The Portland Bureau of Transportation is set to receive $20.6 million to build sidewalks in east and northeast Portland. And they’re also a partner with TriMet on a $55 million project award that will result in new sidewalks to connect to a forthcoming bus upgrade on 82nd Avenue. The funding is just the latest grant award PBOT has received from the Portland Clean Energy Fund (PCEF), a tax on big corporations passed by voters in 2018.
The PCEF Committee recommended eight projects from the Collaboration for Climate Action program for funding at a meeting this morning. That program has over $150 million in available funding to be awarded over five years. In addition to the two transportation projects, the committee also recommended projects to replace City of Portland fleet vehicles with EVs, help more Portlanders install solar power, make schools more climate resilient, and more.
Among the eight projects are PBOT’s “Sidewalks to Schools” — a $60 million list of 19 sidewalk projects (above) that would help connect 17 public schools with better, safer infrastructure. The PCEF committee downscoped the project to $20.6 million, so the award will allow PBOT to build all nine of its Tier 1 projects. The projects — which include 90 new ADA ramps, street lighting and planting of 180 new street trees — are in Cully and the southern part of Council District 1.
PBOT Director Millicent Williams introduced a presentation on the project at a PCEF Committee meeting last night. PBOT Pedestrian Coordinator Gena Gastaldi was also there. She said the completion of the Tier 1 projects will impact 17,000 households. “These projects are all on PBOT Safe Routes to School primary investment routes and will provide critical connections on our pedestrian network near schools,” Gastaldi told the committee.
Gastaldi also touted how the grant funding will be an, “incredibly efficient use of PCEF funding.” That’s because PBOT won’t use it to pay for any city staff time and PBOT has either already completed and/or nearly completed all the required design, engineering, and neighborhood outreach. All that’s left to do is build them. And because these projects are so shovel-ready, Gastaldi said the three Cully projects will be built as early as summer of 2025.
In addition to $20.5 million awarded directly to PBOT, TriMet was awarded $55 million for their 82nd Avenue Transit Project (a separate but closely related effort to the Building a Better 82nd Avenue Plan that was adopted by Portland City Council last week). A portion of that will allow PBOT to build an additional 26 blocks of sidewalks on 82nd to ensure better access to the new bus rapid transit (BRT) line when it opens in 2029.
This continues a very successful effort by PBOT to earn PCEF grant awards. This latest announcement pushes their total to nearly $200 million.
PCEF was created to benefit the communities that are most impacted by climate change. It also has a stated goal to not just reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but to also help build stronger communities by partnering with nonprofit organizations and making strategic investments in workforce development.
For Oregon Walks Executive Director Zachary Lauritzen, news of this recent grant was another dream come true. His group recently won over $900,000 from PCEF to launch walking school buses.
At last night’s PCEF committee meeting, Lauritzen, who said he was “genuinely jumping for joy” upon hearing the news, offered gratitude and shared important context about why east Portland needs all the help it can get:
“East Portland used to be outside the city of Portland, and the design standards were different. They didn’t require sidewalks when development happened. When [east Portland] was annexed into the city [in 1981] there was no plan to finish those sidewalk networks. And so here we are, 40 years later, with thousands and thousands of kids who don’t have safe routes to school… It’s kind of a hopeless feeling, hearing again and again from families about their fear for the safety of their child to do the simple act of walking to school.”
It was Lauritzen and Oregon Walks’ volunteers who did the community organizing to identify and build support for these projects. Even so, Lauritzen gave high praise to PBOT for being such a willing partner. “I’m super excited that a big bureau like that could have their ears to the ground. That they could hear from us and say, ‘Yeah we’ll go for it’.”
Go deeper:
— PBOT Sidewalks to Schools grant application
— 82nd Avenue Transit Project grant proposal narrative
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.
The sidewalks and trees on 128th and 130th are along the 130s bikeway.
Didn’t y’all do a story about 117th not too long ago?
I did, but it’s been several years:
https://bikeportland.org/2021/11/16/opinion-lets-make-it-easier-to-create-safer-narrow-residential-roadways-341345
Yet SW has hardly any sidewalks! Oh – I guess it’s okay since we’re all “rich” over here.
