, these projects (versus returning the money to the rate payers) will generate about 280 jobs.”
ws:I am sure everyone is skeptical of any job predictions…
That just means fewer projects won’t be retired and they’ll be on the books longer.
I would dispute that. ALL the projects are aimed at improving water quality. It’s not a question of whether we’re achieving the goal, but HOW.
That just means fewer projects won’t be retired and they’ll be on the books longer. And then something in the future happens to the sewers, the reservoirs need covers, etc. and the city increases water rates even more.
Exactly.
And, if I wasn’t ill and were able to attend this morning’s council meeting, I would’ve been all over this as well as the next two items on the agenda, which would jack up garbage rates to collect “food scraps.” Everyone I know who does this already composts stuff on their own. Now, I realize that many will say that it will reduce carbon footprint and number of garbage truck vehicle miles traveled, but again this is less service costing more money.
Chris Smith:“I would dispute that. ALL the projects are aimed at improving water quality. It’s not a question of whether we’re achieving the goal, but HOW.”
ws:Well that’s an entirely subjective criteria. There’s plenty of green street applications in areas w/o bike boulevards. There’s no justification as to why bike boulevards would get special treatment over other areas…other areas that might in terms of overall water management, be better projects to pursue.
I have not seen the design of the bike boulevards, but most runoff from bikes-only surfaces isn’t exactly water that’s all that bad when compared to the oil, grease, brake dust, etc. that would benefit from bio remediation effects of green streets along major car roadways.
At any rate, I recall projects that reduce basement flooding, etc. would be pushed further back on the list if the 20 million bike boulevard took place.
I’ll keep repeating myself that as we build the list of specific projects, geographic equity and impact on water quality should absolutely be evaluation criteria.
But bioswales help basement flooding as well, because they keep water out of the sewer system. Reduction in flows is clearly a key strategy for reducing backups.
Many people–liberal and conservative alike–don’t seem to trust city government. Why that is is left as an exercise for the reader.
Absent the bicycle idea, the project savings would NOT have gone back to ratepayers. They would simply have gone on to the next project on the priority list
According to a recent article in the Oregonian, water rates are going up 18% to, among other things, start putting money away for dealing with our open air reservoirs in case the Portland can not a waiver of the new cryptosporidium protection regulations. Personally, I would have preferred this 20 million be set aside for that in lieu of the rate increase. If we do get the waiver, then the money could be used to build green streets/bike blvds.
I know that I’m a little late to the part but what the hell.
6) I’m concerned that the bio-swale projects selected for this effort will have less impact on water quality than alternative projects that may be prioritized lower as a result.
This is my primary concern. The council swooped in and took the 20 million to fund a project that they decided should take precedence over all other city sewer projects. Why is this project more important than say fixing aging sewer pipes in outer Portland that cause sewage backups and street flooding?
There are plenty of areas around the city that have suffered from years of neglect by the council. Why use it to upgrade streets that have decent sewage systems already in place? The only reason is that they get to fund a portion of the bike plan at the same time. Funding the bike plan should not be the primary reason for choosing where to spend our sewer dollars.
Reposting what I posted on the BikePortland site. It seems relevant to the conversation:
Well politically this is a disaster for the bike plan as a whole. Adams ham handed way of pushing this through caused significant rate payer anger. This looks to many Portlanders like a giveaway of their sewer dollars to the bike lobby.
Whether or not that is true is irrelevant. Perception is what is important. The next time funding for the bike plan is broached there is going to be a backlash. Rate payers now feel like they have already been forced to contribute to the plan. They are not going to be enamored with the idea of funding it further.
From here on getting people to sign off on any taxes/fees to support the plan is going to be a near impossible sell. Sam may not care because he already knows that he is a lame duck. Do you think other council members will really be willing to stake their positions on this in the future? Don’t bet on it.
Twenty million is peanuts, and it cost the council significant political capitol. I hope you think it was worth it.
Well, I hope that’s not true. But I recognize that the perception is indeed a problem. Whether that’s Sam’s fault or talk radio’s or the advocates’, I’m not sure.
The council could have decided to postpone the vote. Then they could have made a better case to the PURB and the general public which may have gone a long way to calm the waters.
Instead they chose to vote it in while dismissing any opposition as coming from “misinformed” citizens.
Even if that is true, the onus is on them to make a good case. They failed to do that and decided that the citizens with misgivings were just too stupid to understand their reasoning.
They may have not thought that explicitly, but that is how it plays.
The PURB laid the wood to the council on this.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/03/purb_slams_portland_city_counc.html
I’m sure that the council will ignore their recommendations, but this just compounds the horrible PR that the bike plan has gotten during the process.
Adams and the council could not have handled this any worse.