Mark your calendars for Monday, February 6th... The Planning Club at Portland State University and several local transportation and health-related advocacy groups have stepped up to sponsor a mayoral candidate forum on active transportation.

Three mayoral candidates — Jefferson Smith, Eileen Brady, and Charlie Hales — have already committed to be there. The event will be emceed by Lawrence Wallack, Dean of a Portland State University's College of Urban and Public Affairs and Sarah Mirk, a reporter with The Portland Mercury.

According to organizers, the forum will pose questions to the candidates on a range of transportation issues including, "public transit, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, equity considerations, funding concerns, public health and safety, and projects that impact the Portland region." (By "projects" you can bet organizers have the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) in their sights.)

Check out the very nice event poster (created by Damon Eckhoff of Episode Creative):

The Planning Club is a student-run organization within PSU's highly-renown Master's of Urban and Regional Planning (MURP) program. Local orgs behind the program include the PSU Environmental Club, 1000 Friends of Oregon, Bicycle Transportation Alliance, Coalition for a Livable Future, Community Cycling Center, OPAL Environmental Justice Oregon, Ride Connection, Upstream Public Health, and the Willamette Pedestrian Coalition.

The event is free, open to the public, and child care can be arranged. For more information contact Rebecca Hamilton with the PSU Planning Club at r [dot] hamilton [at] pdx [dot] edu.

Local Motion: Portland Mayoral Candidates Discuss Active Transportation at Portland State University
Where: Lincoln Hall (Main Auditorium), Portland State University, 1620 SW Park Avenue, Portland, OR 97201
When: Monday, February 6. Doors open at 6:15 p.m. for light refreshments. Forum from 7-8:30 p.m., followed by reception with the candidates from 8:30-9 p.m.

Authored by Rep. Betty Komp of Woodburn, the bill seeks to revise the method of calculating transportation block grants from the State School Fund distributions by allowing "district school [boards] to determine distances for which school [districts] will provide transportation. [...] Allows Superintendent of Public Instruction to impose sanctions on school district for failure to maintain safe school buses and school activity vehicles."

Because the bill deals with a block grant, any savings from bus service cuts are kept by the district and redistributed at the discretion of the Superintendent. This will likely mean that cuts to busing will in turn be reallocated to a number of district budgetary items, teachers' salaries a possibility.

On the matter of the bill, Gerik Kransky of the Bicycle Transportation Alliance had this to say: "[we] would like to see more incentives from the state for school districts to encourage walking and biking as well as more money for Safe Routes to School."

The Speaker's office has referred the bill to various committees in the House. While the bill's committee destination is unknown as of yet, by the end of the week, we'll have a better idea of where the bill is headed. Possible destinations are the House Education Committee or even the House Ways and Means (Budget) Committee.

Download a PDF of the bill, here.

In other Salem news, two bike-related bills had public hearings/work sessions today. SB 130, which would add bicycle traffic signals into Oregon's list of approved traffic control devices, gets its first shot in the House after passing the Senate 28-1 in February.

At the outset of the "listening session" in Vancouver yesterday, Congressman John Mica tried to make it clear that he wanted specifics. Unfortunately not everyone got the message. Mica, a Republican from Florida, is Chairman of the powerful House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that is tasked with re-writing our nation's transportation law. He's currently on a national tour of field hearings to solicit feedback from local transportation officials and citizens.

In his opening remarks, Mica told the overflow crowd of about 120 people (with at least twice that many waiting outside), that he didn't want to debate specific local or regional projects. "That is not the purpose of this meeting," he said, "We're not going to entertain specific project recommendations." The purpose of the meeting was only to "solicit ideas on how we can craft legislation." Mentioning specific projects was meaningless, Mica told the crowd, since Congress is "not taking earmarks." The projects instead, he said, will be set by policy, "And you have the opportunity today to help us in that regard."

Before handing the mic over to his colleagues, Mica said something that should please active transportation and transit advocates.

"We're under the sixth extension of the highway, as it's sometimes referred to, or transportation bill, which would be more accurate since it's a multi-modal policy setting bill."

Sitting around Mica were fellow members of Congress and a host of regional transportation bigwigs. Senior member of the House T & I Committee Peter DeFazio (D-OR) was there, as were other members of the committee Jamie Herrera Beutler (R-WA), and Bill Shuster (R-PA). The panel also included WashDOT rep Don Wagner, WashDOT Secretary Paula Hammond, Chandra Brown from Oregon Iron Works, Clark County Public Works Director Peter Capell, a rep from Associated General Contractors, and others.