It’s a great question embedded in the snark: what to do about SW’s sidewalk network? It’s my understanding that due to the topography, $20M just doesn’t build hardly anything. It’s a question of bang for the buck. I’m curious to hear from experts—like Lisa—who could shed some light on a long term plan in that part of town. My guess is the traditional approach of building massive retaining walls and millions on storm water will simply never get done due to cost. Maybe I’m wrong? But if I’m right, that doesn’t mean throwing up our hands and say, “forget about those folks!” It means, “let’s get creative.” What are those creative options?
There are lots of other places in the world, particularly in Europe and Japan, that have similar impermeable soils and hill-slopes to SW, yet have over the years built sidewalks, walking paths, and learned to deal with the runoff. From what I’ve observed is that where they have enough right-of-way for a sidewalk, they tend to build removable curbs, pavers, and flagstones over a bed of permeable sand over gravel, much as the ancient Romans did, and remove the same when sewers, water lines, and electrical utilities needed maintenance, then painstakingly put everything back together again afterwards. Where they don’t have enough right-of-way, they encourage walking in the street itself by making the roadway pedestrian-friendly, use car parking as a means of creating chicanes to slow drivers down quite a lot, as well as the use of planters, solid stone walls, and other obstacles to force drivers to drive slow (or crash). What I don’t see is a lot of police and enforcement – they come by after the cars have crashed from going over the 15 mph speed limit – along with a tiny ambulance.
Excellent point Rufio. As I understand it the esteemed SW expert Lisa is now on permanent hiatus (otherwise I would defer to her). My guess is that it depends a lot as you said on topography. And as we should all be aware based on the very solid turbidite evidence, a subduction earthquake is fairly imminent.
The Oregon Office of Emergency Management estimates that there’s a 37% chance of a megathrust earthquake in the next 50 years.
Aside from the impending topographical changes, you’re really spot on when it comes to the cost of building retaining walls etc. But I think the more salient question to ask is: What projects would have the most effect on modal share and connect neighborhoods via a save and separate network where high speed cars are absent?
When I lived in SW, Barbur and Capitol Hwy were the main means for me to commute via bus (and for good reason). But to travel by bike or foot was a much different undertaking. The perennially paused SW Corridor LRT project offered some hope that pedestrian and cycle improvements would accompany any LRT. That didn’t happen, for whatever reason. The planning on the corridor was meh about anything regarding safe and separated pedestrian and bike projects that would, presumably be integral to the LRT system (the same process happened on the Interstate Yellow line). SMH. Personally I was quite disillusioned with the process and when it fell through had a lot of ambivalent feelings about it.
The Capital Hwy project, (and in BP) while not perfect by any means, certainly showed how an effort to combine sidewalks and separated bike infra while mitigating the difficulty of stormwater and topography is possible with somewhat limited funding ($30 mil budget).
The answer to your question is difficult because it appears to suggest that sidewalks are necessary. I’d argue with the right modal filters, sidewalks are not really that important on some streets. That may be what you are intimating when you say “creative” options. Certainly streets like Barbur and Capital Hwy which include a high number of fast metal boxes traveling at high speed need physically separated space for bikes, wheelchairs and peds. But smaller, less connected residential streets can mitigate the danger of people in cars through various means (e.g., narrowing, woonerf, bollards, modal filters). The Red electric “trail” (somewhat of a misnomer because some of it is just residential streets) is one such project that will require a variety of creative means to make it successful. That project and the Alpenrose area will be a good litmus test for how creative the city can be in providing a safe network for people walking and biking.
I’m not sure if I answered your question or if there is an “answer,” but I’m certainly interested in how these specific projects above become a reality without breaking the bank.
It didn’t happen because it was on the ballot in November 2020. A lot of people felt like the world was collapsing and the last thing on their minds was how we get around. I personally voted against it for that reason, but looking back I really wish I had voted for it. Hindsight is 2020 lmao
Well dw yes, for sure, but with respect specifically to the design for separated bike lanes, and integrating the LRT stations into a wider functional network, there seemed to be an endemic tone-deafness to making the LRT corridor part of a system of transportation, not just an “alternative” for a freeway (which is a whole other can of worms).
