Splendid Cycles Big Sale

Election recap: Metro measure loses, Wheeler wins, and Nolan grabs Metro council seat

Posted by on November 4th, 2020 at 10:07 am

He’s back.
(Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)

The establishment had a good night last night in Portland politics and the outlook for serious transportation reform took a hit as voters opted for a shift to the center.

Metro’s $5 billion funding measure lost by 14 points, earning just 43% support. Incumbent City Commissioner Chloe Eudaly was unseated handily by newcomer Mingus Mapps, Ted Wheeler beat Sarah Iannarone by under 20,000 votes, and the race for Metro Council District 5 wasn’t even close with veteran Democrat establishment politician Mary Nolan beating policy wonk Chris Smith 62% to 37%.

Here’s a bit more about the key races we were watching…

Metro 26-218

“Yes” is brown.

Local transportation advocacy insiders spent well over three years debating and crafting a regional funding measure that would be bold enough to move the needle, yet be palatable enough to actually pass. The “Get Moving 2020” package was ultimately developed by a very large and diverse coalition of interest groups. Unfortunately it failed to generate widespread enthusiasm — with people on the right and left of the political spectrum finding reasons to vote against it. Many transportation activists were disappointed the package didn’t do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and were skeptical of spending $1 billion on a new MAX line that doesn’t do enough to discourage driving. At the same time, business interests (falsely) claimed the tax would hurt businesses already struggling due to the pandemic. Nike and Intel spent record amounts to defeat the measure.

This is a big blow to Metro Council President Lynn Peterson. In a statement last night she said she was “disappointed”. “An incredible amount of community work, over the course of years, went into shaping the projects and programs in this measure… We are not giving up on it. We need to move forward as a region. We’re going to keep growing. Safe, reliable transportation remains a regional challenge that we must address together – doing nothing is not an option.”

On Twitter last night, PBOT said work on the measure won’t be for nothing: “The project list and outreach through this effort set us up to compete well in the event of federal investment in economic stimulus.”

Advertisement

Wheeler gets second term

(Source: Multnomah County)

Iannarone is purple.

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler squeaked out a win with less than 50% of the vote, beating Sarah Iannarone by 5 points. With just over 80% of all votes tallied, Wheeler has just less than 20,000 more votes than Iannarone. Write-in candidates — a majority of which likely went to racial justice activist Teressa Raiford — received 13%, or about 46,000 votes.

Wheeler’s re-election makes him the first two-term Mayor in twenty years. He fought off months of severe criticisms over his handling of the nightly protests and an impressive grassroots campaign from Iannarone, a relative newcomer who has never held public office. Iannarone, who gets around primarily on an electric bike, is a member of the PBOT Bicycle Advisory Committee, and who enjoyed major support from biking, walking and transit activists, wasn’t able to expand her support in precincts west of the Willamette River or in outer east Portland.

Metro District 5 (N/NE Portland)

Few local leaders and policymakers are as well-liked in transportation circles as Chris Smith. He ran an inspiring campaign but in the end failed to win any precincts and garnered only 37% of the vote. Smith ran a campaign fueled by small donors and promised to make climate change his raison d’etre. “We got to run exactly the type of campaign we wanted to run,” Smith said last night during a Facebook Live campaign event. “I wanted to test the idea that climate could be a winning local issue and the second big thing was that we didn’t want to take big money to make it work.”

Mary Nolan is an experienced politician with a network of high-dollar donors. She received funding from realtor and fracked gas lobbyists, has supported freeway expansions, and said during a debate last month that it’s time to “reconsider” the urban growth boundary.

What are your takeaways from last night?

— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org
— Get our headlines delivered to your inbox.
— Support this independent community media outlet with a one-time contribution or monthly subscription.

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

123
Leave a Reply

avatar
17 Comment threads
106 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
43 Comment authors
squaremanAlan 1.0damieneFredEawriste Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
citylover
Guest
citylover

I think the Metro measure would have passed if not for Covid. We have had tremendous success over the years funding transportation at the state and regional level and we should celebrate that. With so many people out of work and businesses closing, voters and taxpayers have to prioritize what we can support and school modernization, universal Pre-K, parks and libraries (and homelessness relief in 2018) is where we chose to put our dollars. We can’t do it all, especially not with the broken taxing system that we have in Oregon. More than anything Commish Eudaly did to ease burdens for renters, meaningful funding for affordable housing is really only possible via a real estate transfer tax. Unfortunately it’s a constitutional amendment.

As a relatively new participant in this space (though a longtime PDX resident), I have seen a lot of bashing ODOT occur here. While I recognize that the agency has its issues, I don’t think disparaging ODOT wholesale is very helpful. In my years in land use & transportation planning and bike/ped advocacy, the joint ODOT/DLCD transportation growth management program that funds all sorts of community projects is really a gold standard nationally. Only a small handful of states (MA, VT, NY)invest in connecting land use and transportation like we do here.

cmh89
Guest
cmh89

Pro-tip for Metro: Instead of inviting the usual suspects to the table and calling it community input, actually engage with the community. You know, real people, not politicians and NGO leaders.

David Hampsten
Guest
David Hampsten

I agree, but will those unpaid community members actually show up, especially if Metro has meetings at the usual time and day with coffee and stale cookies, a weekday morning or afternoon when normal people work? It’s only paid staff from NGOs and politicians who can show up at 10 am on a Tuesday at the old Sears at Grand and Lloyd, not to mention drive the distance to get to it. Matro needs to do what EPAP routinely does for their meetings: Weekday evening meetings with a free catered dinner for 70, free child care, and free onsite live language interpretation in Spanish and Arabic (precovid).