DeFazio chats with WashDOT Sec. Paula Hammond.

Despite Mica's calls to not discuss specific projects, a large portion of the hearing was devoted to discussing the Columbia River Crossing project. Other major themes of the meeting were jobs creation, the impact of environmental regulations on project timelines, the pros and cons (thanks to Rep. DeFazio) of public private partnerships as a revenue stream, more local control of project decisions, and how to "do more with less."

To set the stage for the discussion, Congressman DeFazio painted a dire picture of the state of our nation's transportation system. 150,000 bridges need "significant" rehabilitation or replacement, 40% of pavement on our highway system needs to be reconstructed, and we're so behind on transit spending, DeFazio said, our systems are deadly:

"We have a $60 billion backlog on transit investment. It's gotten so bad we're killing people with the existing system; like in Washington D.C. on Metro where cars are so outmoded they put the ones that don't work anymore in the middle with cars on either end hoping the whole thing might work and sometimes it doesn't and people have died."

As for what's likely to be in the new transportation reauthorization, DeFazio said they're estimating $260 billion (with existing revenues) over six years. That's not nearly enough, DeFazio said, since a bi-partisan task force estimated we need $460 billion just to maintain the current system.

"We are not spending near enough money to maintain the current, deteriorating state of infrastructure in America let alone meet our future, 21st century needs."

Taking notes.

DeFazio also shared a bit of a zinger about the estimated $4 billion cost of the Columbia River Crossing. He recounted a trip to France where he and Rep. Mica got a tour of a "state of the art" bridge that was built for $800 million. When people come to his office to talk about the CRC, he said, "I say go online, look up that bridge and then tell me how it's going to cost $4 billion to go over the Columbia River!" "I'm pleased," DeFazio said, "that both our governors have recently said, let's step back from this and look at the reality of the design and other elements."

It's rare for a member of Congress — especially a ranking member of a committee that sets funding policy — to share such a clear opinion on the controversial CRC project.

Mica and DeFazio share a laugh.

About the challenge ahead, DeFazio turned to Mica and said, "John has a tremendous challenge because, how are we going to squeeze $460 billion of investment out of $260 billion in existing revenue? We're going to do things differently. I still think we need some new revenues, but that, for the moment, is off the table."

By "new revenues," DeFazio was making a veiled reference to raising the gas tax, an idea that Chairman Mica has said is "off the table."

Another member of the House T & I Committee, Congressman Bill Shuster, prefaced his remarks by saying he's "a conservative Republican" but that it's okay for the government to be involved with infrastructure investment because it's in the constitution (Article I). As for how the government should pay for infrastructure, Shuster said they're not able to raise the gas tax because, "The will of the American people is not there to support it." Instead of charging at the pump to raise revenues, Shuster proposed public-private partnerships ("getting the private sector involved") and tolling.

The first invited panelist to speak was Washington DOT Secretary Paula Hammond. Mica warned speakers to not talk from prepared statements, but she still delved right into a speech. A few minutes into her remarks, Mica actually cut her off. "Madame Secretary, let me tell you, put that away." he implored, "Tell us some specifics, what do you want to see in or out of this law?"

Hammond went on to say that her agency is smarter these days and that instead of just adding capacity when highways fill up, they are doing, "not more with less, more strategic with less." "We use every inch of pavement we have." She also spoke of managing demand through tolls and she gave a big push for transit and the importance of the Amtrak Cascades line.

Hammond wasn't the only speaker Mica cut off. Michael Ennis, Director of the Center for Transportation at the Washington Policy Center and Larry Paulson, Executive Director of the Port of Vancouver, and Clark County Director of Public Works Peter Cappel were all called out by Mica to cut to the chase and offer clear specifics about what they'd like to see in the new transportation bill.

Even though some speakers had a hard time focusing on specifics and much of the hearing was gobbled up by the CRC project, there were suggestions offered to Mica and the other members. It was even a bit refreshing to see DeFazio and Mica scribbling notes as people spoke.

There was a lot of discussion about how EPA regulations and environmental mitigation in general has become "extremely onerous" (as both Cappel and Hammond put it) on project timelines. Joe Correy, a rep from Associated General Contractors said, "We need less regulations." Cappel from Clark County Public Works said EPA regulations are, "One of the biggest challenges" he faces. Several panelists spoke to how environmental mitigation requirements result in skyrocketing project costs.

