[What follows is one of the many articles in the Mercury‘s 2026 Transportation issue. Find a print copy here, subscribe to get a copy mailed to you here, and if you’re feeling generous and want to keep these types of articles coming, support us here.—eds.]
Welcome to Street View, the Mercury‘s somewhat-regular column on all things local transportation. Here’s the latest news you should know.
Portland seeks new funding for transportation bureau, might actually get it this time
The Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT)’s budget has been circling the drain for a long time. The bureau is highly reliant on gas tax and parking revenue for its basic maintenance and operations budget, but neither of those income streams are keeping up with the bureau’s needs. The revenue model also means PBOT is dependent on fossil fuel consumption and driving, which goes against the city’s climate and safety goals.
Without enough money for basic maintenance and operations, it’s been impossible for the city to make a dent in its deferred street maintenance backlog, which gets slightly more unmanageable literally every time a street is used. But every attempt to significantly update the bureau’s funding model has failed miserably. Nearly two decades have passed since then-Commissioner Sam Adams proposed a $464 million package to address Portland’s transportation maintenance and safety needs, with some of the money coming from a new utility fee tacked onto residents’ water bills. That plan failed, in part because oil lobbyists intervened.
In 2014, when Steve Novick was in charge of PBOT, he tried again. His efforts largely failed as well, although Novick did manage to convince voters to support a 10-cent-per-gallon gas tax for street maintenance, just before he was voted out of City Hall for the crime of being a realist about Portland’s transportation funding situation. (Clearly, voters didn’t hold much of a grudge, because he’s back now.)
Meanwhile, the condition of Portland’s streets has gone from bad, to worse, to completely dismal. If we were to actually address the city’s street maintenance backlog, it would cost upwards of $6.6 billion. And it’s at this dire point when Portland might finally go for the street fee.
While these new taxes could be a lifeline for PBOT during a time of financial hardship, it’s not comforting to know that they’d barely make a dent in the deferred maintenance crisis.
The Portland City Council, with Vice President Olivia Clark leading the charge, appears poised to adopt a transportation utility fee (also known as a “street fee”), which would be added to residents’ water and sewer bills. It’s a similar proposal to what Adams and Novick suggested all those years ago. Many other cities in Oregon, including Milwaukie, Tigard, and Hillsboro, charge these fees, which are intended to treat street upkeep like a utility everyone benefits from. (The city report points out that “even a person who never leaves their residence benefits from the goods and services that travel on the transportation system.”) Portland leaders are considering charging $12 monthly per house, $8.40 per apartment, and $61 per business, which they expect would generate almost $47 million annually.
The city is considering a few other new fees, too, but the utility add-on would generate the most revenue. While these new taxes could be a lifeline for PBOT during a time of financial hardship, it’s not comforting to know that they’d barely make a dent in the deferred maintenance crisis. In order to make a real impact, one would need to build a time machine, travel back to the 1990s, and beg then-Mayor Vera Katz to get a handle on the pothole problem before it spirals out of control. Also, it would help if people drove a little less, or at least, drove smaller cars. You may look like a total badass in your 8,000 pound Ford F-450, and yes, everyone wants to have sex with you because you drive it, but those heavy trucks do some serious damage!
The City Council is expected to vote on the street fee later this month.
Building bike culture
They say “if you build it, they will come.” But what happens if they don’t? PBOT’s bicycle coordinator Roger Geller has been grappling with this question for the last few years, as he’s watched Portland’s bike ridership decline even as the city’s infrastructure improves. Earlier this year, Geller revealed his “Bikeable Portland” plan, which set out to get more Portlanders on bikes through a large-scale social campaign.
Part of the plan would enlist bike coaches who would each lead regularly scheduled rides in a certain target area, hoping to help people familiarize themselves with their neighborhood bike routes in a comfortable setting. Geller also proposed emphasizing pavement markings on neighborhood greenways to increase the visibility of the bike network, and suggested the city host and support events designed to celebrate Portland’s bike culture.
The plan found support from Councilor Steve Novick, who proposed the city allocate some money from the Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund (PCEF) to get it off the ground. It was ultimately not chosen for funding, but the idea ignited both conversation and controversy among local bike advocates.
One piece of skeptical public testimony came from Portland resident and urban planner Sean Edging, who said he primarily gets around Portland on bike or public transit. Edging said he thought the proposal “misunderstands the incentives of Portlanders in making transportation decisions.” He thinks people choose to drive instead of biking, not because they don’t enjoy bicycling, but because driving is faster, more convenient, and safer. No amount of social campaigning will change that, he thinks, at least not without measurable infrastructure improvements happening at the same time.
While I think it’s disingenuous to give too much weight to the social factors that encourage or discourage people from riding a bike, it’s also naive to do the opposite.