Hello, Kitty
Subscriber
Hello, Kitty

I actually think they prefer working with people from the Non-Profit Industrial Complex. When everyone is on the same gravy train, it’s easier to move things along.

David Hampsten
Guest
David Hampsten

Plus they often went to school with one another, hang out and share gossip about common friends at PBOT and BPS, and the latest on the president’s craziness. I mean, who needs to hear from the public? All they complain about is high taxes, too much traffic in their neighborhoods, wanting more freeways, and not enough car parking within 5 feet of their workplace entrance anyway.

Hello, Kitty
Subscriber
Hello, Kitty

Maybe they should try handing out contracts to members of the public. Greasing the machine can dampen the squeaks. It worked for the BTA — why not for the rest of us complainers?

David Hampsten
Guest
David Hampsten

Not only BTA (aka Street Trust), but also PBA, Columbia Corridor, and many other lobbying nonprofits. I have also seen city agencies pay stipends and scholarships to individuals who are members of under-represented communities of color, especially Asian minorities, to attend committees, focus groups, and conferences. I myself was once paid cash to attend a Canadian academic conference, a token American if you will.

I think we as a society undervalue the usefulness of bribes and corruption at getting to the truth of what we seek when we ask for public input. As a poor unemployed circumferentially-challenged over-educated privileged bicycle-dependent white American, I do wish I was bribed more significantly for my public input.

Kittens
Subscriber
Kittens

I **honestly** think they should just cut it with advisory boards, commissions and steering committees rigamarole. Who has time for that anyway. Just make it great and trust the experts. The compromises required to buy everyone off just end up getting in the way of the larger good. Everyone gets their pet issue addressed and in the end the public is left with garbage. See: Yellow Line, Green Line, Orange Line. All horribly compromised to the point of near uselessness.

David Hampsten
Guest
David Hampsten

Experts like ODOT…

Kittens
Subscriber
Kittens

Good point David. I assume a level of competence severely lacking at ODOT.

cmh89
Guest
cmh89

The last time I engaged with Metro outside of online, which will be bias towards wealthy, white advocates, is when I stumbled onto some event they were having at the downtown Multnomah County library. They were showing off proposed bus service changes in Washington County, east county and North Portland…in downtown…on a Tuesday…at 1 pm. They are terrible at engagement.

It’s like the BAC. When you meet at 6pm downtown on a Tuesday you are inherently excluding most working class Portlanders.

Hippodamus
Guest
Hippodamus

Planning professional here. I hear this criticism a lot. I’m interested in listening.

What time do you think would be good if our ‘typical’ times are bad? I often have weekday evening meetings for projects and I agree they aren’t convenient for everyone. I think weekends are problematic too (many working class people don’t have weekends off).

Also, at what cost would you support having multiple meetings in different places and potentially multiple times. Curious because I agree we could do better on engagement, but it’s VERY expensive and resources for projects are already kind of scarce and it is difficult for people who don’t do these projects to understand why a study can cost several million dollars.

Interested in genuine feedback.

Kittens
Guest
Kittens

You need to realize some people can’t afford any time not working or caring for kids, you are not going to get working class people engaged. Accept this or give up pretending the process is just and fair.

Hello, Kitty
Subscriber
Hello, Kitty

And accept that most people just don’t care enough to participate, so you’ll always be hearing from a specific subset of the population. If you want to hear from everyone equally, put it on the ballot.

That said, midafternoon meetings seem particularly destined to fail, especially if so many folks continue to be working from home and are thus widely distributed.

cmh89
Guest
cmh89

I think there are a couple things wrong with how Metro/PBOT/ODOT do it.

1. Embrace Zoom. Being able to passively listen and attend meetings while they make dinner for your kids will allow more engagement.

2. Ask about fewer things at a time. Most people only care about transit/infrastructure projects that personally benefit them, which makes sense. Most people don’t care about infrastructure or transit policy. At the community event Metro was having folks go through a line and look at different projects and if they did that they’d get a gift card. Very few every day people are going to provide useful feedback for transit expansion in both Washington County and East Multnomah County. The line was full of homeless folks going through to get the gift card. Metro probably got no useful data.

3. I don’t know where Metro/PBOT/ODOT outreach. I see stuff from PBOT on NextDoor every once in a while which I think is pretty useful but I can’t recall ever seeing anything on a bus or MAX asking for my feedback about something. Worse is that these surveys exist and get shared around with advocates. I don’t blame JM at all for sharing surveys but its definitely going to skew your results if transit-positive people are over-sampled.

4. You might already do this but I’ve never seen it. Partner with libraries and other community centers to try and get more every day people to take online surveys.

5. The biggest thing is these agencies need to learn to stay in their lanes. Metro got together with all of the usual suspects and handed out pork. Every day people don’t think Metro should be in the business of building housing or modifying streets. The lack of specifics in this measure absolutely hurt it. Even here on BP the advocates were saying “Vote yes we can fix all the problems later” which is not where you want to be on a $5 billion measure. A measure that expanded bus service or electrified the buses could probably pass.

6. Metro needs to figure out how and why they came to the consensus that a LRT to Tigard was a good idea and then figure out how to make sure that never happens again. Every day people are not excited by a LRT to the suburbs.

citylover
Guest
citylover

This is honestly tongue and cheek, but my 13 year old daughter was excited about a MAX to Bridgeport Village but she may be the only one! Her rebellion at the moment is to say she’ll live in the burbs when she grows up.

