Support BikePortland

Metro proposal rejects Safe Routes to School, spends more on freight routes

Posted by on March 31st, 2016 at 10:53 am

A Safe Routes to School event in 2010. The Metro regional government is proposing to start supporting the program in suburban schools, but not to increase funding for accompanying street improvements near those schools.
(Photo: J.Maus/BikePortland)

A two-year campaign for regional funding of better biking and walking near schools, backed by the Bicycle Transportation Alliance and other advocacy groups, is in tatters.

“We got left on the cutting room floor.”
— Gerik Kransky, Bicycle Transportation Alliance

Though the most recent federal transportation bill sent $16 million of new flexible money to regional government Metro, Bicycle Transportation Alliance Advocacy Director Gerik Kransky said a Metro proposal circulated last Friday would dedicate none of that to the “Safe Routes” infrastructure program proposed by the BTA.

The organization had organized 3,500 residents to send postcards and emails to Metro’s elected officials in its support.

Among many attempts to demonstrate support, the coalition organized and videoed an evening meeting in East Portland where one person after another testified in five languages that they feared to walk on the streets near their homes.

Metro’s proposal might even increase the amount of money going to freight-related projects. That’s even though five of Metro’s seven elected councilors told BikePortland earlier this month that they would probably not support slicing off more of this program for motor vehicle travel when the state and region already get hundreds of millions of dollars each year for that purpose.

“These are the only sort of flexible dollars that we have in the region,” Kransky said Wednesday. “This is the wrong place to go for those new freight projects.”

build-funding-timeline

Current spending vastly favors highway widening and freight projects (black line) over biking and walking projects (green line).

At recent spending rates, the region’s active transportation network won’t be built until the year 2209. The region’s current road plans would be finished by 2057, and its mass transit plans by 2040.

Metro council could decide to veto proposal

The proposal circulated Friday could send up to $12.5 million of flexible dollars to freight projects, compared with $9.23 million if the current freight program were simply adjusted for inflation.

dirksen

JPACT Chair Craig Dirksen.
(Photo: J. Maus/BikePortland)

How could this happen even though every Metro councilor we spoke with a few weeks ago said they would almost certainly oppose dedicating a larger share of flexible money to freight?

In part, the answer is that the Metro council itself doesn’t have direct control over federal transportation spending. Instead that money is allocated by a 17-member Metro committee called JPACT, the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation, which is made up mostly of elected officials from local governments.

But the Metro council does have one bit of control over JPACT: it could vote to veto the JPACT decision and send it back for revision.

Advertisement

That almost never happens. Craig Dirksen, the Metro councilor who chairs JPACT (and casts the deciding vote there in the event of a tie) told us he’d be “very surprised” if the council were to override JPACT on this issue.

“The way we like to do business is we have conversations with one another and we come to consensus before we vote, so that everybody can be satisfied with what comes out of the discussion,” Dirksen said.

In other words, Metro — the only elected regional government in the country — strives to be a no-drama zone.

All the sitting Metro councilors, with the possible exception of President Tom Hughes, could be described as progressives on transportation issues. Four of the seven (Sam Chase, Carlotta Colette, Kathryn Harrington and Bob Stacey) tend to strongly support infrastructure that reduces the region’s auto dependence. But the agency’s culture of consensus (and the theoretical threat of a suburban revolt against the agency) means that officials who see ever-expanding auto infrastructure as essential to the regional economy have substantial influence, too.

The structure of JPACT also gives more influence to people who live in less populated areas. Multnomah County gets one JPACT vote for its 775,000 residents; Clackamas County gets one vote for its 395,000.

Metro vote set for April 21

rff chart

Under the proposal, new money (the red band above) would be split mostly between transit and freight projects.

The Bicycle Transportation Alliance, whose campaign for Safe Routes has been underwritten in part by the American Heart Association, does seem to have scored one much smaller victory: up to $2.1 million in new Metro support for Safe Routes programming in schools, enough to create walking and biking education and encouragement programs around the region like those the BTA currently provides in Portland schools.

Kransky said the BTA is glad to have that in the proposal, but described it as a small silver lining. The For Every Kid Coalition (led by the BTA along with Upstream Public Health, the Safe Routes to School National Partnership, Oregon Walks, OPAL Environmental Justice Oregon, the Asian Pacific-American Network of Oregon and the Community Cycling Center) had asked Metro for $15 million for Safe Routes infrastructure.

“We got left on the cutting room floor,” he said.

There’s still a possibility that Metro could de-fund its other active transportation priorities in the coming years in order to guarantee projects near schools. And it could guarantee that its upcoming transit projects include lots of walking and biking projects that help people reach transit stations.

But neither of those options would meaningfully increase the amount being spent on walking or biking — even as the region considers tying up some of its scarce flexible funds so it can take out long-term loans that would increase the amount it spends on motor vehicles.

The JPACT vote is April 21. The For Every Kid Coalition is pushing a last-ditch effort on social media to block the proposed increase in freight funding.

— Michael Andersen, (503) 333-7824 – michael@bikeportland.org

BikePortland can’t survive without subscribers. It’s just $10 per month and you can sign up in a few minutes.

Correction 1:40 pm: An earlier version of this post said $17.5 million in new flexible funds will be available from the federal government. It’s more like $16 million.