Rep. Shuster spoke of his work in the Northeast part of the country. "We faced bats, snails, fish, trees, you name it, we faced it... Everyone is concerned about the environment, but we've got to find the right balance."

The best point made about that topic came from Chandra Brown of Oregon Iron Works. Her company is fueling the made in America streetcar boom. She spoke about how her rail projects must submit environmental impact statements even though they use existing right-of-way and "They're just rails in the street!" Brown also suggested making economic development a criteria for funding transportation projects.

In the end, this hearing made almost no progress on the largest question facing legislators: revenue. Besides a few quick mentions of tolls (which are just marginally more politically feasible than gas tax increases), public-private partnerships were the only real revenue-generating policy that was discussed; but even Rep. DeFazio described in detail how even those, "Are no magic bullet."

Without a clear new revenue stream, and with a gas tax increase being a taboo subject, the future still looks very murky. DeFazio made it clear in his opening remarks when he looked to Rep. Mica and said,

"John has a tremendous challenge, because, how are we going to squeeze $460 billion of invesment of $260 billion? We're going to do things differently... I still think we need some new revenues, but that, for the moment is off the table."

Unfortunately, Rep. Mica only left a few minutes at the end of the hearing for citizen input. Only about five people got a chance to speak (read more about what wasn't heard at the hearing in our story from yesterday).

Oh, and in case you're wondering, bicycling wasn't mentioned at all. Not once.

UPDATE: Thanks to commenter Chris below... Here's the link to full video of the hearing.

At the House of Representatives’ Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure listening session held this morning in Vancouver, WA, many would-be participants never got the chance to be heard.

I happened to arrive at the committee meeting 35 minutes early, yet was eight people shy from getting in. By my estimation, only a third of those who showed up for the event actually made it into the Clark Public Utilities Community Room. Seeking a way around the barriers to entrance was met with a remarkably hostile response from Clark Public Utilities staff.

Hoping to gain admittance, Bob Mattila—a construction electrician from Brush Prairie, WA—remarked, “This is nuts, they’re going to have to accommodate us somehow. Why would they hold this in such a small room?”

Unfortunately for Mr. Mattila and many others, precious few chairs of the only 90 or so provided ever opened up. Frustrated about the lack of space, many people who didn't get in promptly left the event. Regardless, a dedicated collection of would-be attendees stuck around to vent their frustrations to whatever reporter or passerby happened upon them. I stuck to see what they had to say.

The vast majority of folks I met were from Washington and many of them were there to voice concerns that the Columbia River Crossing project was still at a standstill. The issue hot on everyone’s lips was the role light rail should play in the proposed CRC and where on/off ramps should be placed. A good number of those outside stressed that light rail would bring in more crime from Portland to Vancouver. Some believed buses were the better alternative to light rail; some even proposed building a third bridge rather than updating or reconstructing the bridge on I-5.

One gentleman with whom I spoke thought that the entirety of I-205 should be four lanes in either direction. Precious few thought that more people bicycling, carpooling, and riding public transit could reduce the congestion on the existing I-5 Bridge.

Regarding active transportation improvements, an ardent Ron Paul supporter told me that, “The Government can’t force people to live a certain way.” Standing nearby, a bicycle activist and friend, Kiel Johnson, was quick to respond, “But doesn’t a government policy that encourages expanded freeways do just that? It encourages more people to live their lives around their cars instead of more sustainable and lower-cost transportation." (Induced demand was not a concept widely accepted by many of those in attendance.)

An exception to the trend was a group called Build that Bridge!. A collection of self-described ‘concerned citizens’ from the Vancouver area, their goal is to have some quantifiable progress on the CRC project. They want a 21st century transportation solution that includes increased walking and bicycling infrastructure as well as streetcars and hopefully light rail into the Portland Metro Area. One of their members, Nick Ande, expressed his frustration that for 10 years, very little progress had been made on the CRC. While admitting that he wanted action on the CRC, he was quick to say that "putting a timetable on the CRC isn’t realistic." Another one of their supporters, Susan Saul, expressed her frustration by saying, “I’m not an engineer, I just want an agreed upon solution."

Inside the hearing, only about five citizens (one of them a former Washington State DOT Commissioner) were given the opportunity to speak. They were randomly chosen from hundreds of raffle tickets handed out before the event. Representative Jamie Herrera Beutler, the congresswoman who sits on the House T & I Committee and whose office was in charge of organizing the event, acknowledged the lack of space and regretted that not everyone got a chance to speak. "We'll do better at that next time," she said, while noting that the Committee will hold a two-week comment period open to anyone who'd like to share their ideas.