David Hampsten
Guest
David Hampsten

Soon after I moved to Portland in 1997, I remember overhearing two 10-year-old boys on the Blue MAX having an intelligent discussion of urban growth boundaries. It blew my mind.

David Hampsten
Guest
David Hampsten

I find it interesting that those who most supported the Metro bond within Portland were those most likely to be impacted by the Rose Quarter project. What does this say about Portland residents?

Todd/Boulanger
Guest

Perhaps they are tired of all the regional traffic choking their districts and looking for new options to move those driving SOVs on adjoining highways?

Eawriste
Guest
Eawriste

What evidence do you have of this?

David Hampsten
Guest
David Hampsten

“Yes” is brown map, above.

squareman
Subscriber

The very voter breakdown map graphic that Jonathan posted in the article. I made the same observation about the map.

Eawriste
Guest
Eawriste

I would caution assuming causation with maps like these. Here is another. And another.

squareman
Subscriber

There’s no causation stated anywhere. The observation was made: neighborhoods that would be most impacted environmentally and physically by the project were also the neighborhoods showing the strongest support according to the map. That’s objective (as long at the map is using solid data). David simply asked, “what does this say?” I’m curious what it could mean too. But I’m not jumping to any conclusions about it. It means more data and objective observation is needed. That is, unless you meant to direct your reply to Todd’s statement (which I took as mostly tongue in cheek).

Eawriste
Guest
Eawriste

“Neighborhoods most impacted environmentally and physically by the project were neighborhoods showing the strongest support.” The map includes areas in Sellwood/Moreland, Mt. Tabor, Foster-Powell, and the Northwest Hills. We could also say these are neighborhoods most impacted by gentrification, or with the highest support for bicycle or train infrastructure. If we switched the maps of support for Innarone and 218, would we still assume that those neighborhoods were most affected by the RQ project? Do you see the assumption then?

squareman
Subscriber

I hear what you’re saying now. Thanks.

John Liu
Guest
John Liu

“The establishment had a good night last night in Portland politics and the outlook for serious transportation reform took a hit as voters opted for a shift to the center…Incumbent City Commissioner Chloe Eudaly was unseated handily by newcomer Mingus Mapps”

Again presenting Eudaly as the bike community’s choice.

I don’t think the Eudaly v Mapps race turned on bike issues, or on broader transportation issues. It mostly turned on voters’ reaction to Eudaly’s style, if you will, of governing, of which her concession statement was a reminder.

Also, I recall Mapps opposed the RQ project before Eudaly did.

A rigged city in a rigged nation
Guest
A rigged city in a rigged nation

My take as someone who voted for Eudaly but wrote in people for the other positions.

Wheeler is still a republican whatever his more recent voter registration says.

Mingus Mapps appears to favor landlords, the police, and big business — all hallmarks of a republican pretending to be a democrat.

It’s actually Iannarone who was the centrist in that she is a friend of unfettered real estate development while allegedly supporting mildly progressive climate, transportation, and civil rights reforms.

Chloe Eudaly was moderately anti-establishment when it came to housing but was a mildly-progressive centrist when it came to climate, transportation, and civil rights reforms.

The only genuinely anti-establishment candidate lost to Wheeler and Iannorone.

cmh89
Guest
cmh89

Are you talking about the banker Raiford. Suuuppppeeerrr anti-establishment

A rigged city in a rigged nation
Guest
A rigged city in a rigged nation

Definitely anti-establishment as in not supported by any of the existing power-brokers or elected politicians.

cmh89
Guest
cmh89

She’s so anti-establishment that she’s not even supported by voters!

LK
Guest
LK

Raiford voted for Mapps over Eudaly, FYI. Not sure how that figures into your calculus of her being the only genuinely anti-establishment candidate.

squareman
Subscriber

Right? And Hardesty would not endorse Raiford. The time to vote for Raiford was in the primary, not writing her in for a runoff election between to two top candidates. Ted wins with a smaller share of votes in the runoff than in the primary. That’s just so frustrating.

mh
Subscriber

Advocate for ranked choice voting. My guess is that most of Raiford’s votes would have gone to Sarah. That disingenuous active but unofficial campaign made and still has me furious.

Ranked choice voting. No “spoiler” candidates – or in this case, noon-candidates.

squareman
Subscriber

I’ve been advocating for it for so long, I can’t even remember when I first started fighting for it. I also contribute to candidates that talk about it, and I give to farivote.org and other orgs that lobby for it.

Alan 1.0
Subscriber

I’ve been intrigued by RCV/STAR for decades, too. mh‘s comment got me to look up objections to it; who wouldn’t like it? Most of what I found I can dismiss as more hypothetical than practical, or a relatively minor detriment in an overall benefit. But Simon Waxman made a point I also agree with:

But there are reasons for skepticism when it comes to RCV—and not just RCV itself, but the larger notion that what is broken in American politics, and therefore what will fix it, is procedure.

(Nov 2016 in Democracy Journal)

Hello, Kitty
Guest
Hello, Kitty

That’s a good quote. I few years ago, I read a whole book on voting systems, and the author’s conclusions were that the fairest, least “strategic”, best overall voting system was rating each candidate from 1-10, depending on how well you like them. They called it the “Hot or Not” system, for those of you who remember the internet circa 2000.

squareman
Subscriber

Yup. That’s a variation of the “approval” method where you can cast your vote for multiple candidates (but yours adds a score too). Here’s a programmer who writes AI simulations on all kinds of things and shows how plurality, RCV, and approval methods can all be gamed. The plurality method (what we traditionally use) is the one with the biggest problems as it inevitably leads to large percentages of voter apathy when it inevitably and mathematically leads to a two-party dominated system. https://youtu.be/yhO6jfHPFQU

damiene
Subscriber
damiene

AKA, range or score voting. Which – to second Alan’s mention above – STAR includes, but also has an instant run-off round, which incentivizes giving candidates different rankings unless you really don’t care.