Sorry Fred. You’re the wrong demographic on the west side. It’s called “EQUITY”.
It’s also called “democracy.” As in, people who support these efforts on the east side are getting explicitly elected on platforms of addressing longstanding underinvestment in east Portland. I agree that there’s also underinvestment in building sidewalks on the west side. Are people getting elected on platforms to fix this? Serious question.
Back in the 80s & 90s when Portland was on a quest to annex communities in the SE to tap into their tax revenue, they made grandiose promises of sewers and sidewalks for all if the citizens would vote for annexation.
Of course when it came time to do sewers, “you are on your own to pay”. My fee, back in the 90s for sewer hookup was over $8,000. And sidewalks, “pay for them yourself” was what the City said. Yeah, such great promises. Taught me to never ever believe anything a City official has to say.
They only wanted the tax money to redo downtown, yet again, not to help the outlying areas.
So not just SW but many communities are subject to being ignored by downtown. But we have to realize, downtown property owners and businesses rule.
I’m in NE now and my house, again, doesn’t have sidewalks and I have no plans to putting any in. I have roses growing there now and no plans to remove them either.
“But we have to realize, downtown property owners and businesses rule.”
Not any more..nonprofits and unions such as PAT and SEIU seem to hold most of the power in Portland politics and government influence. .
How does building more sidewalks using concrete help our environment? Concrete is one of the largest contributors to global warming! The hypocrisy of PCEF is astounding. Oh and yeah, let’s hand out more “free” air conditioners that will help global warming. LOL.
There are multiple reasons why using an air conditioner is bad for the environment:
Increased Energy Demand due to air conditioning is alarming. In fact, air conditioning results in around 20% of the electricity used in buildings today – and amounts to 10% of electricity consumption worldwide.Greenhouse Gas Emissions are on the rise from air conditioning, and they currently account for almost 4% of the world’s overall greenhouse gas emissions.Refrigerants and Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) which are required for an air conditioner to properly function pollute the atmosphere and contribute to ozone depleting substances (ODS).
https://www.opb.org/article/2024/06/13/cooling-portland-free-air-conditioners/
https://greenly.earth/en-us/blog/ecology-news/air-conditioner-is-bad-for-the-environment–but-is-there-a-choice
The cement industry is one of the main producers of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.[2] Concrete causes damage to the most fertile layer of the earth, the topsoil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete#Mitigation
Wow, I literally have nothing to complain about, this is…a strange feeling.
Even if the PCEF does some “nice things” it remains one huge slush fund that has nearly nothing to do with its advertised intentions. It’s almost entirely a massive piggy bank for various government pet projects and support for nonprofits most of which provide dubious improvements for our community.
I don’t disagree with you, but it also creates a 1% indirect sales tax that Portlanders can happily vote for and I fully expect the state and other Oregon cities to soon follow suit at even higher rates – already cities and states outside of Oregon are talking about similar taxes. The irony of course is that the huge corporations being taxed aren’t worried at all, they simply pass the tax onto consumers by raising prices accordingly.
The amounts of funds being raised gives you a notion of really how dependent Portland consumers are on these huge retailers, in spite of the “buy local” sentiment you always hear.
I don’t expect other cities to adopt this approach, and my sense is that our view of the program has soured based on the projects that have been funded, and how far the program is straying from it’s mission.
If a repeal went back on the ballot, I’d bet voters would rescind it.
This is an interesting thought.
It’s worked out great. Our only REI closed, and our last remaining Wal Marts are now closed. We have to drive outside the city to access those businesses now.
Yep how does that help our de-carbonization? It doesn’t, it exacerbates it.
I’m a little skeptical about this theory Chris I. Yes, the downtown REI closed. But the reasons, at least according to its members and the owners themselves were not the PCEF (or at least that wasn’t the main contributing factor).
