Walking school buses, a bike buddy program, and more e-bikes for people with low incomes. Those are just some of the $12.3 million in transportation-related projects that have been recommended for funding by the Portland Clean Energy Fund (PCEF) in their latest round of community grants.
PCEF is a tax on big corporations that was passed by voters in 2018 that will invest $750 million over the next five years in community-led projects aimed at helping Portlanders mitigate the impacts of a changing climate. The program is run by the Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability and overseen by a citizen advisory committee.
According to a report, PCEF received 230 applications and chose only 71 of them for funding. This round of grants will award a total of $91.9 million to area nonprofits. We watched this funding process closely because it was the first time PCEF included a “Transportation Decarbonization” category in their list of eligible projects. PCEF plans to fund this category to the tune of $35 million over five years.
The transportation-related grant award recommendations include 14 grants valued at just over $12 million, and you’ll recognize several of the winners. Below is a list of the projects that caught my eyes:
The Street Trust – Ride 2 Own E-Bikes for Portlanders Living on Low Incomes – $148,972 over one year
This project aims to provide affordable, sustainable transportation options to low-income residents of Southeast Portland. Key milestones include community outreach to identify eligible participants, procurement and distribution of e-bikes, and conducting safety and maintenance workshops. The project aspires to increase mobility, reduce transportation costs, and promote environmental sustainability among underserved communities. By the project’s end, 25 low-income Portlanders will have received e-bikes, improving their access to employment, education, and essential services. This initiative not only addresses transportation equity but also contributes to reducing carbon emissions in Portland.
Suma – Clean Mobility and Disability Accommodation on the Suma platform – $2,146,094 over three years
This project aims to enhance accessible transportation and expands clean mobility options for individuals with disabilities. Key milestones include researching mobility challenges, integrating new features, and launching pilot programs. These programs will offer Lime e-scooters, BIKETOWN e-bikes, pilot e-bike sales, and shared electric vehicles for affordable housing communities. The project also focuses on expanding clean mobility discounts and options for adults with disabilities. Collaborating with local governments and organizations is crucial, leading to enhanced uptake of clean mobility solutions. Goals include increasing accessibility and satisfaction for disabled individuals, expanding clean mobility options, and boosting app user enrollment, setting a standard for inclusive urban mobility solutions.
Oregon Walks – Walking School Bus Program – $964,970 over three years
This project aims to increase the safety and health of students in underserved communities by organizing supervised walking groups to school. Key milestones include the recruitment and training of volunteer walk leaders, establishing walking routes, and conducting outreach to schools and families. Major goals are to reduce traffic congestion around schools, improve student attendance, and promote physical activity among children. This program will create a sustainable model of safe, active transportation for students, fostering community engagement and environmental stewardship.
BikeLoud PDX – Bike Buddy Program – $310,683 over three years
This project aims to increase bicycle usage among underrepresented communities in Portland through a structured mentorship initiative. Key milestones include recruiting and training volunteer mentors, pairing them with mentees, and conducting a series of educational workshops and group rides. The program will also track participant progress and feedback to measure impact. Major goals are to improve participants’ cycling skills and confidence, enhance community engagement, and promote active transportation. By fostering supportive relationships and providing practical cycling knowledge, the project seeks to’create lasting changes in transportation habits and community health. Program beneficiaries include new bikers in Portland as well low-income riders who will benefit from bike repairs and purchasing safety equipment.
Forth Mobility – Community Electric Mobility for Portland – $2,221,229 over five years
This project aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transportation costs for underserved communities by improving access to electric mobility solutions. Key goals include installing 20 EV charging stations at affordable housing sites, assisting 15 community partners in electrifying their transportation operations, lending electric bikes to 12 partners, and other achievable targets. Major milestones include developing a database of 100 potential locations for electric mobility technologies, helping partners apply for $2 million in additional funding, conducting needs assessments with 20 organizations, lending electric vehicles and bikes to community partners, installing charging stations, and hosting EV and e-bike trial events. This comprehensive, community-driven approach seeks to build long-term capacity and promote sustainable electric mobility in Portland.