STAR voting is…*really* good. I plan on bringing it up often and loudly during the city charter review. While the quote above about thinking procedure alone will solve our woes is a good one, a better procedure would certainly better enable us to solve our woes. Imagine not needing a primary at all and having no such thing as a spoiler? Imagine fifteen candidates running for one seat and actually being able to weigh in on all of them, instead of only one as with plurality voting? Imagine a system that incentivizes a candidate to run *for* something, because running against someone else isn’t advantageous outside of zero-sum binary choices?

A quick skim of the gaming video doesn’t look like it tackles STAR, but I would be mighty curious to see it gamed.

squareman
Subscriber

Damiene, this one applies some game theory to plurality, approval, and ranked (but not specifically star). https://youtu.be/SyS9DtJeGTk More from the same channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/gametheoryonline/search?query=voting

I haven’t gone through this whole playlist yet, but it’s applies game theory in a number of ways to voting systems. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKI1h_nAkaQqZbQz-gol0tRdjaN7RWfx9

A rigged city in a rigged nation
Guest
A rigged city in a rigged nation

It did figure into my vote and is one of the reasons that I did not writer her in. Also, this liberal thought pattern of assuming that poor people are ignorant and don’t vote in their best interests is probably one of the reasons that we don’t vote for your candidates.

squareman
Subscriber

There are strategic votes, and there are protest votes. There are times for either. We ended up with Ted again. My main goal was to get Ted out on November 3rd. Thanks for trying the same.

SD
Guest
SD

Congrats on electing Wheeler.

Chris I
Guest
Chris I

Apparently, “I voted for a non-viable candidate who wasn’t running instead of the leftist who aligned more with me values” equals a rigged election when the centrist then beats the leftist.

Hello, Kitty
Subscriber
Hello, Kitty

— self-deleting comment due to misreading parent —

A rigged city in a rigged nation
Guest
A rigged city in a rigged nation

FWIW, I wrote in Abdullah Öcalan (google him).

SD
Guest
SD

Very interesting, what I hear you saying is “I voted for Ted Wheeler in a very clever way.”

A rigged city in a rigged nation
Guest
A rigged city in a rigged nation

I did not vote for Wheeler in 2016 or in 2020 but a random internet person who probably voted for Wheeler in 2016 still blames me for Wheeler’s re-election.

PTB
Guest
PTB

Why?

Rigged city in a rigged nation
Guest
Rigged city in a rigged nation

Wheeler vs Iannarone was kind of a meh for me. I did not expect either to implement the systemic change needed in this city.

SD
Guest
SD

The Portland Business Alliance thanks you for your support.

A rigged city in a rigged nation
Guest
A rigged city in a rigged nation

Are you referring to the person who had a cushy job (via Nancy Hales) lobbying corporations and the rich at “First Stop Portland” or whatever it was called? Or the person who called for more cops and private security forces on Lars Larson’s show?

Some claim that Iannarone has changed but if you look at her white male surrogates, most of whom are wealthy and ooze “free market” out of ever pore, a different picture emerges.

As a low income unemployed person, I just don’t see much difference between Wheeler and Iannarone. Also, based on voting patterns, it’s clear that I’m not the only voter who felt this way (most of Iannarone’s support came from inner east-side neighborhoods where rich liberals live).

Glenn
Guest
Glenn

If you’re going to make broad, sweeping statements – as you’ve done throughout – at least back them up with evidence. Iannarone’s strongest support – both in raw numbers and in percentages came from precincts in North Portland and south of Holgate. Those are hardly what anyone would classify as high income areas. And, who are these white male surrogates supporting a Sunrise Movement-backed candidate who was “mildly progressive” on climate?

SD
Guest
SD

You’ve made a strong case for your zany Ted Wheeler vote.

SD
Guest
SD

…and right now, I think that’s the sound of applause from the Portland Police for everyone who wrote in alternative spellings of Ted Wheeler for mayor.

Chris I
Guest
Chris I

Don’t blame me. I’m a rich liberal and I voted for Wheeler.

Javier Sodo
Guest
Javier Sodo

You might want to count your blessings that you have Wheeler. I feel if there was an alternative candidate running to the right of Wheeler they would have had a good chance this year. Many Portlanders are fed up with the increase in violent crime, near nightly property destruction, homeless being enabled by the city and the rampant property crime (bike theft, car theft, package theft and trespassing). Remember when Giuliani won the New York mayoral election the early 90’s. That was in a very Democratic city. He did this by promising to be tough on crime. I think the chances of a “Giuliani moment” for Portland have lessened somewhat with Iannarone’s loss but if Wheeler doesn’t make Portland more livable for those paying taxes it would certainly leave an opening for someone at the next election.

X
Guest
X

Could we have the transportation projects á la carte? And lead off with some serious modeling on greenhouse gas reduction. It wouldn’t hurt to talk about benzene emissions either.

I know the general election is supposed to be good for tax measures but seriously, who had the bandwidth to consider a $7B tab?