According to the management the reasons were quite varied: the lack of space in its current location, difficulty with an agreement with the landlord, the overhead of increased crime (Reportedly spending $800K on security and experiencing 10 burglaries), and the workers were in the process of being laid off while also attempting to unionize. So yeah, not exactly clear the PCEF was a big factor. Here’s a story in the P Monthly.
Incidentally, the Clackamas REI is easily accessible via the MAX so yeah, it’s further out, but one’s not required to drive there.
Just seems like a strange coincidence that several large companies who happened to be paying PCEF ended up closing their last few stores in Portland.
No decision is black and white. There are many factors, and I can guarantee that “if we close this store, we no longer have to deal with PCEF” would be considered by most companies. Losing 1% on top of everything else is a big deal on top of the many other retail challenges.
FWIW, the REI manager I spoke with said that theft/security was the primary factor. But given that there are many vacant retail spaces in Portland and we’re instead seeing REI open a location in Cedar Hills, and expanding their presence in Clackamas recently, I’m thinking PCEF could be a contributing factor. If they really wanted a Portland store, they would have made it happen by now.
The 1% is based on the residential location of the customers, not the store. So if Portland residents shop at the Clackamas Town Center REI store, REI is obliged to report those sales. Same with the nearby Walmart. Same with online sales. The only way around this is if the customer pays by cash, doesn’t use their membership card, and lies about their residency to the store clerk – likely a pretty small percentage of the total. REI has been closing a lot of stores nationwide – theft is a major issue at all their stores, same with supermarket self-checkouts, Target, Walmart, etc. In addition, online retail is starting to seriously gut the whole bricks-and-mortar retail concept.
Thanks David. This clarification is pretty interesting. Can you cite your source?
He won’t be able to because it’s incorrect.
Ah, mate, let me set you straight. If someone from Portland pops into the REI in Beaverton for a bit of shopping, not a single cent from that purchase heads back to Portland. The PCEF tax only kicks in for sales inside Portland city limits or for stuff shipped to a Portland address. But hey, it’s always fun watching someone in North Carolina try to play expert on a city 4,000 kilometers away. Bit ambitious, don’t you think?
You haven’t met an equity concern you didn’t complain about. I’m sensing a pattern.
This is exactly the kind of thing PCEF was supposed to do. I wish it wasn’t funding things that we should already be funding explicitly as first class responsibilities of PBOT et al, but that doesn’t change the fact that something like improved infrastructure for low impact transportation (i.e. walking and some EV related stuff) is exactly what PCEF is for.
OPB describes PCEF like this: “The goal of the fund is to create more renewable energy projects, focus on decarbonization and produce more climate action-related workforce development.”
Here we’re using it to fund curb ramps and street lights and other things PBOT is already obligated to do. I’m sure you could construct a tenuous argument about why these are actually “decarbonization efforts”, but the fact is the fund was not intended to use used as a source of general funding for anything with even the thinnest connection to climate change.
Here is what’s actually supposed to be funded, taken directly from the ballot measure we voted on:
=====
Clean Energy Projects (approximately 50-75%): renewable energy, energy efficiency and green infrastructure projects, such as:
Energy not produced from fossil fuels, nuclear power, or certain hydropowerHeating, lighting, water, cooling efficienciesGreen building designTree canopyClean Energy Jobs Training (approximately 20-25%): training that prioritizes workforce development for traditionally underemployed, economically disadvantaged workers, including:
Communities of colorWomenPersons with disabilitiesChronically underemployedFuture Innovation (approximately 5%)
=====
You claim “This is exactly the kind of thing PCEF was supposed to do.” That is false.
PCEF is being abused.
https://www.opb.org/article/2024/02/12/portland-could-backfill-budget-gaps-with-funds-voters-designated-for-climate-response/
https://ballotpedia.org/Portland,_Oregon,_Measure_26-201,_Renewable_Energy_Initiative_(November_2018)
Dang it… I reformatted that list 4 times, and it looked good in the preview. See the bottom link for a readable list.
Hi Watts,
I was just on the phone with PCEF Program Manager Sam Baraso and took the liberty of asking him about your concerns. He said he disagrees with the assertion that PCEF wasn’t meant to do things like complete the sidewalk network. He said switching people from driving to walking and other non-driving modes is central to their Transportation Decarbonization goal. And that things like sidewalks, curb ramps, better transit, and so on fit into that.
