Five myths and a fact about the gas tax on Tuesday’s ballot

Posted by on May 13th, 2016 at 3:32 pm

SW Barbur Boulevard at Capitol Highway. The city’s proposed gas tax would add a sidewalk to Capitol Highway, connecting to Barbur Transit Center. Most Portlanders like sidewalks, so the oil industry prefers to refer to them as “other things.”
(Photo: M.Andersen/BikePortland)

Despite endorsements from big business, small business, every significant mayoral candidate and seemingly every civic or nonprofit organization in town, two major institutions oppose the gas tax on Portlanders’ ballots Tuesday: the oil industry and the Oregonian editorial page.

Last week, a poll showed the measure with a narrow lead. The oil industry responded Wednesday with their latest mailer (the “no” campaign has raised $165,000 so far, half of it from out of state) claiming that a tax on their product would be the worst idea ever.

But even amid fearmongering campaigns like these (do you suppose a growing city might have any needs in addition to road repair?), there are also a lot of honest misconceptions going around about this gas tax.

So, in the knowledge that something like one third of Oregonians don’t fill out their ballots until the last few days, here’s a quick guide to some myths (and one truth) about the gas tax that you might find helpful in discussing it with friends and family.

1) The gas tax would burden poor people

No, it wouldn’t. The 10-cent-per-gallon tax would raise $16 million per year, which comes to $5.18 per month per Portland household. (Yes, that’s per household, not per person or per adult. It also assumes that 100 percent of the cost would be passed to residents, which it wouldn’t.)

There are definitely households in Portland for whom $5.18 a month would be a significant burden. These households do not own cars.

2) 44 percent of the gas tax revenues would go to improving walking, biking and public transit access

Absolutely true! This is a very good reason to support the tax. It would pay for much-needed projects such as sidewalks on Capitol Highway, neighborhood greenways in East Portland, separated bike lanes downtown and crosswalk markings all over the place.

Portlanders pay $3,270 per household per year just to fuel and maintain their motor vehicles, let alone purchase and store them. This, not a 10-cent gas tax, is a huge burden on poor people. You may have also heard that it’s having some bad effects on the planet. You may have also noticed that local streets and freeways have become crowded with people driving their cars.

There is only one way to change this situation while growing economically: reducing driving. The changes to our streets that this gas tax would fund are a benefit for people who would like to use biking and public transit to get around but don’t currently find it safe, comfortable or convenient to do so and are therefore using their cars instead.

If you hate congestion, you should vote for the gas tax.

3) Spending money on anything except pavement maintenance is fiscally irresponsible

False.

Yes, Portland has a huge pavement maintenance problem and every dollar spent on pavement maintenance saves us $10 in the future. This is another very good reason to support this tax.

But pavement maintenance is not the only thing in the economy that has a return on investment. Increasing walking, biking and public transit does that too — in fact, it may have an even higher economic return than pavement maintenance.

Portland’s economy is doing well in part because our past investments in walking, biking and public transit are delivering economic returns.

Just about every city in the United States that paved its roads 100 years ago is facing a big problem as deferred maintenance comes due. Portland is actually doing better than many, because compared to most cities, our economy is going gangbusters. Why has Portland been adding jobs so fast that we can almost shrug off last month’s massive Intel layoffs? Why are public budgets gushing cash, giving us money we’re rapidly reinvesting in things like schools and bus service and affordable housing? In large part because 40 years of smart growth have turned Portland into a really nice place where people are really excited about living and working.

Chris Anderson, a local entrepreneur and walking-biking advocate, phrases it in an interesting way: walking and biking improvements in a city are self-financing, because every dollar invested delivers economic returns in reduced collisions, pollution, travel costs and so on, which can then be reinvested in more improvements.

We don’t know if that’s true, but it is definitely not true that the only device for making money is a steamroller. When The Oregonian editorial page and the oil industry use this as an excuse to oppose a gas tax, that’s the argument they’re trying to make.

Advertisement

4) A local gas tax is less efficient than a state gas tax

Theoretically, this would be true … if only we could count on our state to use the money wisely. Sadly, we can’t, so this is false.

We know exactly what the state government would like to spend gas tax money on, because it attempted to pass such a tax last year: widening freeways.