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Also, if you comment frequently, please consider holding your thoughts so that others can step forward. Thank you — Jonathan

31
Leave a Reply

avatar
13 Comment threads
18 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
25 Comment authors
WDMike Sandersresopmokrachel bDavid Hampsten, now in Greensboro NC Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Adam
Subscriber

How much more is going to transit? Are Metro’s transit funds used for operations or capital projects?

Bob
Guest
Bob

I don’t think Metro’s money can be spent on transit operations. Primarily it goes toward planning like SW Corridor and Powell-Division.

David Hampsten, now in Greensboro NC
Guest
David Hampsten, now in Greensboro NC

By Federal law, through the Federal Transit Administration, a division of the US DOT, 83% of transit funds are spent on capital projects, including vehicles; 15% on maintenance and operations; and 2% on security. Most of TriMet’s operations funding comes from the payroll tax and farebox revenue.

bikeninja
Guest
bikeninja

I still don’t understand what spending money on freight routes means. Are these special streets that are designated as freight routes so they get extra money for what? More lanes? Thicker Pavement, flattening out the curbs so trucks can drive over them easier when turning? Or is it money to repair cracks in the asphalt caused by trucks? Or is it money to pay for picking up all the discarded retread casings the litter the highways when they fly off trucks.

Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor)
Admin

“freight projects” is just a new, more politically palatable way to talk about highway and freeway widening. Just like they use “Safety projects.” Don’t be fooled. look at the projects and follow the money.

Adam
Subscriber

How about as a freight project, we implement congestion pricing on the highways for private automobiles, freeing up space for freight?

Eric Leifsdad
Guest
Eric Leifsdad

Toll the freight and pass the costs to the consumers. I don’t need to pay for dragging other people’s geegaws from china to the landfill.

WD
Guest
WD

Follow the money, indeed. The only “vitcory” “for bicycling” that the BTA scored just happened to be the tiny bit of funding that they, themselves, will probably benefit from. Not surprising.

Mike Sanders
Guest
Mike Sanders

Freight takes precedence. It’s a fiction these days, but Metro says that the fiction must be considered factual. Bikes and those on foot go to the back of the line…again. How do we convince the system that the people matter? This is so illogical that even Mr. Spock would find it hard to understand the reasoning for this.

Steve
Guest
Steve

Remember how the councilors vote when they are up for re-election.

Mike Quigley
Guest
Mike Quigley

Great idea, but it seldom works. They always seem to get re-elected no matter how bad they are.

yashardonnay
Guest
yashardonnay

We need to all get on our phones and computers to let our Metro representatives know how we feel. They need to hear from us directly.

http://www.oregonmetro.gov/about-metro/metro-council/find-your-councilor

rick
Guest
rick

shameful

Steve Scarich
Guest
Steve Scarich

Can anyone tell me how many kids actually end up riding to school, after their Safe Ride experience? Does anyone actually keep track, or is it more of a ‘feel good’ program?

Safe Routes PNW
Guest

A school that implements a comprehensive Safe Routes to School initiative with engineering improvements plus education and encouragement would result in a 43 percent increase in walking and bicycling rates (over five years). [source: http://saferoutespartnership.org/blog/it%E2%80%99s-official-safe-routes-school-proven-work%5D

But that’s based on the actual implementation of engineering improvements.

B. Carfree
Guest
B. Carfree

Budgets are priorities. Look at how we prioritize healthy transportation decisions by our young people. Is it any wonder that over half of all adults are now either diabetic or pre-diabetic?

El Biciclero
Guest
El Biciclero

But diabetes treatment is big biz…

Tom Hardy
Guest
Tom Hardy

Yes! many BILLIONS with the FDA blocking any cures.

Matthew B
Guest
Matthew B

BNSF and Union Pacific have to pay to maintain their tracks and rights of way, why are we subsidizing truck freight? They should pay for access to the roads. Sure the cost would be passed on to the ultimate consumer, but frankly I’d rather pay a little more for my consumption goods and less on taxes for roads. It would also level the playing field between road and rail freight.

resopmok
Guest
resopmok

It would also make local production more competitive, bolstering the local economy instead of putting out tax money directly into the pockets of national corporations.

RH
Guest
RH

I thought the 10 cent gas tax would pay for the Safe Routes to School. Portland Tribune article from today says “That is expected to raise $64 million over four years, with $28 million going to safety projects. Of that amount, $16.9 million will support Vision Zero projects and the rest is for Safe Routes to School and Neighborhood Greenway projects. “

nuovorecord
Guest
nuovorecord

Different money, and only funds programs in the city of Portland.

Carrie
Guest
Carrie

10 year old killed in Gresham, on “accident “. So of course we spent money on getting trucks places, instead of getting kids places out of the way of the trucks. This is one of the saddest articles I’ve read on BP in a long time 🙁

rachel b
Guest
rachel b

Jonathan, didn’t you just report on a huge (was it $167M?) unexpected (secret) windfall ODOT received from the federal govt? And that they’d decided (secretly) to use most of it on freight? If this is the case, why would Metro or anyone being throwing more money at freight?

Mike Sanders
Guest
Mike Sanders

Simple. The Feds say that freight goes first. By this same reasoning, you can’t put bike lanes on Powell / US 26 because “it’s the main highway to Madras,” as somebody from ODOT said last year. Therefore, a Safe Route to School that crosses a designated freight corridor must give way to freight when funding and routing decisions are made. US 30A / Lombard is the best example of a designated freight corridor. ODOT doesn’t want bikes there because the Federal policy says they can’t.