I think the thing you might not appreciate is that PCEF is more than the language in the ballot measure. It’s a committee of people who have been given the authority to decide which projects to fund. As long as that committee agrees that a certain project is worthy of funding, it will get approved. If you think there’s a strong enough case to argue that it’s being “abused” by PBOT, then you’d have to take the whole program back to the ballot or work city council to make a change to the language, or get on the committee and use your vote to express your opinion.
It’s amazes me the contortions people will go to justify “their” PCEF project as promoting de-carbonization or other advertized goals. Look at the over $1 million taxpayers spent to remodel the office of the newspaper Street Roots….so they put in some LED light bulbs and it “counted”? Give me a break. It definitely should go back to the ballot for a fix.
I hear you Angus.
If you think it needs a fix, go organize a bunch of people and join or start an effort to lobby the right people and build a coalition and make it happen. That’s what we are doing here. It’s called democracy. A bunch of people organized and worked hard to create PCEF. Now they get to enjoy the fruits of their labor. If you don’t like it, go find others who agree with you and work to change it. And keep me posted because I might want to cover it. Thanks.
I fully agree. Those who think PCEF should be used to backfill PBOT budgets should “fix” the initiative so it can be used for that purpose. That’s simply not what those who worked hard to create PCEF proposed, and not what voters approved.
Gonna be an uphill battle as the multitude of groups now getting funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of tax dollars are going to fight tooth and nail NOT to lose it. An entire massive lobbying force has been created and richly funded via the PCEF tax dollars.
I hear you and I agree there is a lot of political power behind PCEF that makes changing it in significant ways very difficult.
Angus, I might actually agree with you on something for the first time. I am loving this and honestly a bit awestruck. Normally you’re wearing a big ideological broach that says, “I believe strongly, but I have no evidence to support it!”
But I think you have a valid point on this instance. Here are the criteria for the inclusion and exclusion of grants.
When a non profit (e.g., Mercy Corps, IRC) typically does things according to its mission statement and presents its request for proposal (RFP) based on the current need and evidence for the effectiveness of its past programs, there are stringent guidelines that are in place depending on the funding source, particularly when coming from USAID. Specific projects must meet strict goals, monitor progress on those goals periodically, as well as measure the ultimate effect of the program when it concludes.
I’m not sure the PCEF has a clear enough mission, nor do I see it effectively progress monitoring, nor do I see how it knows how effective its projects are.
Here’s the Policy and Purpose statement:
Based on the findings set forth above, the purpose of this Chapter is to provide a consistent long-term funding source and oversight structure to invest in climate action projects that support environmental justice and social, economic, and environmental benefits for all Portlanders, including the development of a diverse and well-trained workforce and contractor pool to perform work that reduces or sequesters greenhouse gases.
That’s a big sell. And without a clear use of evidence for what projects have the most impact, I’m not sure how the PCEF can avoid being abused.
All this is not to say that we should not fund projects that mitigate climate change. But doing so in a way that sidesteps science and best practices primarily used by non profits is a mistake.
I looked at the city code link you provided, and it looks like somewhere along the line the ballot initiative language restricting administrative expenses to 5% was “upgraded” to 12%. No wonder they can afford so much staff.
The bloat must flow!
https://www.portland.gov/code/7/07
Good catch Watts. Typically not-for-profits are required to show their administrative costs (or at least it would be unorthodox not to disclose this info and likely have an effect on their future funding).
Let’s take MercyCorps and Medecins sans frontieres as an examples. With regards to mission, fundraising and management Mercy corps has an 86/10/4 split, whereas MSF has 80/5/15 split. So compared to these non profits you could say that 12% is slightly higher than would be the norm if it were a not for profit. Let’s be clear it is not.
It’s also important to note that some projects require much more administrative overhead than others, particularly if they are in new locations or have a lot of difficulty working in that area of the world. Operating in Darfur vs operating in Louisiana has an entirely different system of administrative requirements.