More lanes for suburban freeways are a great way to keep fuel taxes flowing indefinitely. They are not a good way to solve anyone’s problems for more than a few years.

This city-level tax would go toward two things: first, maintaining pavement we already have; second, reducing our local economy’s dependence on cars and therefore on this tax. Win win.

5) The gas tax excludes diesel, so trucks are getting off free

Nope. The city council unanimously approved a special trucking tax on Wednesday, and the freight industry is furious about it.

6) People who bike won’t have to pay the gas tax

False. 85 percent of Portlanders who bike to work also own cars. (For the record, so do 78 percent of BikePortland readers.) Bike users will pay every time they fuel up just like everyone else. The difference is that, if the gas tax passes, roads will be better and more people will choose to use bikes and transit. That’ll let those people fuel up less often — and people who still use cars won’t have to sit in traffic behind them.

If your household has to pay $5.18 a month for something, it may as well be that.

Ballots are due to ballot drop box sites 8 p.m. Tuesday. Obviously, BikePortland recommends a “yes” vote.

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

Our work is supported by subscribers. Please become one today.

Please support BikePortland.

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

79 Comments
  • Avatar
    Joseph Wachunas May 13, 2016 at 4:09 pm

    Completely agree! I already sent my vote in. Fingers crossed that this passes.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar

    I would’ve voted yes anyways, but after getting several of those obnoxious ads I’m voting yes specifically to spite those poor oppressed sad lobbyists. One ad I got specifically said that Portland shouldn’t be spending money on stupid things like “taking lanes away from Naito Parkway”. Well I love that they’re taking away… I mean not taking away, giving back that lane, so here’s a YES vote from me!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Adam H.
    Adam H. May 13, 2016 at 4:54 pm

    I voted against every single endorsement of the Oregonian, and proud of it!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    andy May 13, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    If the tax is only on gasoline and the city passed a tax for diesel trucks I can only assume I will pay no additional tax filling up our diesel car. I may be a small minority but I wish the tax was $2.00 a gallon instead of a measly $0.10.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Terry D-M May 13, 2016 at 7:25 pm

      The gas tax includes diesel as well. The diesel tax referred to above is for trucks over 22,000 pounds which fuel up in very specific locations and pay weight- mile taxes. Hence, it had to be handled differently.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Paul Z May 15, 2016 at 8:56 pm

        The gas tax does not include diesel. The added fee for trucks over 26,000 # is not directly fuel-based, according to my understanding, but rather based on the trucks being operated within Portland. Bureaucracy at its finest!

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    JeffS May 13, 2016 at 5:45 pm

    There’s still a big gap in the vehicles being taxes. Why is everyone pretending they don’t see it and that Novick solved everything?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Michael Andersen (News Editor)
      Michael Andersen (News Editor) May 13, 2016 at 7:08 pm

      Seems to me that there are lots of little gaps, because no tax is perfect. But which gap are you referring to?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        JeffS May 14, 2016 at 4:46 pm

        Diesel vehicles under 22000lbs.

        They’re not even comparable taxes. Sure, gas tax proponents will compare them now, but five years from now they won’t be because they’re entirely different. Even the fact that ones goes to vote and the other is mandated by the council works against them.

        I voted for the gas tax, but I’m unhappy with it, and even more disappointed with the way the business tax was handled.

        Then again, I don’t personally need or want any new construction, repaving, or reconfiguration by the PDOT. Motorists, the people who will benefit the most from the tax, are the ones the most opposed to it.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Terry D-M May 13, 2016 at 7:26 pm

      This fuel tax is only a small band aid.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Lora May 13, 2016 at 7:39 pm

    Statement #1 “These households do not own cars” is not true, and not backed up by available data. Poor people own cars. Poor people rely on cars for transportation and running errands. Poor people are less likely to live in an area well-served by public transit, poor people work at a job outside the city center, with less access to transit for the destination of their commute.

    I would love to vote for a progressive, fair tax that would improve infrastructure, but the gas tax isn’t it.