[Publisher's note: This story was written by BikePortland News Intern Patrick Croasdaile. I was inside the hearing and will publish a recap soon. — JM]

UPDATE: This bill no longer exists in the form reported below. I've heard from Rep. Cannon's office that HB 3150 will get the "gut and stuff" treatment; which means the language will be significantly altered. The new plan is to make HB 3150 a companion bill to Senate Bill 344, the bill PBOT is pushing for to get authority to lower speed limits on residential streets. I'll post clean update in separate post in a few minutes.

HB 3150, the bill that would give cities with a minimum population of 100,000 the authority to designate speed limits on state highways, is slated for a public hearing on February 25th.

This bill is being watched closely by traffic safety advocates because high-speed, state-managed highways and arterials are where the vast majority of serious injury and fatal crashes take place. Unfortunately, many neighborhoods throughout Oregon held hostage by these large streets and local jurisdictions have few tools to deal with them because the streets are owned and managed by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT).

The hearing is with the House Committee on Transportation and Economic Development and meets at the State Capitol (900 Court Street NE) in Hearing Room D at 1:00pm.

This bill is similar to a bill being worked on by PBOT that would allow cities to lower speed limits on some residential streets.

— See our full 2011 Legislative Session coverage here.

A new bill set for introduction in the Oregon legislature would establish minimum construction standards for bicycle trailers sold in Oregon. The bill is currently in draft form (PDF here) and is expected to be introduced publicly next week. Senator Floyd Prozanski (D-Eugene) is the lead sponsor of the bill and he told me this morning he's already got several others signed onto it — including Rep. Mitch Greenlick (D-Portland).

As it stands now, the bill would direct the Oregon Department of Transportation to adopt a set of rules "establishing minimum standards for bicycle trailers designed for human passengers." The bill also states that ODOT would consult the existing ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) specifications for bicycle trailers in forming their standards.

The bill would also prohibit the retail sale of trailers that don't meet the new standards. If you purchase a trailer that doesn't conform to the standards, the bill says, "the department [ODOT] may bring a civil action to recover actual damages or $1,000, whichever is greater, against the person that sold the bicycle trailer to the individual."

I spoke with Sen. Prozanski about the bill this morning.

Prozanski says the idea for the bill came after the "fallout" from Greenlick's HB 2228, which seeks to ban children under six from being carried upon or towed behind a bicycle. That bill is dead, but its introduction started some conversations in Salem about how to address the safety of children in bike trailers. Acknowledging that Greenlick's approach to this issue was flawed, Prozanski says HB 2228 inspired him to have a conversation with Burley about the safety of bicycle trailers.

Burley is based in Prozanski's district and is one of the largest sellers of bicycle trailers in the world. "They brought to my attention," Prozanski said, "that there were no standards in Oregon for trailers sold for passenger use. They explained how all their trailers meet the ASTM specifications for crash-worthiness... They said if you really want to take care of safety, you should have a standard that all trailers sold in this state need to meet."

According to Prozanski, he has learned that some retailers in Oregon sell trailers intended for carrying children that do not meet the ASTM standards. "Wouldn't you feel bad if you got a trailer from a box store for $100 and found out it wasn't even crash-worthy?"

Given that Burley is a homegrown Oregon company (although they no longer manufacture their products here like they used to), Prozanski says his bill could also come with an economic boost. "You could say this is economic development as well, because it would take this stuff [that doesn't meet safety standards] off the market."

And, just in case you're wondering, you can keep using your existing trailer. The law only targets retailers selling new products. The new law would go into effect January 2012, in order to give retailers time to sell through any existing inventory that doesn't meet the new standards.

So far, other legislators signed onto the bill include Greenlick, former Burley employee and now House Rep. Val Hoyle (D-Eugene), and Rep. Tobias Read (D-Beaverton).

As for the bill introduced by Greenlick that caused a storm around the state, Prozanski says his bill, "Gets to the intent" that Greenlick was going for. "This is a way we can improve safety for our kids, I think it's a much better approach."

A bill introduced in Salem yesterday would reduce the maximum fine for bicycle operators who fail to stop at a stop sign. Senate Bill 660 "Decreases penalty for failure to stop for stop sign to maximum fine of $40 for person operating bicycle."