Latino Network – Public Transit and Cycling Outreach – $1,342,939 over five years
This project aims to enhance public transit accessibility and usage as well as biking as a form of transit. Key milestones include conducting community workshops, distributing bilingual educational materials, provide 500 bikes with safety and repair kits, public transit fare assistance, and collaborating with local transit authorities. The project seeks to educate community members on transit benefits, promote ecofriendly transportation options, and improve transit services through community feedback. Major goals are to increase transit ridership, reduce transportation costs for Latino families, and foster a sustainable, community-driven transit culture.
Community Cycling Center – Increasing Access to Bicycle Safety Programming for Priority Communities by Improving Core Transportation Operations – $443,388 over two years
This project aims to increase access to cycling infrastructure and promote sustainable transportation in underserved communities. Key milestones include establishing new cycling education programs including youth programs such as after-school bike clubs and summer camps, developing a community bike hub, and creating partnerships with local organizations to support cycling initiatives. Major goals include increasing the number of active cyclists in the community, improving cycling safety, and reducing transportation-related carbon emissions. This project will engage community members through workshops and events, fostering a culture of active transportation and environmental stewardship. Through these efforts, the Community Cycling Center seeks to enhance community health, provide economic benefits, and contribute to environmental sustainability.
The other projects recommended for funding in this transportation category will help organizations purchase electric cars, vans, and trucks. One notable project that was declined for funding was Depave’s $2.5 million SE 7th and Sandy Green Complete Street. That effort to re-imagine a busy southeast Portland intersection will have to find a different way to fund its $3.5 million price tag.
PCEF says the estimated lifetime reduction in GHG emissions for the 14 transportation projects is roughly 5,646 metric tons CO2e and they estimate the projects will shift 1,658,007 vehicle miles to clean transportation options.
Grant winners were vetted with reference checks and a financial review that examined the past three years of the nonprofit’s financial documents.
These Community Responsive Grant recommendations had their first reading at City Council Thursday and will likely be adopted by city commissioners at their meeting on Wednesday, September 11th.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
I find it concerning that the PCEF continues to hand out millions with little accountability and lack of performance metrics. *** Moderator: deleted swipe which has been repeated ad nauseam by trolls on this site. Give it a rest! *** I certainly don’t think they have shown they are worthy of these large expenditures of tax dollars.
Angus, if you look at the PCEF grant application, there is much accountability. It’s a bear of a grant.
The intolerance of editors on this blog is high it seems, but I’ve gotten used to that living in Portland. Snarky comments are allowed but don’t dare make a comment on the failure of local transportation advocates or nonprofits. That is not allowed.
Hi Mary,
Here’s what I see.
This blog has been the target of a campaign for over a year to promote a dystopian view of Portland and stoke “fear and anger.” (I put it in scare quotes because by this point the phrase should be copyrighted.)
These are the talking points:
I’ve got folders of nearly identical comments hitting these points: “Aren’t they the group that wanted to close main roads to cars in order to protect homeless …” Yawn.
I don’t know who you are, but those tropes serve a worldview which meshes with the Rene Gonzalez campaign. The inclusion of Carmen Rubio is the tip of the hand. You may be acting independently of the Gonzalez campaign (I hear Shah is a good strategist, so I don’t want to accuse him of something which looks kind of 3rd-rate). Probably you are working independently and just want to view yourself as a “player.”
Anyway, I’m not intolerant, just tired and bored with you.
See Angus’s comment for a perfect illustration of what I’m talking about:
https://bikeportland.org/2024/09/05/creepy-men-on-bikes-spread-fear-among-women-running-on-local-paths-389342#comment-7528156
Are those really “talking points” , or a reflection of the way a lot of people feel about Portland these days?
By most objective measures, Portland does need more police, and many people feel our bike paths are not safe. You don’t need to be a Gonzalez supporter to express these sentiments.
I think there’s a particular style of comment, that comes from a series of commenters with different names that is instantly recognizable to me. Outside of the commenter formerly known as soren (who I think changes their name every so often – but never appears in the same section with different names), I don’t really see anything else quite like it around here. I’m less sure that it’s tied to a specific campaign or something like that, but I definitely see the pattern too.
Only if you view that more police solves a certain set of problems. Most people broadly agree on the problems, not everyone agrees on the solutions.
There are a lot of patterns to the comments here, such as “riding bikes in Portland is so dangerous that we need concrete barriers everywhere to protect us.”