    Here’s the data you should be looking at, before you make claims that poor people don’t own cars:

    “95 percent of American households own a car, and most Americans get to work by car (85 percent).”
    http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/pamphlet/2012/05/201205165791.html#ixzz48as75ear

    “The typical poor household, as defined by the government, has a car and air conditioning, two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR.”
    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

    “Nationwide, about 88 percent of persons 15 years or older are reported as drivers (table A-1). Only 8 percent of households report not having a vehicle available for regular use (table A-4). Not surprisingly, the dominant mode of transportation for both daily and long-distance travel is by personal vehicle. The majority of daily trips, 87 percent, were taken by personal vehicle (table A-10).”
    http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/html/executive_summary.html

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Dan A May 13, 2016 at 8:22 pm

      What’s a VCR?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Truth Sayer May 13, 2016 at 9:42 pm

      Please don’t confuse BP readers with facts.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        lop May 14, 2016 at 3:18 pm

        Have anything that’s not 20 years old and that accounts for the correlation between income and household size?

        Check the bottom chart in your link, or BLS CE surveys. Gasoline costs are a larger share of income at the bottom than at the top.

        http://www.bls.gov/cex/22015/midyear/income.pdf

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Michael Andersen (News Editor)
      Michael Andersen (News Editor) May 14, 2016 at 5:25 pm

      Lora, I appreciate your perspective and argument.

      First of all, your numbers are national. Car ownership and usage among households in poverty are much lower in a city like Portland because the overwhelming majority of car-owning poor Americans live in suburbs, exurbs, small towns and rural areas.

      I assume you didn’t offer any local statistics on this question of poverty and car use because you couldn’t find any. I haven’t been able to either. So let’s resort to anecdote. I’d love for you to write a little about someone you know here in Portland whose household owns a car but whose life would be changed if the household had to pay another $5 a month to fuel and maintain it on top of the $2,000 or whatever that they are already paying per year. I know quite a few people in Portland who would struggle for another $5 a month, but not a single one of them owns a car. Maybe that’s just me, but I suspect it’s because it is possible to get by without a car, even in the outer parts of Portland. And if you are that poor you are for damn sure not going to have a car unless you can’t do without one. At least in my observation.

      Do you also oppose state and federal gas taxes? Those are far worse for the many poor Oregonians and Americans who own cars, because they go so overwhelmingly to subsidizing exclusionary suburban development patterns by constructing freeways and expressways.

      Unlike those gas taxes, a large share of the benefits of this one will go toward reducing the need to own a car. No, this tax is not progressive in its collection — our coverage has been clear about that. But its benefits are distributed progressively.

      Personally, I am interested in low-car transportation primarily because it’s such an effective antipoverty tool. Investments in non-car transportation are the only way we will help reduce the burden of car ownership on poor people. This is not a perfect way to do that, but no tax is perfect.

      I don’t support every tax. This one is pretty good as they go.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        9watts May 14, 2016 at 5:31 pm

        9watts
        Catherine Lutz has written eloquently about the ways automobility hurts the poor disproportionately. Might be a good read for our friend Dan Saltzman. Carjacked is her book; she also has articles about this, including this one which I’ve mentioned here before:
        Catherine Lutz. 2014. “The U.S. car colossus and the production of inequality.” AMERICAN ETHNOLOGIST, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 232–245.
        from the abstract:
        “I ask how the car-dependent mobility system of the United States not only reflects but also intensively generates the inequalities that characterize U.S. society. I propose that “compulsory consumption” and the automobile’s centrality to the current regime of accumulation can help account for this.”
        and from the article itself:
        “This material allows insight into the several significant pathways by which the car produces or amplifies inequality in the United States and, potentially, elsewhere. I argue that the car system not only reflects inequality but also actively produces it, massively redistributing wealth, status, well-being, and the means to mobility and its power. While declining wages, rising corporate control of the state, and rising costs of higher education and health care are also crucial to these redistributions, understanding the car system’s special and deeply consequential inequality-producing processes is key to any attempt to solve a number of problems. Prominent among the problems that the U.S. car system exacerbates are inequality of job access, rising wealth inequality, and environmental degradation and its unequal health effects.”
        Recommended 10

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Made up facts May 15, 2016 at 4:13 pm

        So a good starting point in this discussion is how many households in own cars in Portland which is about 85% http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2014/01/seatle_still_beating_portland.html

        If you subtract the roughly 15% of Portland households that don’t own a car from the lowest 20% of households by income you still get roughly 5% of the lowest earning households in Portland being impacted by the proposed gas tax. That is significantly higher than your made up assertion.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Made up facts May 16, 2016 at 12:37 pm