The bill would amend ORS 811.265 "Failure to obey a traffic control device" — a violation that comes with a base fine of $242 whether you're on a bike or in a motor vehicle. We're still tracking down official comment from legislators, but at this point all we know is that the bill is sponsored by the Senate Committee on General Government, Consumer and Small Business Protection. Senator Chip Shields, Chair of that committee, has not yet returned our call for comment.

This isn't the only bill being considered this session that would reduce the fine amount for this violation. House Bill 2332 would establish different fines for different types of vehicles for this and a host of other traffic violations. HB 2332, which currently sits in the House Transportation and Economic Development Committee, would make failure to stop at a stop sign punishable by a maximum fine of $180 for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of 1,000 or less (bicycles), $360 for vehicles that weigh between 1,000 and 6,000 pounds, and $540 for those over 6,000 pounds.

While neither bill has specific legislators listed as sponsors, it's likely that HB 2332 is the work of House Representative Jules Bailey (D-Portland).

In the 2009 legislative session, Rep. Bailey proposed a weight-based traffic fine bill, but due to a process glitch, was unable to move it forward.

Stay tuned for more information on both of these bills.

Senate Bill 130 (text), that would add green, yellow and red bicycle signals to Oregon's list of officially accepted traffic control devices, has passed the Oregon Senate.

The ODOT-backed bill passed yesterday by a vote of 28-1. The only "no" vote came from Senator Jeff Kruse (R-Roseburg). The Oregonian reported via Twitter that Kruse decried "special perks for cyclists" as the reason for his opposition.

SB 130 got a public hearing on February 1st and the City of Portland's head traffic signal staffer Peter Koonce testified on its behalf. Why is this bill so important? Here's a snip from his testimony:

"Senate Bill 130... will codify a technique that we have used to remove confusion and improve the safety of our streets... Providing an exclusive signal display recognizes the differences between motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians, and it separates bicycles from conflicting movements."

The bill will now move to the House. Given it's resounding support in the Senate, and the fact that ODOT is behind it, our hunch is that it is very likely to pass. We'll keep you posted.

— For more on this bill, read our past coverage.

Our friends at Eugene Bicyclist noticed the bill had been pulled from the committee agenda and inquired to Rep. Schaufler's office about it. They got this reply from one of Schaufler's staffers: "I do not believe there is any momentum for this bill to move forward."

Roger Adams in Rep. Mike Schaufler's office confirmed for us this morning that the bill was pulled from the agenda, adding, "I do not know that it’ll be rescheduled." Adams did not cite a specific reason the bill was pulled.

This is likely the last we'll hear about this bill. For past coverage and feedback from the community about this law proposal, see our HB 2602 story tag.

Stay tuned for more coverage of the 2011 legislative session.

"Before we draft any legislation these meetings will provide the Committee with valuable insight and information."
— Rep. John Mica, Chair, House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee

The U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee — a key body that sets the transportation agenda on Capitol Hill — has announced a series of "field hearings" on changes that could be in store for America's surface transportation legislation. The closest location to Portland on the list is Vancouver, Washington. A field hearing has been scheduled to happen in Vancouver on February 21st.

Coming to Vancouver, WA on February 21st.

The hearings were announced yesterday by Rep. John Mica (R-FL), who is now chair of the House T & I Committee after elections in November ousted former chair James Oberstar. According to the official announcement from the Committee, the public hearing events will "help inform the Committee's drafting of a long-term reauthorization of the nation's highway, transit, and highway safety programs."

This hearing will be a golden opportunity for our region to weigh in on national transportation priorities.

In a statement, Rep. Mica added this,

"The best ideas to improve and streamline government programs often come from outside of Washington, and before we draft any legislation these meetings will provide the Committee with valuable insight and information."

Hmmm... something's missing.

Because this committee is now controlled by Republicans, the field hearings are being held in districts its Republican members represent. Vancouver is home to House T & I Committee member, Congresswoman Jamie Herrera Beutler.

With Oberstar no longer chairman, it's likely we can no longer count on this powerful committee to take bicycles seriously. Judging from the tone from Republicans so far, if bikeways are to be considered for significant federal investment, Rep. Mica and other committee members will need to hear loud and clear support for them.

Final details of the event (time and place) have yet to be determined, but Herrera's office confirmed the 2/21 date today. I'll update this story and will share final details via Twitter once they're announced. For more on the national transportation landscape, follow Streetsblog Capitol Hill.