David Hampsten
Guest
David Hampsten

Metro has tried doing measures a-la-carte in the past. They always failed miserably, as any Metro measure must be voted on by the entire Metro area, by all three counties, even when a project is just in one or two counties.

X
Guest
X

Maybe Metro is the wrong horse to back. Why can’t the city build a busway on a street that Trimet runs a bus on? If there was a bus-only lane on NE Sandy / SW Barbur from one city limit to the other, would the 20 not use it?

Fred
Guest
Fred

A bus-only lane (BRT) makes so much sense – it’s exponentially cheaper than LRT. But the residents of SW Portland and the many commuters who use Barbur just wouldn’t stand for it, as they sit in traffic while the BRT lane sits empty except for a bus passing thru every 5-10 minutes. This is one unique advantage of LRT: it isn’t seen as removing valuable space for private cars.

Bicycling Al
Guest
Bicycling Al

Metro 26-218 was on a ballot crowded with a LOT of other attractive measures. It was one of the few, or only, I’m not familiar with the entire gamut of measures across all jurisdictions, that failed. But why was this even a measure to begin with? Isn’t this something that the legislature should be taking up? It’s time to ask questions about what Oregon’s measure system has actually delivered because I’m becoming increasingly frustrated by what it denies us instead.

David Hampsten
Guest
David Hampsten

The Oregon Legislature did take it up. They, the Democratic-controlled legislature, passed legislation, which the Democratic governor signed, to expand I-5 and I-205 through Democratic Portland. And now everyone in ultra-liberal inner Portland is up in arms against the I-5 expansion (called locally as the Rose Quarter project), but deafeningly silent on the I-205 expansion through East Portland.

J_R
Guest
J_R

What’s your evidence that businesses claims that the payroll tax would hurt them are false?

Is it something other than “well, they make a lot of money?”

squareman
Subscriber

I’d say I’m most shocked by the Nolan over Smith win. That one bums me out.

Iannarone had no chance of winning once the write-in campaign for Raiford took off. Such folly. You don’t introduce a third candidate, especially one who passively isn’t even willing to run, in a runoff election. All you’re going to do is split votes against the incumbent. Wheeler won the runoff with an even smaller vote share than he did the primary election.

PRIMARY ELECTION:
Wheeler: 49.1% – forced the runoff because it wasn’t over 50%, barely.
Iannarone: 24%
Raiford: 8.5% (plus two other candidates about equal with her)

RUNOFF ELECTION (as of hours ago):
Wheeler: 46.26%
Iannarone: 40.76%
Raiford: 12.98%

Just so … ugh.

I didn’t expect Eudaly to loose so sharply – thought it would be a lot closer either way. But I am also not shocked by this one. It was a hard choice for me. I like-hate her.

Metro bill was a tough one for me. I was about to say which way I voted but now I’m not quite sure. I changed my mind so many times on it. I think I voted yes, but when my general gut reaction is so indecisive on legislation, I usually lean toward a no just to be safe. So, I don’t even remember.

joan
Subscriber

We will never know what percentage of write-in votes Raiford received. It was certainly not all of them. There’s always at least one or two percent in most of our races.

Erin M.
Guest
Erin M.

I don’t think Sarah would have won regardless. The people who wrote Raiford aren’t dumb, if they had wanted to vote for Sarah they would have voted for Sarah. These were the people who could not bring themselves to vote for either viable candidate, and there’s no reason to think that many of them would have voted for either if the Raiford write-in campaign hadn’t happened.

Further, if all Raiford write-ins were forced to choose between Iannerone and Wheeler then, while I do think a majority would have picked Iannerone, more than you think would have voted for Wheeler. I personally know quite a few people who were a definitey “no” on Iannarone, but who were torn on Wheeler vs writing in Raiford, since they were so disappointed in Wheeler. Not sure what all of them chose, but some almost certainly wrote in Raiford.

Tom
Guest
Tom

After the primary, it was on Iannarone’s campaign to secure Raiford’s endorsement and bring Raiford supporters into the fold. Instead, Raiford got significantly more votes as a write-in this time. What happened?

squareman
Subscriber

Wheeler got a 6% performance drop. Iannarone a 70% bump. And Raiford a 50% bump. What happened?The missing previous candidates’ votes shares got redistributed. Iannarone took the biggest bump (no double-entendre intended).

JR
Guest
JR

No big surprises in the election results to me. I just hope the new city council leads to significant change to the city’s form of government. I’m tired of having a political head in charge of various bureaus and all of which are assigned at the will of the mayor, who has very little other power to exact influence.

I don’t think the problem with the transportation measure was that it wasn’t inclusive enough. It was too inclusive. It was measure designed by a very, very large committee. It didn’t provide enough assurances to the public about what would exactly get built. It didn’t even have a sunset date – geez! It also exempted the tax on governments and non-profits at the last minute. It was too easy of a target from the big business interests for these and other failings. I wish it would’ve focused on things that would be transformational like a systemwide approach to better bus service and a network of new trails and fixing the gaps in the existing trail network. The light rail project just wasn’t that pivotal to the rest of the region. A downtown subway network for east-west and north-south lines would’ve been more transformational. I voted for it, even though it wasn’t perfect for my expectations only because I don’t think Metro can put together anything remotely perfect.

Laura
Guest
Laura

But it didn’t exempt non-profits…and that was one of my issues. Our non-profit has lost staff due to the economy/covid, even though demands on our services are higher. The tax was a disincentive to re-fill those positions. It exempted OHSU (as a State agency) but taxed it’s market competitors like Providence. Compromises like that, as well as back-room dealing by Metro Prez, about things like “we may not charge the full authorized tax rate.” and other statements made it clear that this measure was less about transportation, and more about her eyeing the Governor’s mansion.

Megan
Guest
Megan

Despite being passionately pro-transit, I abstained from voting at all on Metro 26-218 because… the light rail line in it was just so, so bad. I love light rail, I ride it every day, but that proposed line is (was? can it be was??) such garbage – it missed most if not all of the regional destinations, paralleled a freeway, and had parking garages (instead of, cough, affordable car-free housing, cough) planned for its out-of-the-way station locations. I felt bad not supporting the local groups, but… that light rail line… the fact that it was ever put in front of my transit-loving face as a worthy cause still makes me angry. Add that to most of the projects in that bill being automobile-oriented, the wonkery with who got exempted from the tax (all the bureaucrats who would benefit from the funding – SURPRISE), and then asking for a tax on business in the middle of a recession… while my family, personally, is pinching pennies to cover our bills… it was too much. Just… too much.

More pedantically, I don’t believe light rail functions properly outside of a gridded street system of the sort our country hasn’t built since 1945. SW does not have the mixed, walkable land use necessary to “deserve” light rail, and as long as that remains true building a line there no different from lighting our money on fire. If we ever build light rail again, it needs to be within the boundaries of the city as they were in 1945.

If we get another shot at a giant pot of federal money for transit, we should use it to tunnel underneath the Willamette and create an express line on/adjacent to lines that already exist, enabling riders to get from one side of town to the other faster than taking the freeway. To get THAT done, I’d tax Nike into the stratosphere ANY day! And I bet a majority of Portland-region voters might just agree…

 
Guest
 

The love affair planners in our region have with light rail is incomprehensible. I seriously can’t see a single benefit of light rail over BRT for this corridor, or others like Powell and the Orange Line corridor. A big issue is reliability: it seems like every other day the MAX has some sort of issues somewhere that delay the entire system. With buses, it’s easy to just go one block around any issue. Same with the streetcars, what an absolute waste of money that could be better spent improving bus service.

Chris I
Guest
Chris I

Light rail makes sense for high-ridership corridors, because they offer lower costs per rider and more capacity.

SW corridor along 99W is not a great candidate, but I would argue that Powell is a good one. A line on Powell would connect the Orange and Green lines, and provide a high-capacity trunk to serve SE Portland and Clackamas County. Powell requires dedicated ROW, and once you build that, it’s not much more to add tracks and catenary.

Eawriste
Guest
Eawriste

Powell LRT from the current Orange line to 205 would have been the best bet for metro in getting higher ridership using less money. It is denser, there was more support, increases the robustness/flexibility of the system (eg lines can bypass the Steel Br), and would have been cheaper.

Bradley Bondy
Guest
Bradley Bondy

Dedicated ROW is pretty simple on Powell. There’s all of the parking on the south side that was taken in preparation for the freeway, but is still there unused, to make that a continuous ROW would require the acquisition of ~30 homes. Closer in would probably take a mile & a half long tunnel since the street is much more constrained.

I don’t get why Barbur was treated as a higher priority than Powell. Powell isn’t that difficult of a line and offers huge potential for ridership. My guess is the idea was that there’s more potential for development along barbur than along Powell.

Hello, Kitty
Subscriber
Hello, Kitty

Building a line on Powell would be “inequitable” since SE Portland already “has” light rail service. Never mind that we should be solving problems and serving people, not “equalizing quadrants”.

Fred
Guest
Fred

“If we ever build light rail again, it needs to be within the boundaries of the city as they were in 1945.”

That’s odd: SW Portland was once very well-served by trains, both the Southern Pacific (later Red Electric) and the Oregon Electric Railway. When you enjoy cycling on Multnomah Blvd, as I do daily, you are cycling on the old OER ROW. Multnomah Village was one of the earliest train-commuter suburbs.

A MAX line to SW Portland could work great if the old rail lines could be reclaimed.

Lazy Spinner
Guest
Lazy Spinner

I know that I am comparing apples and oranges but, after spending two weeks in D.C. during the summer of 2018 and using the Metro to get around, it really hammered home how inefficient and overrated MAX is. I actually got sad riding the MAX from the airport back to my neighborhood as it took forever compared to going anywhere on Metro.

Eawriste
Guest
Eawriste

You weren’t living there when it was catching fire 5 years ago. Yes it’s much faster, and a decent network, but was almost a hazard to ride not to long ago.

David Hampsten
Guest
David Hampsten

Yeah, the DC Metro is really quite nice, even late at night. They are about to finally finish the 2-phase $5.7 Billion line to Dulles Airport, largely paid for by the rest of us (rather than locally.) Given Portland’s rather limited funding, the MAX is far nicer than one would expect.

cmh89
Guest
cmh89

Building light-rail is a big city planner project! No one is getting accolades and kudos for improving bus service.

But yeah, it’s laughable that Metro and this measures backers are wanting to use the most expensive, highest upside form of transit as way to spur development and openly acknowledge that ridership doesn’t currently exist along the line.

We need to be like Seattle and build short spurs that connect import corridors, if we build it at all, we should just build BRT.

 
Guest
 

Exactly. Here’s my pipe-dream list of high-capacity transit projects I’d like to see, in no particular order:

  • Transit tunnel through downtown, from Goose Hollow to Lloyd Center
  • Green line spur tunnel from downtown to OHSU
  • True BRT from downtown, down Powell and then Division, to Gresham
  • True BRT from downtown, first down Barbur, and then along Beaverton-Hillsdale and then TV Highway all the way to Forest Grove.
  • True BRT from downtown along Barbur/99W to Sherwood
  • True BRT along Lombard/Killingsworth from St. Johns to Airport

I think that gets all of the most important corridors that don’t have any high capacity transit currently. There’s several more that I think aBRT could be a good fit for as well:

  • Decommission WES and add aBRT in its place along Hall and Boones Ferry from Beaverton to Tualatin
  • aBRT along Hawthorne/Foster from downtown to Lents
  • aBRT from downtown, along 26 to Sylvan and then down Scholls Ferry down to Tigard (amazingly this high-traffic route isn’t even served by a local bus currently).
  • aBRT along McLoughlin from end of orange line to Oregon City
  • aBRT along Highway 43 from downtown to West Linn
  • aBRT along Sandy from downtown to at least Parkrose, maybe all the way to Wood Village
  • aBRT along Cesar Chavez from Reed College to Hollywood

I’ve tried to make this list pretty evenly distributed throughout the metro area as well so that no single area is over- or under-served by high-capacity transit.

maxD
Guest
maxD

The first time they issue an RFP for that project, VIA proposed some segments get built with elevated track. It is more expensive (mostly to build the stations) but it is not tied to the streets and it is much faster and more useful for a line like this. I would like to see TriMet redesign the line to connect the bast destination instead of the most convenient and include elevated track.

John Liu
Guest
John Liu

I saw the SW MAX line as sort of like BART in the Bay Area: a way for people to commute from suburbs into the center. But MAX has limitations – short trains, low speeds, runs on city streets – that prevent it from working as well as BART. Those aren’t insoluble. Then Covid accelerated WFH by decades in a few months. I really don’t know how much demand there will be to commute from far SW to downtown in the future, and I’m not sure anyone does. I *want* the future to include abundant light rail with bikeshare and walking the last mile. But I think it makes sense to see how work and travel patterns are changed by this time we’re in. And, yes, there were so many large new taxes on the ballot, when too many are under severe financial stress. Anything with a hint of boondoggle was a big stretch.

Chris I
Guest
Chris I

After a line on Powell, I think the next big project should be a downtown transit tunnel. The Steel Bridge is a major weak point in the system, leading to capacity restrictions and delays.

A line on Powell would permit re-routing of the Green Line off of the Steel bridge (it would take Powell to the Tillicum, and then turn back at Union Station). This would free up capacity for additional trains on the Yellow/Red/Blue lines, and provide service alternatives if the Steel Bridge goes down (for example, you could route trains along Powell and then along I-205 to Burnside to tie into the Blue line by including Wye interchanges at Powell/205 and I-205/Burnside).

A downtown tunnel would be expensive, but it is really needed if we want to be serious about high-capacity transit in Portland.

Eawriste
Guest
Eawriste

Yes, and yes please.

GlowBoy
Guest
GlowBoy

Hopefully TriMet will take the time to rethink the SW transit project in the wake of this. It’s possible that the line could attract a bunch of private development (as our own southwest line here in the Twin Cities has already done, two years before opening – but then again, I’m not sure there are enough big employers along Portland-Tigard’s SW corridor to justify it). But it’s probably a much better candidate for BRT than for rail – and there should be room for dedicated ROW along much of the route – at probably less than a tenth the cost.

Rail is great. I’ve ridden MAX between 2,500 and 3,000 times. Love it. But for me, TriMet’s SW line is kind of on the edge of justifiability. And let’s get real: given the results of the election, even if Biden wins Congress isn’t going to be handing out rail-line funding left and right.

Kittens
Subscriber
Kittens

lol 2,500 and 3,000 times?

A project no one was asking for or needed, especially now. If they want a winner they need to begin working with Clark County (eek) and Vancouver to reboot high-capacity transit for commuters. May or may not include rail but definitely dedicated ROW.

Chris I
Guest
Chris I

So, a bridge to bring the yellow line over into Vancouver?

Kittens
Subscriber
Kittens

That would be the most likely outcome but it would be sad and not usable. The Yellow is not a fast way to get anywhere, specifically the CBD.

GlowBoy
Guest
GlowBoy

Yes, I have actually done the math on that. Commuted on both MAX and bike to the westside for 10 years, and have put in a couple hundred more rides in the six years since I moved away but still frequently come back to Portland for work.

Fred
Guest
Fred

Ever been on the roads around Nike at around 4pm on a weekday? (pre-pandemic, of course). Now there’s a place crying out for high-capacity transit!

Kittens
Subscriber
Kittens

RE: Metro Transportation Tax: I am so glad that Metro voters are not just rubber stamping every pro-transit tax referred to them. The failure of this project (let’s call it what it was; a LRT project) will hopefully send all these overcompensated planners, designers, facilitators and consultants back to the drawing board and begin afresh with all options on the table not just rail. Rail is great. Rail is fun. It is foundational to all TriMet does but the systematic failure of that agency to maintain, manage and grow the system in a acceptable way has become glaringly apparent to those who use it. Demand Better for your dollar!