          “I assume you didn’t offer any local statistics on this question of poverty and car use because you couldn’t find any. I haven’t been able to either. ”

          You now have an important stat so why is this:

          “There are definitely households in Portland for whom $5.18 a month would be a significant burden. These households do not own cars.”

          still up?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Made up facts May 16, 2016 at 12:41 pm

          Another important stat comes from this article: bikeportland.org/2016/01/25/low-income-households-drive-much-less-than-high-income-households-173261

          lower income earners say a higher percentage of their income towards gas prices than higher income groups. (See bottom of the page graph in the update portion)

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        q May 15, 2016 at 9:09 pm

        Michael–your response makes a lot of good points. It makes me wish that this wasn’t a vote to tack on $5/month to the typical Portland driver’s gas taxes, but instead a vote to take that same amount out of the state’s gas tax revenue and dedicate it to local transportation improvements instead of building freeways. That’s a tax a lot of Portland drivers would support.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Jim Labbe
          Jim Labbe May 16, 2016 at 7:12 am

          But that is not a tax the City Council has the authority to propose.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Jim Labbe
            Jim Labbe May 16, 2016 at 7:18 am

            Or I should say, that is not a tax the city council or Portland voters have the authority to establish.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              q May 16, 2016 at 9:32 am

              I think everyone knows that.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Lora May 16, 2016 at 6:46 pm

        Michael,
        if you don’t have facts, how can you write an argument stating it as fact? eg, ” These households do not own cars.”

        If you want to right the article from an anecdotal perspective, that’s your prerogative, but that is just as much a myth as the ones you are trying to refute. Because it’s a classist statement for someone to say … If you own a X, then you’re not poor.

        Poor people own cars, poor people in Portland own cars. Yes, those are national numbers, but yes, they absolutely apply in Portland. When you look at rental housing costs per neighborhood vs access to transit by neighborhood, that’s a big step towards understanding that affordable housing for the working poor does not exist in neighborhoods with the best access to transit. So yes, poor people in Portland own cars.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Ted Timmons (Contributor) May 21, 2016 at 4:30 pm

          The premise had two legs: poor own cars at a lower rate, and (for those who have a car), $5 doesn’t change their life:

          “whose life would be changed if the household had to pay another $5 a month to fuel and maintain it on top of the $2,000 or whatever that they are already paying per year”

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      GlowBoy May 18, 2016 at 8:26 am

      You’re trying to put together an argument using national data on car usage and ownership?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Mossby Pomegranate May 13, 2016 at 8:38 pm

    Burdening only Portland residents while people from surrounding counties pay nothing (while causing our traffic problems) is just plain wrong. This is like that terrible Sellwood project.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      meh May 16, 2016 at 7:20 am

      You own it you maintain it. The Sellwood debacle shows exactly what happens when you fail to maintain your infrastructure and funnel your funds into pet projects. Let’s make everyone else pay for our poor planning and poor money management.

      Didn’t the city just find $27M in their budget that wasn’t used? Didn’t they find something like $17MN last year? It just shows their inability to manage our money properly when every year there’s a big surprise that there is unspent monies.

      Rather than fix the true budget problems they just do the same thing year after year, reach into our pockets for more.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Lester Burnham May 16, 2016 at 8:01 am

        I only wish BP would highlight this city’s miserable management as being the problem instead of banging the “more tax will fix it” drum.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Bjorn May 16, 2016 at 11:24 am

      The good news is that people who commute in to portland will likely not be dissuaded from buying gas in portland when they need it by such a small tax. This method clearly collects far more money from non residents who use our roads than the street fee would have, which is part of why I support it.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Joseph E May 13, 2016 at 8:45 pm

    I appreciate what Bikeportland is trying to do with this article. But I suggest that repeating myths, even when fact-checking them, is very dangerous. Psychology experiments have shown that people have trouble remembering the truth when myths are listed; often they remember the myth, rather than the rebuttal.
    In the future, it would be better to list 5 truths about the local gas tax. You could still keep the “myths” part in the headline if that helps get clicks, but write the truth in all the numbered points, so that is the bold text. It’s not good to emphasize the myths in big letters.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Michael Andersen (News Editor)
      Michael Andersen (News Editor) May 14, 2016 at 5:32 pm

      Yes, we thought about that too, and we played with some other ways to structure this article. In the end we went with this because, at least as I understand the science, the fact/myth confusion effect you describe functions as a gradual decay — saying “X is a myth” is useful in the short term but harmful in the longer term.