Obviously, there are people in Portland—perhaps a majority—who would truly like to get around by bike, but can’t do so because of the points Edging raises. There are certainly big parts of Portland where it’s genuinely frightening or seriously inconvenient to ride a bike for transportation. And while people like Geller rightfully prop up the infrastructure improvements we’ve seen in recent years, it’s worth pointing out that Portland’s bike network is still rather disjointed. The bike lanes on Naito Parkway and Southwest 4th Avenue are world-class, but you can only get so far on them before you have to turn onto a sketchier street. But it’s clear some people don’t find these conditions prohibitive—after all, there are still thousands of people who do ride their bikes on a regular basis, and even more who did in the past. Clearly, some non-infrastructure concerns are at play.
A campaign like the one Geller has proposed probably wouldn’t hurt, and may provide the nudge some people need to get on their bikes. But Portland already has a great community of bike enthusiasts who host social bike rides regularly throughout the year, and several times a day during the summer. It’s unclear how the Bikeable Portland plan would significantly differ from what people in the community are already doing for free.
If city leaders want to use social tactics to get would-be cyclists out of their cars, it would likely be far more effective to make parking more expensive, or to implement congestion tolls in the central city. The revenue generated from those programs could fund a network of protected bike lanes, boost the public transit system, help pay for road maintenance, and more.
(Excuse me while I run from this mob of pitchfork and torch-carrying drivers.)
The e-bike revolution has arrived!
Portland just launched its electric bike rebate program, giving people the chance to get a brand-new, speedy bike on the cheap (or for free). It also could be an answer to Geller’s prayers, advancing mass bike ridership faster than any social campaign could do.
The initiative, which is funded through a $20 million PCEF investment, has been highly anticipated since it was announced several years ago. The rebate program, dubbed “Portland Rides,” will provide incentives of up to $1,600 for standard e-bikes, $2,350 for cargo bikes, and $8,500 for adaptive e-bikes, plus up to $300 for accessories.
The rebates are means-tested, and qualified applicants must be 18 or older, live in Portland, and have a household income at or below 60 percent the area median income, or 80 percent for adaptive e-bikes. Those who wish to receive an adaptive bike rebate must prove they have a disability that prevents them from comfortably riding a standard bike.
Why electric bikes? Well, as anyone who owns one will gladly share, e-bikes are game-changers for getting around a city on two wheels. They make commuting easy and fun, and for much of the year, sweat-free. But the most exciting potential outcomes of the e-bike incentive program are the collective benefits that will come with getting a bunch more Portlanders on bikes.
Once you start riding a bike around, you start noticing things about the city and the kind of vehicles the streets are designed for. You might even be inspired to speak up about what you experience. This is a phenomenon that has been observed in other cities with e-bike incentives. As someone involved in Denver’s rebate program put it to Bloomberg CityLab a few years ago: “We’re creating new constituents who are going to advocate for better, safer bike infrastructure.” In other words, if you give a person an e-bike, they might support building bike lanes. It’s a slippery (and attractive) slope, folks.
PCEF Transportation Decarbonization Program Manager Seetha Ream-Rao said the program is intended to build on Portland’s “deeply rooted bike culture.”
“This new e-bike rebate program will make commuting more affordable for low-income households, support healthier communities, improve transportation access, and help the city reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” Ream-Rao said.
The rebates could give a nice boost to the local economy, too, with recipients being required to purchase their bike from a Portland cycle shop.
Applications for the first round of rebates are live from April 6 to April 27, when recipients will be randomly selected and notified. A second round will open immediately after. While the program is expected to offer 6,000 e-bike rebates between now and 2029, it’s unclear how many will be given out in these initial rounds, depending on demand and what retailers can keep up with. Find out more at portlandebikerebate.com.
Oregon Legislature snubs street safety
Near the end of the Oregon Legislature’s short session, which wrapped up in early March, legislators voted to approve a transportation budget adjustment that stripped money from safety programs, passenger rail, bike paths, and more. The budget choices were necessary, legislators said, because the transportation funding package Democrats passed last year is on hold thanks to a Republican-led effort to overturn the bill via ballot referendum. The bill, which contains a suite of fee increases to pay for road maintenance, public transit, and more, is expected to fail when voters weigh in during the May election. Either way, there were immediate budget gaps to fill at the Oregon Department of Transportation.
You save a little now, and you pay more later—in crashes, pollution, and higher household transportation costs.
Brett Morgan
In the end, legislators opted to redirect $17 million from Oregon’s Safe Routes to School program, $8 million from Oregon Community Paths, and tens of millions more from programs that fund rail service, electric car chargers, and more. The response was overwhelmingly negative.
“Oregon should not patch a budget hole by cutting the programs that keep people safe and lower costs and pollution—especially for schoolkids, disabled Oregonians, and rural communities,” Brett Morgan, transportation policy director at Climate Solutions, wrote in public testimony to the Legislature. “You save a little now, and you pay more later—in crashes, pollution, and higher household transportation costs.”
Transportation safety and climate advocates, who have been deeply engaged in the state funding conversation for many years, called the decision a “betrayal of public trust.” They expect lawmakers to pass legislation in the 2027 session that meets key state priorities like climate justice, pollution reduction, and street safety. Hey, are the three ghosts from A Christmas Carol available to do a little lobbying anytime soon?