The days of 75% federal match are over and we are forever stuck with rising maintenance and operational costs on what we have already built. If you want to see what poorly maintained transit looks like go to NYC where transit has become a hellish experience. Maybe this will change with COVID-19, the coming Great Depression Part II. but right now things are not looking good.

roberta
Guest
roberta

I really dislike the characterization of the Metro 2020 Bill in this article. It never had widespread support because the original SW alignment was a racists decision. Opal was the lead organization educating people on the issue. Having the new Opal leader completely co-op and take down all of the websites documentation was the last nail in the coffin of death for Opal and Metro 2020. Same thing happened with BikeLoudPDX, new leadership came in and completely tanked the historic meetings, agendas and position statements were removed from the web. Transport activists were divided and conquered by themselves. The union supported democratic machine protecting PERS and Police re elected the status quo with the help of a mayoral spoiler. That’s the democratic machine that only prefers climate change solutions that include more taxes and roads.

Censure ship from BikeLoud and Opal was the death nail in the unity of cyclists and transport activist. I went to many of these Metro ‘listening’ session Pederson is referring to and there was a lot of opposition Metro just ignored. Just adding more wish list projects and free bus passes for kids is not a negotiation; its a buy out list of nonprofits willing to censure their old school hard core activists for tax crumbs off the Democratic table. Seems like all the COVID federal crumb$ went to Black groups willing to swallow thi$$ pill of truth.

Fred
Guest
Fred

Well, you might know more about the racism than I do, but I just wanted to be able to take the MAX from where I live in SW Portland to downtown. Residents in every other part of the city can do that, so why shouldn’t I be able to?

GlowBoy
Guest
GlowBoy

Disappointed as I am that Wheeler won reelection, it’s even more disappointing to see destructive protests over it. C’mon Portland, the RWM amplify this stuff massively. Most progressives around the country don’t know this happened, but I can assure you that most conservatives do. It only gives the more unhinged elements of the other side an excuse to run wild if (as seems more than 50-50 likely right now) Biden pulls out a win.

Chris I
Guest
Chris I

The destructive protests are a big reason why Wheeler won re-election. Most of the city is sick of it.

David Hampsten
Guest
David Hampsten

I feel sorry for whoever wins the presidency. The Republicans still have the Supreme Court and the Senate (they lost two seats, in Colorado and Arizona, but gained Alabama), while the Democratic majority in the House is looking increasingly iffy, slim at best, maybe a 3-seat majority. And voter turnout was no better than in 2016, about 59%; it improved in some places, but fell dramatically in California. Biden’s share of the overall vote is just over half, which is better than Clinton’s 48% in 2016, and more than the other guy of course, but it’s hardly a mandate. And there’s still the pandemic, the recession it has caused, extremism all over the place, closed schools (with related drops in educational attainment), tourism is dead, etc etc.

Alan 1.0
Subscriber

As of Sunday, the tallied votes accounted for 62% of the eligible voting-age population in the U.S. That’s a 0.4 percentage point increase so far over the rate hit in 2008…

(https://apnews.com/article/referendum-on-trump-shatter-voter-record-c5c61a8d280123a1d340a3f633077800)

Not to mention highest absolute turnout, of course.

Biden now up to 50.8% of popular vote, topping Reagan’s 50.7% in 1980…
Is highest percentage for challenger since FDR in 1932…

(https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Si45ZzlBmOQJ:https://www.drudgereport.com/+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari)

Sorrow is not how I would describe my feelings about Biden and Harris at this point.

But yeah, a very difficult path lies ahead, and you didn’t even touch on the judicial branch.

Steve Scarich
Guest
Steve Scarich

Most people seem to be giving Wheeler a pass on his massive last minute loan to his campaign. Even though it was technically legal, it was clearly against the intent of current legal thinking. I have heard some pundits (geez, they are so annoying) attribute his victory to his late negative campaigning against Sarah. Of course, without accurate exit poling, we will never know what happened to her the last month or so.

Chris I
Guest
Chris I

I’m going to guess that the massive write-in campaign for Raiford had something to do with the 13% write-in vote, while Wheeler only won by 6%… write-in was less than 1% of the vote back in 2016.

Fred
Guest
Fred

I’m typing this comment before reading the 104 comments already posted, but let me just say that I live in SW Portland, and I hope all you naysayers about the MAX line are pleased that SW Portland, Tigard etc will continue to be car-dependent. Special thanks to that guy from Sightline who wondered “who that MAX line is for” (for people who live in SW and want to commute downtown, dummy!).

I know a line to Bridgeport wasn’t great, and I know the measure itself and the way it raised funding had problems. But this is a case of “the ideal becoming an enemy of the good,” as a great man once said. The defeat of the measure and the MAX line ensures automobile dependence in SW for the next 20-30 years.

Oh yeah – message to PBOT: You now have no excuse NOT to get moving on plans to replace the two Barbur bridges with truly bike-friendly and ped-friendly bridges.

Kittens
Subscriber
Kittens

Fred, there are other options, most of which are cheaper and easier to build. They may not be as tasty as LRT but they would address your complaint without years of construction and zero design flexibility.

Barrington Steele
Guest
Barrington Steele

This is a case where the ideal being the enemy of the good is what i would advocate for. The ideal is actually heavy rail, and we need a little bit more population to get that going. “The good” Would be a region-wide frequent service bus grid, with lots of $1-5mil projects throughout the region to speed up said grid. Along with the most dirt-cheap commuter rail possible.

Eawriste
Guest
Eawriste

Hey Fred. The Yellow Line extension was one of the main reasons I tentatively supported Metro’s measure. I would have used it to get to SW fairly often. There were many other reasons I found the measure counterproductive. My hope is that the MAX can still be built in segments (with Burlingame as the first endpoint). But an inner Powell line, for a lot of reasons, would arguably benefit the metro area much more.