      Four days before a very important vote whose outcome will be felt for at least 10 years is almost as short term as something gets. For the moment, we decided it was best to address the opposing talking points head on. Hopefully that was the right call.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Truth Sayer May 13, 2016 at 9:44 pm

    This tax will accomplish nothing. It will be squandered on useless crap like 90% of all taxes.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Dan A May 14, 2016 at 6:51 am

      Define “useless crap”.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        soren May 14, 2016 at 2:38 pm

        Stuff that benefits *those* people…

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Dan A May 16, 2016 at 1:57 pm

        Since you haven’t responded, I’ll start the list with this:

        1. your post

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    SE May 13, 2016 at 10:17 pm

    >> 85 percent of Portlanders who bike to work also own cars. (For the record, so do 78 percent of BikePortland readers.)

    78 percent ???? not 77 or 79 ? I don’t remember any polling to substantiate those numbers (nor many of the percentages being presented as fact). If you don’t show sources, then it didn’t happen.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Michael Andersen (News Editor)
      Michael Andersen (News Editor) May 14, 2016 at 5:01 pm

      It was a voluntary internal web survey of 1,374 readers. I don’t think Jonathan has posted the results externally, so I couldn’t link to them.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    drew May 14, 2016 at 7:12 am

    Every mile driven is heavily subsidized by our taxes. Every mile biked or walked saves money.
    Using the argument that “bicyclists drive too” plays into the illusion that drivers pay their way.
    The oil industry is pleased that this illusion (created in part by them) remains widespread.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    9watts May 14, 2016 at 7:50 am

    Great article, BP. Thank you.

    I will quibble, slightly, with your No. 6 above, as I did when the BTA tried this angle and Joe Rose blew it up, and ODOT made hay, and it all collapsed in a miserable heap – http://bikeportland.org/2013/11/12/do-bikes-get-a-free-ride-advocates-infographic-shows-why-not-96950

    You wrote:
    “False. 85 percent of Portlanders who bike to work also own cars.[…] Bike users will pay every time they fuel up just like everyone else.”

    This is what I wrote back then in response to the prominent positioning of the 89% of Oregon residents with bikes also own cars… in the BTA’s infographic:
    The way the above graphic presents this info (circle upper left) implies that those of us who don’t *also* own a car aren’t paying our share. The accompanying text ‘still not convinced’ sets up a hierarchy within the argument that is simply wrong. The fact that most who bike also pay gas taxes may be statistically true (I’m not doubting this), but **it is not relevant**. If Oregon citizens were neatly divided into mono-modal camps, consisting of those who drive cars exclusively, and those who bike exclusively, the larger point the BTA is trying to make would be the same: autodom costs vast sums; biking hardly any. gas taxes don’t cover these costs. Ergo those who rant about ‘paying our fare share need to brush up on the facts and shut up.
    http://bikeportland.org/2013/11/12/do-bikes-get-a-free-ride-advocates-infographic-shows-why-not-96950#comment-4478429

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      9watts May 14, 2016 at 7:52 am

      – Why the 89% [you used 85% above] figure is irrelevant and distracting –

      Because the mistaken view the BTA graphic and accompanying campaign are ostensibly responding to is that gas taxes and those who pay them are responsible for paying (more than) their fair share, of contributing disproportionately to road maintenance, etc. As such, emphasizing that most people who bike are really more like you, the subsidizing driver, than you realized only reinforces this mistaken notion – that somehow gas taxes and car ownership and use are the most important thing to know about road financing. They are not.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Michael Andersen (News Editor)
        Michael Andersen (News Editor) May 14, 2016 at 5:06 pm

        All fair points, IMO.

        The 85%/89% discrepancy comes from the fact that the BTA infographic referred to all Oregonians and our article refers only to Portlanders. (The link to the Census data works, I hope?)