Non profits invariably give periodic reports with this as evidence that they are using the funds they receive as efficiently as possible. It is my hope that the PCEF should narrow their mission, report on their fundraising?administrative, and project percentages as well as provide this information specifically for each RFP, as any non profit would. Again, they aren’t a non profit, so I’m not sure how this info translates exactly.
Why launch into personal attacks…..is this really necessary and helpful?
Hey Mary S. “necessary” and “helpful” are very subjective terms here. From the vast majority of the comments Angus posts, they are invariably devoid of evidence, politically motivated, and rarely have a substantive or clear framework that informs the reader.
But sure, I hear you and I’ll attempt to tone it down in the future if you feel it’s too ad hominem. Thanks for the feedback.
Thanks for asking that, but I disagree. The ballot initiative language is pretty clear, and we can all see what it says (poor formatting not withstanding).
Whatever their benefits, sidewalks don’t fit into any of the categories we approved. That said, if building sidewalks in Cully makes a measurable impact on CO2 emissions (including the embedded CO2 in all that concrete), that would be good news. We were going to build curb ramps with or without PCEF money (because we were legally obligated to), so for those projects, at least, this is a simple backfilling of PBOT’s budget with PCEF funds. Street trees are probably within the lines, but sadly PBOT tends to plant spindly street trees rather than the big ones that contribute to a real tree canopy.
Yes, of course. But they are supposed to be selecting projects that fit into the categories voters approved, not taking that money and using it for purposes that voters did not approve. We have a general fund for that purpose.
I am not proposing changing the ballot language; what I want is for PCEF to adhere to it. If the committee wants to expand the categories of projects to fund, it is up them to go back to voters to get approval.
If I wanted to challenge transferring PCEF money to PBOT, I would file a complaint with the auditor or a lawsuit claiming the money voters approved for a specific purpose was being redirected to another purpose.
I’m not sufficiently motivated to take such a strong action, but this has changed my view on whether to support specific-purpose taxes like this in the future. I strongly supported PCEF when we voted on it, but I do not like how things are actually playing out. I may be in a small bubble on that opinion, but I suspect I’m not.
All that said, I do have some sympathy for the PCEF committee — the tax raised much more money than could be absorbed by actual “within the ballot” projects, so what do they do with the rest? Giving it to PBOT would be low on my list.
PCEF absolutely very clearly adheres to the ballot language. I know you’re doing the usual playing dumb, but when language is used to list some examples, they say things like “projects, such as:” and then go on to list some examples. If this was meant to be an exhaustive list it would have said “These are the categories that money can be spent on”. Instead, rather than try to exhaustively list out the projects they were going to spend the money on (an impossible task and a bad idea), they gave broad categories, some examples, and stipulated a committee that would be in charge of deciding if something fits in to their goals. This wasn’t secret, it wasn’t misleading. That’s what it says.
Like I’ve said before, I’m bummed they’re paying for things that I think PBOT is supposed to pay for, but PBOT wasn’t paying for it so it wasn’t getting done. Now it is. And I think it’s absurd to even suggest that sidewalks aren’t green infrastructure.
Since I’m probably too dumb to see it, can you show me one example that even hints that transportation projects are to be part of the mix? The examples provided are almost all related to energy (as would befit a Clean Energy Fund).
Also, the text says: “Measure creates new Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund Committee; will exclusively recommend to Mayor distributions of Fund proceeds as grants to private, Oregon nonprofit organizations, for: …”
PBOT is not a private Oregon nonprofit.
You are not making a convincing case that giving the money to PBOT is what voters anticipated, nor even that it’s technically permitted by the measure.
However, you are helping me see more clearly why even what appears to be clear criteria in a ballot measure can be twisted into something quite different, which may be helpful to me when considering similar proposals in the future.
Fair enough, that the funds are supposed to go to nonprofits does seem to pretty clearly preclude them spending the money on PBOT work.
Unfortunately I feel like that provision can be pretty much ignored though, because a nonprofit can be spun up to do most anything, couldn’t it? I’m sure there are restrictions on what a nonprofit is, but that’s pretty vague.
I don’t like that natural language is so imprecise as to be always vulnerable to this. I’m less upset about it because again, I think what they’re spending the money on is within the spirit of the measure.
If the grants go through, you’ll be proven right, which will make me very hesitant to support similar measures in the future. If government can ignore ballot measure provisions in this case, where else can they do it?
Backfilling PBOT budgets was NOT in the spirit of this measure. You’ve made an (unconvincing) argument that you could just barely squeeze in some of what PBOT wants to do on a technicality (ignoring their non-nonprofit status), but the spirit of the measure was to raise funds for nonprofits to spend on clean energy related measures and training people to do clean energy and efficiency related things. Nowhere nohow did anyone talk about funding PBOT compliance with the terms of an ADA related settlement over curb ramps. That was not the spirit of anything we voted on.
Over the years I’ve met an amazing number of otherwise quite intelligent government staff who sincerely think their agency is a “nonprofit”, people who really ought to know better but are apparently completely ignorant of what a 501(c)(3) is, and quite frankly aren’t curious to find out – city attorneys, bureau directors, engineers, even city planners – as long as they aren’t a Walmart or a Target or a Nike, then it must be a nonprofit.
On your last point, that’s one thing that baffles me. There is no way they can possibly have a hard time spending the money. Not until 100% of the funds are used up installing solar panels, which should be really easy to do. I don’t know how they can have a hard time spending money, and it seems more like they’re just a bunch of liberals who are timid about just spending money to do good things.
If they get more money than eligible grant requests, they will have a surplus. Which is exactly what I believe happened.
Most governments have capacity issues. They often can’t get enough contractors to fulfill a mandate or sets of projects fast enough even when they have a lot of cash. A prime example is USDOT, apparently only 20% of what Congress budgeted for new highway projects during the Biden administration actually made it out the door – the other 80% has been delayed for all kinds of reasons – not enough match, lack of state or local building capacity, and so on.
Closer to home (for most of us), the addiction treatment portion of Measure 110 is failing due to capacity shortages.
“…but sadly PBOT tends to plant spindly street trees rather than the big ones that contribute to a real tree canopy.”
I like trees, and I like big trees more. However there’s a limit to what you can plant in a curb strip, generally underneath utility wires.
I guess you’re talking about the species selection and not the fact that the trees planted are typically 1″ diameter saplings, a manageable size which allows the tree to grow a sound root system in place instead of cramming in a bigger and much more expensive plant with a badly disturbed root system.
The city picks tree species that grow to a moderate size in the available root zone without doing too much damage to curbs and sidewalks or overgrowing utilities. An additional big forest tree with adequate root space is a $100,000 luxury, at least, unless you happen to live in a neighborhood platted with 10 foot wide curb strips.
There are lots of places in town where whole blocks have no street trees at all and that’s the opportunity. One reason that people might resist tree planting is that in leaf removal zones a property with street trees is subject to a fee for the service.
Unfortunately some redevelopments are done filling the lot from one setback line to the other, sacrificing existing mature trees to squeeze in the maximum of square feet and paved parking (I have one really hideous example in mind where three 20″+ diameter mature trees were gone in a day).
Yes, tree selection. I do recognize that even the most might oak starts from a tiny sapling.
I recognize the reality of street trees, but people (some in BPS, and even some in this forum) claim that it is possible to replace large yard trees with street trees and somehow maintain a tree canopy.
I do want YIMBYs to stop equating street trees with “tree canopy”, when they provide only a vastly impoverished facsimile of such, and I want building rules changed to reflect the value to the community of maintaining mature yard trees.
You inspired me to look up the people deciding the placement of these funds:
https://www.portland.gov/bps/cleanenergy/about/pcef-team
23 people! That seems like a massive amount of admin cost (somewhere in the $2-$3 million range per year, assuming these are full-time positions).
It should be in the published BPS budget somewhere. My guess is $150,000/position (including benefits, OregonPERS, etc) on average x 23 = $3,450,000 plus office space, printing, IT, so more like $4 million.