Why would this outlook be any less problematic then the much more majoritarian one we are discussing?
“Only if you view that more police solves a certain set of problems.”
More police solves the problem of not having enough cops to answer 911 calls for police, which is an issue I think the vast majority of Portlanders are quite sensitive to. Portland currently has no real alternative to cops for doing cop things, Portland Street Response not withstanding.
Lisa,
So you’re suggesting critical comments about the state of Portland and it leadership and insitutions are some sort of stealth “propaganda” being spread by the campaign of Rene Gonzalez? That sounds like quite the conspiracy theory to me.
Looking at the polling of Portlanders…isn’t it a lot more plausible that it’s simply a reflection of people’s current attitudes of conditions in the city.
From OPB article:
Voter sentiment trended negative in multiple categories. Just over half of respondents said Portland is moving in the wrong direction. Eight in 10 said quality of life in Portland is getting worse. Half of voters said they are worse off now than they were two years ago. For the first time, more people said they had a negative view of future economic opportunities instead of a positive one.
https://www.opb.org/article/2024/02/08/portland-oregon-economy-livelihood-voter-survey/
https://www.kptv.com/2024/02/09/new-poll-finds-portland-metro-voters-have-negative-outlook-quality-life/
Nope, not suggesting that. I’m saying that I am good at recognizing writing styles and can spot comments coming from the same source.
Those polls are over half a year old. “Fear and anger” is so last year now that Kamala Harris (and her 1000-watt smile and use of ridicule) has changed the narrative. But keep pumping that dystopian view. I’m curious to see if Shah is clever enough to try to pivot Gonzalez toward a more positive persona, is there time to do it? How will he do it? By associating himself with more popular, less negative, candidates through endorsements?
I’ve seen no evidence (statistically or anecdotally) that the gloomy outlook of Portlanders has changed. It certainly will at some point, but there is little reason to suppose that the tide has turned in the last 6 months, Kamela’s smile notwithstanding.
The evidence I see is from the other candidates running. Look at the city council race web pages. Nobody is running on fear and anger. It’s all about turning the city into the best it can be and looking forward to a better future. Even the candidates with PPA endorsements. Look at Eli Arnold–a police officer for crying out loud. Bright colors, lots of blue and yellow. “Don’t despair, we can make rapid progress in restoring the health and optimism of our city!”
It’s just how I see people campaigning. Folks are tired of fear and anger.
“Portland sucks and I can’t fix it” isn’t a recipe for electoral success.
I don’t think the political message of aspirants means the mood in Portland has changed, though I concede that a significant portion of the population seems to be on the ballot, so maybe I should give more credit to the idea.
When is the Willy Week expose about PCEF wasteful spending expected to come out?
Don’t expect it anytime soon. The PCEF has fast become the most expensive sacred cow in Portland. Every grifting nonprofit doesn’t need to convince donors they deserve their money anymore….just flows straight from the taxpayers.
PCEF can be critiqued, but you have to put some work into it. It’s not that it’s a sacred cow, but every organization out there wants a piece of the huge amount of money PCEF has to distribute. So people will avoid criticizing the hand they want to feed them.
Pull your socks up and put some work into it, as it is, you just hurl no-content, no-information, tropes. It ends up sounding like talking points from a PAC trying to shift the Portland opinion cloud.
Unfortunately, for some of us, who may have the inside track on the shocking behavior of the City and Non-Profits can’t reveal too much as it could affect employment. So, not speaking for Angus, I can often only mention “tropes.”
I would love to see an analysis of how much it’s costing PCEF to avoid adding a ton of CO2 to the atmosphere using an evidence based methodology.
Only then can we know if it’s is an effective tool.
Watts,
Any idea on what the millions of dollars PCEF is spending on air conditioners will do to CO2 released? I like air conditioning too….but don’t kid myself into thinking it’s good for the environment.
The push is for heat pumps, which run on electricity and function by heat exchange. In the summer they can work in reverse and cool the air in an energy efficient way.
Now, if you live in an apartment building, you can’t as a tenant wave a wand and swap out the building’s heating system. But I would rather distribute air conditioners to at-risk people than read about them dying.
One of the magazines I read, Harpers?, the Atlantic?, had the saddest story about an east Portland woman who died in our heat dome a few years ago. She was elderly, in poor health, and the heat was too much of a strain for her body to regulate her temperature.
Her son, in his 20s, had jury-rigged a block of ice and fan, but he returned one day to find her dead in her chair.
“I would rather distribute air conditioners to at-risk people than read about them dying.”
Absolutely. But why use the money we’re raising to fight climate change?
Because mitigation of effects from climate change should be included in a fight against climate change
If PCEF is funding the work, it should be done in a way that does not make the underlying problem worse, such as retrofitting those buildings with heat pumps so we don’t need as many wasteful window AC units.
Slippery slope. Are we going to tap into the PCEF to stabilize slippery slopes that might slide during pineapple express rain events?
If $12.3 million produces “lifetime reduction in GHG emissions” of “roughly 5,646 metric tons” of CO2, that’s around $2,175 per ton of CO2 reduction.
I don’t think any of these are bad projects, but if “decarbonization” is the goal, there must be more cost-effective ways for PCEF to spend its money.
Other state and national efforts are already addressing cheaper ways of saving CO2. PCEF is addressing the harder and more expensive ways, particularly those most applicable to communities that are poverty-stricken or otherwise burdened. Without PCEF, those ways and communities would not get addressed at all. And PDX would never reach its climate goals.
An objective analysis that showed PCEF was effectively addressing the “hard cases” would be useful too. Most of what I know of personally (mostly through work) is pretty wasteful and not really achieving anything.
There is no evidence of this.
Correct. PDX has a terrible history of passing massive slush funds that sound great but lead to slush funds. The amount of money here, now being robbed to just pay for city coffer shortages too, is insane for the lack of due diligence. There are best practices to benefit the most, the fastest and cheapest when it comes to critical decarbonization. Instead, the grant reviewers for the PCEF have little expertise and simply pick what they think is best. Instead, given the lack of progress in decarbonization while emissions and their harms are escalating worse than predicted, we should look to such expertise. I’ll give examples. Climate Solutions and UC Davis have modeled the best way to meet emissions targets for personal transportation IN THE METROS OF THE PNW by 2040. Electrification of vehicles meets 90% of the goal while mode shift and public transportation only 10%. Mode shift/transit do have add on health benefits though. Importantly, the OTHER part requires cutting vehicle miles traveled in half during this time. So EVs for individuals required, but cut their driving.
Do you know what accomplishes the VMT cut fastest, cheapest? REMOTE WORK What else? KIDS ACTIVITIES AT SCHOOL
If the $ instead goes to minor fixes, some unvetted, some useless and spread to across the many wrong things at the wrong time…that’s a failure. We need robust KPIs here. We need a global plan, sensitivity analysis, implementation and milestone metrics.
But this is Portland. Everyone thinks they are right and that their opinion is equivalent. So, like homelessness, we accomplish zilch. The folks involved don’t even coordinate with each other…they point fingers.
So no, I don’t think a “moderator” should be using her opinion to silence replies.
<end rant>
^^it’s real, it’s a serious problem: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/12/fossil-fuel-companies-environment-greenwashing
I would love to see a program go door to door saying we’ll install a heat pump for you for free next week if you want and if you don’t want it we will go on to the next neighbor until every house in Portland has been asked. Gotta get rid of natural gas heating asap, it’s a fairly easy win that makes a big difference.
Yes! I don’t understand why natural gas furnaces are so prevalent here.
Because Natural Gas heating has been cheaper than electric heating. Now newer heat pumps could change that, but that requires money up-front to replace.
Because a high-efficiency natural gas furnace is significantly cheaper to install and operate and they work better in very cold temperatures. Gas fireplaces work when the power is out.
If we really want people to start adopting heat pump systems, we need to do a better job of subsidizing installs, and somehow keep PGE from raising rates by 20% every year…
It took me many false trails to find where you got this, for any state and many countries: https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy
That chart did not include Oregon utility market purchases and/or generation from out of state which is where the bulk of our coal energy use comes from. Both PGE and Pacific power have ownership in coal-fired power plants so your utility bills help pay for burning coal on a massive industrial scale.
Pacific power OR energy consumption — 59% Coal!
PGE’s local mix contains 8% coal and 40% fracked gas but they dishonestly refuse to publish their mix of “unspecified” imports because they are mostly coal and fracked gas.