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Bay Area Rider May 15, 2016 at 5:44 am

      Probably a better fact to point to is that per information on the Tax Foundation web site in Oregon only 55% of the costs of building and maintaining the roadways comes from license fees, registration fees, gas taxes and tolls. The other 45% of the money needed for the roads comes from general taxes which everyone pays no matter their preferred mode of transportation. Oregon is ranked 15th in terms of the %of the money needed for roads actually coming from gas taxes, license fees, registration and tolls. http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-user-fees-pay-only-half-state-local-road-spending

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Mike May 14, 2016 at 9:14 am

    From what I’ve read and heard, any tax or fee on motor vehicles can only be used on roads and highways. While I think this is total BS, it does seem to prevent using that money on anything that reduces car use.

    Since the voters (decades ago) and the Court have decided that we can’t use fees on cars for other things that are still transportation related, then we should enact the flip side of that coin. No money can be spent on roads that does not come from user fees. I’d like to see how much money would be available for highway expansion and road widening when they have to rely on a funding source that isn’t even enough for maintenance of our current system.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      David Hampsten, now in Greensboro NC May 14, 2016 at 1:50 pm

      It has to be in the public right of way and for surface infrastructure, so it excludes sewers, law enforcement, fire protection, housing, transit drivers, railroads, right-of-way acquisition, and multi-use paths outside the right of way, such as the Springwater, etc, but it does allow for use on protected bike lanes, on multi-use paths within the right of way (205, 84, Marine Drive), sidewalks, cycletracks, greenways/bikeways, transit vehicles, BRT, freeways, bridges, etc.

      The list of projects that PBOT has provided is “advisory” only; it can be changed, and likely will be changed, when the next mayor is elected.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    q May 14, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    Good article with good points, but I think the “myths” miss a central reason why many (not all) people will vote against it–that the things the tax would fund ARE important, so they should be being funded out of money the City already has.

    It’s the same reason many people vote against levies for schools, libraries, park maintenance, police and fire, etc. It’s not that people don’t think these are important or worth paying for. It’s that they feel the City is manipulating voters, by spending money on expensive, non-essential things–without ever allowing people to vote on whether they want those–then turning around and asking for special funding for the basic services.

    So when these voters vote against this tax, it’s not a vote against sidewalks, it’s a vote against things like expensive streetcars or light rail projects that they were never given a chance to vote on, and that they feel sucked all the money up that could have easily funded sidewalks, schools, park maintenance, and all kinds of other popular, essential services. These voters want an end to this game.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Eric Leifsdad May 14, 2016 at 10:31 pm

      Fair enough assessment, but a $10.00/gal petroleum tax just to fund a plan to throw the money in a hole and burn it would be a net gain for Portland.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        q May 15, 2016 at 4:16 pm

        And an even bigger gain for every gas station in Vancouver, Beaverton, Gresham…

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Eric Leifsdad May 15, 2016 at 9:04 pm

          Maybe for a bit. They’ll catch up soon enough.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            Random May 16, 2016 at 9:46 am

            “Maybe for a bit. They’ll catch up soon enough.”

            LOL. Multnomah County has a three cent gas tax, Washington County has one cent, and Clackamas County has no gas tax at all (some cities in Clackamas County have a local gas tax).

            With Portland’s ten cent tax, the combined City/County gas tax goes to thirteen cents – get back to me when Washington County raises its gas tax by a factor of thirteen.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              q May 16, 2016 at 12:27 pm

              Actually, the person you quoted was talking about a “$10.00/gal petroleum tax just to fund a plan to throw the money in a hole and burn it”. So if you’re right about Washington County’s tax being one cent, a tax similar to Portland’s WOULD raise it by a factor of 13 (which I agree is significant) but one like he’s proposing would raise it by a factor of 10,000. And that’s assuming he’d be right that voters elsewhere would rush to pass a $10/gallon plan to throw money in a hole and burn it.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        meh May 16, 2016 at 7:25 am

        This will not collect anywhere near what the estimate. They use current gas sales as a base, but neglect the fact the anyone who drives outside the city to work will buy cheaper gas outside Portland. Those who live on the periphery will drive a mile outside city limits to buy gas. Yes it’s only 10¢ a gallon, but it sure adds up when you fill up once a week with 20 gallons, that works out to over $104 a year.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Eric Leifsdad May 16, 2016 at 9:24 am

          So, as much as many people spend on their tv in a month?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            meh May 16, 2016 at 9:59 am

            And less than many pay for their TV in a month. So what does that have to do with it. There are many who rely on a car for transportation where that $100 is something they can’t afford.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              Eric Leifsdad May 17, 2016 at 1:06 am

              in a year? It’s a lucky thing that extra tax on fuel can easily be saved by paying attention and driving less aggressively. Just don’t stomp on the spendy noisy pedal on the way downhill to every red light?

              Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          paikiala May 16, 2016 at 9:42 am

          Meh,
          is gas that much cheaper in Portland now that a huge shift will occur? In my experience, gas in Washington is cheaper, so why would those commuters be buying gas here in the first place? I’ve frequently found gas outside Portland already lower, so I don’t see any big shift occurring.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            meh May 16, 2016 at 9:58 am

            No it’s not cheaper in Portland, but anything that makes it more expensive makes it such that people will change their habits. Right now it’s not worth it to some people to drive a couple of miles outside the city, but raise the price and it may just go past that pain point.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          GlowBoy May 18, 2016 at 8:28 am

          Gas is already cheaper outside Portland (due in large part to oil distributors’ zone pricing, which is probably illegal but persists anyway), yet Portland gas stations stay in business.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    still riding after all that May 14, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    I voted NO on this gas-tax measure because I don’t trust the politicians and other powers-that-be to use ANY money for its stated purpose. Every dollar they get their hands on seems to disappear.

    Example 1: 190 million $$ for the Columbia River Crossing (new bridge between Portland and Vancouver) vanished, but no new bridge was built.
    Example 2: 250 million $$ – more or less – for a Cover Oregon website also vanished, but no working website ever materialized.

    When, by which I mean IF, our so-called leaders – Kitzhaber, his girlfriend, Kate Brown, Sam Adams and Charlie Hales and Steve Novick and Amanda Fritz and all the rest – demonstrate some fiscal responsibility, then MAYBE we might consider giving them more of our money to play with.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      paikiala May 16, 2016 at 9:44 am

      Still,
      You should look up the word ‘conflate’.
      You use State project examples to decry a City proposal.
      Look up ‘broad brush’ while you’re at it.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        q May 16, 2016 at 10:05 am

        paikiala–you’re right, but it hardly matters to many people. Obviously the State isn’t the City, and Parks isn’t PBOT or the library system. But when one entity is wasteful, the others will lose support. It’s all government. Those two State screw-ups are going to hurt Portland’s ability to get support for tax measures for years, unfair as that may be.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Mark smith May 15, 2016 at 12:02 am

    still riding after all that
    I voted NO on this gas-tax measure because I don’t trust the politicians and other powers-that-be to use ANY money for its stated purpose. Every dollar they get their hands on seems to disappear.
    Example 1: 190 million $$ for the Columbia River Crossing (new bridge between Portland and Vancouver) vanished, but no new bridge was built.
    Example 2: 250 million $$ – more or less – for a Cover Oregon website also vanished, but no working website ever materialized.
    When, by which I mean IF, our so-called leaders – Kitzhaber, his girlfriend, Kate Brown, Sam Adams and Charlie Hales and Steve Novick and Amanda Fritz and all the rest – demonstrate some fiscal responsibility, then MAYBE we might consider giving them more of our money to play with.
    Recommended 2

    So, you are in favor of reducing the gas tax to zero? How about property taxes? The roads must build themselves. The bike lanes must stripe themselves. Right?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      meh May 16, 2016 at 7:28 am

      But this is not money to build roads, this is money to repair the roads. You know the repairs that they have deferred for years because they were using that cash for other projects. This kind of money mismanagement is unacceptable and giving them more as a reward for screwing it up for so long certainly isn’t teaching them a lesson on fiscal responsibility.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Mike Sanders May 15, 2016 at 10:34 am

    The Oregonian suggested a few days ago that passage of this proposal would kill off any chance of getting a statewide transportation bill passed by the Legislature in Salem next year. Shoot it down in Portland, the O claims, and the odds of getting that transportation bill passed in Salem would significantly increase. This illogical argument is jawdropping to say the least. The new mailer sent out last week that the Better Naito project constitutes a wasted-funds project was also quite amazing. Their argument is that Naito must be a car-oriented street only, relegating ped / bike traffic to Waterfront Park. Their argument that the surplus must be used for fixing streets only, not for ped / bike improvements (they categorize this as “other things”) is incredibly shortsighted and illogical as well.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Made up facts May 15, 2016 at 2:26 pm