The salary according to a job posting for project manager is: $80,558.40 – $114,982.40 Annually. Based on the job requirements/description that is certainly a reasonable wage.
If this were a corporation, those numbers would be much higher.
No the PCEF wasn’t intended to fill budget holes for bureaus who can’t (or won’t) do their jobs.
It was actually intended to make a difference with the environment, not help PBOT do what is already supposed to be doing.
So yes, PCEF has become a slush fund.
This is cool! We can’t have true bicycling equity in Portland until east Portland’s streets all have a sidewalk on at least one side, especially busier roads, as if we want people there to ride bikes then as many kids as possible need to be learning how to ride bikes and use them, and that’s not going to happen without sidewalks for those kids to ride on.
You have a point. I wasn’t very teachable in bike riding, ultimately I taught myself on the sidewalk which was fairly continuous in our neighborhood. The other day I saw a parent with their child on a skoot bike lapping our block so it’s still a thing.
At some point a person has to leave the sidewalk, whether to play or to travel. Modal filters within neighborhoods and links between cul de sacs, where possible, would promote non-motorized travel for all people, young and old. If more kids find out they can move around freely with a bike that definitely seems like a climate gain.
I think Hunnybee’s other point is that statistically Portland will never be able to achieve a 25% bicycle mode share unless and until East Portland is a substantial part of that. Since East Portland has a greater density of youth than any other part of the city and a faster growing population, if we can get East Portland kids addicted to bicycling at an early age, they are more likely to keep riding into adulthood – hence the greater need for infrastructure – but also a greater potential for a long-term positive payoff for society.
As opposed to trying to get existing adults to stop driving in inner Portland and bike more, which seems to be the current recipe for failure.
This is a debatable point David. And it’s a difficult subject for me personally because I do want E Po to have a basic separated network so kids and families can safely get around without a car (because I couldn’t). And I agree with getting kids on bikes in a place where they are safe and have fun (that was Powell Butte for me).
Here’s an interesting tidbit that supports your hypothesis showing the growth in cyclists per area. However the bike counts and potential for modal share growth are really at play here if we want to ever achieve a 25% bike mode share.
Here is a fancy map of the areas with the highest bike counts. Notice they are all in inner SE and N Portland. That document also has some interesting information on various things like POI and distance to busiest cycling locations. None of these are in E Po. To be fair FOPO, and Montavilla were really the only “East” Portland neighborhoods that were included.
So IF we want to increase modal share, the most effective means to do so would be to build a separated, low stress, direct bike network that connects these areas with the highest bike counts.
Currently, Portland has connected NONE of these areas with a continuous, safe and separated network aside from some areas downtown. That gives you an idea of how far behind Portland is in this effort.
Fixed it! LOL. I’ve been wanting to do that for four years. Thanks for humoring me. Congratulations to everyone on all the projects!
Welcome “back” Lisa LOL. Agreed. It’s not any specific area vs another area of town that should matter the most. It’s like bus riders fighting with people on bikes for space on a road that is dominated by SOVs. Duking it out based on geography should hopefully not be the MO of our future council system.
I’ve lived in SW and it needs work. but If we want to increase modal share, focusing on safely connecting specific areas based on data is something that has evaded PBOT thus far.
Hey Hunnybee, as an East Portlander I agree with you in spirit. However, there are other means to make streets people-friendly than simply building a sidewalk (e.g., modal filters, woonerfs, narrowing, trees, potted plants etc.) I’m not saying E Po doesn’t need sidewalks, but I am saying places for kids to ride a bike can abound without the typical “Merican wide road and sidewalk treatment,” that abounds across N. America.
I would go an extra step and, if you’re a constituent of the candidate-elect city counselors of district 1, send them an email and ask for 122nd to have protected bike lanes. From my experience with Jamie Dumphy, he seems to be lukewarm at best (but potentially open minded) on the idea. The other candidates who won were Candace Avalos and Loretta Smith. Give them a call.
Incidentally had 122nd had a physically separated bike lane when I was a kid, man I could have traveled so far, maybe even gotten groceries and hardware stuff for my parents. Instead I was restricted to sidewalks and the springwater.