    “There are definitely households in Portland for whom $5.18 a month would be a significant burden. These households do not own cars.” That is just made up. $60 a year in discretionary income for a low income family with a car is absolutely a significant burden for some households.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Michael Andersen (News Editor)
      Michael Andersen (News Editor) May 15, 2016 at 11:42 pm

      Are you one of those people? If so, could you talk about your transportation experience?

      If not, maybe you could try talking to a bunch of people in the lowest 20 percent of Portland households by income and ask them about their transportation needs, and base your vote on what you hear from them.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Made up facts May 16, 2016 at 10:32 am

        Please see factual data above that shows that at least roughly 5% of the lowest earning households own a car. I have based by comments on talking to people who are in the lower 20 percent of households by income that is why I know you are absolutely making up facts which is horrible.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Made up facts May 16, 2016 at 12:35 pm

        I have heard Jonathan say numerous times that he was uncomfortable speaking for the bike community, if that even exists. So I am finding it very difficult that you seemingly speaking for households with incomes in the bottom 20 percentile. How can the “There are definitely households in Portland for whom $5.18 a month would be a significant burden. These households do not own cars.” lines be up when it is clearly incorrect and appear to be based on bias “anecdote”[s]?

        I really want to know that answer to that question.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Why June 1, 2016 at 11:04 pm

        I guess programs like this should now disappear http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/vip/cleanairpartners.htm

        Please stop making myths

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Ted Timmons (Contributor) June 2, 2016 at 7:19 pm

          That doesn’t prove or disprove anything. Saying “there’s DEQ assistance for low income households” could mean there is one household in Oregon that is low-income and has a car, or that 100% of low-income households have one or more cars.

          Here’s some more direct data.

          https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP_RES/docs/Reports/2008/ODOT-VMT_Fee_Impacts.pdf
          (see Table 4.1: Characteristics of households with zero vehicles, and Table 6.8: Results for vehicle use model)

          I think the following would show it, I’m too lazy to manually crunch the data right now, though.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Gary B May 16, 2016 at 10:00 am

      “I counter your made up fact with a made up fact of my own!”

      I’ll assume you’re correct, that there are individuals that own a car but will struggle to find another 5 bucks a months to fuel it. So my question is: what did those folks do when gas went up 40 cents int he last month? What did they did when it cost $4 a gallon 2 years ago?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Dan A May 16, 2016 at 1:59 pm

        They apparently went out a bought a second color television.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          JeffS(egundo) May 16, 2016 at 5:26 pm

          {reader does spit take} thanks, you made my evening…!

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Paul Z May 15, 2016 at 8:33 pm

    I don’t understand how anyone could come up with a figure of exactly $5.18/month/household when you don’t know how many cars per household, miles driven per month, not to mention MPG.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      meh May 16, 2016 at 7:31 am

      In this case they are just talking the current yearly gasoline sales by gallon, multiplying by 10¢ and dividing by the number of households. Some will pay less and some will pay more based on how much gas they buy in Portland.

      Mileage doesn’t matter because many of those folks are already buying gasoline outside of Portland.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Spiffy May 16, 2016 at 9:02 am

    “6) People who bike won’t have to pay the gas tax”

    True!

    cyclists only have to pay the gas tax when they’re drivers… their use of the street while cycling does not cost them any of the new tax…

    I’ll have to pay the tax, but only about $.30 a month due to the small amount a drive… and only when I’m driving…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Gary B May 16, 2016 at 10:03 am

    My use of a car is pretty much limited to out of town trips. Currently, I often fill up out of town because it’s more convenient (it happens to be a bit cheaper, too, but it’s more about the location).

    I’m only one voter, but mark my words: if this passes, I will make sure to fill up at my local station to the extent possible, from now on.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    DaveB May 16, 2016 at 12:45 pm

    Michael – Regarding data on car ownership of very low income It’s been a long time since I looked at census data, specifically the American Community Survey – but I would be amazed there’s not a way to get a better answer.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar