Credit: Liz Meyer
news6-570.jpg
  • Liz Meyer

Metro’s obscure-but-powerful Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) will vote this Thursday morning on how to split a $24 million pot of money between bike/ped projects and freight projects. As I reported last week in “Bikes vs. Trucks”, historically $19.9 million (about 88 percent) of the funds have gone to bike and fed projects. The remainder going to freight and roads, which are hilariously dubbed “green economy” projects.

A coalition of 17 business, including the Portland Business Alliance, paper giant Weyerhauser, Fred Meyer, Columbia Sportswear and Schnitzer Steel are pushing for the change and make some good points about how freight creates jobs therefore deserves more funding from Metro. It raises the question: Is giving over 80 percent of the flexible fund to bike and ped projects unfair? Should the money be split more 60/40, like the freight groups are pushing, or even 25/75?

Metro Councilor Robert Liberty is against the switch, but thinks the council will probably compromise and split the money 60/40 for active transportation/freight. “If we want a balanced transportation system, we’ve got to put emphasis on active transportation because there’s so much money elsewhere that goes to trucks and cars,” says Liberty. He’s upset that freight advocates see funding bike/ped projects as a route to increasing traffic local streets. “Giving people more choices for how to get around reduces congestion,” says Liberty.

Bicycle Transportation Alliance advocate Gerik Kranksy says that although a 75/25 split seems to favor bike and ped project unfairly, when you look at the entire funding picture, it’s clear that bikes need the advantage. Roads, bridges and freight consume about 73 percent of state and regional transportation funding. Specific bike and pedestrian projects (including sidewalks, trails and bike paths) get only two percent of funds.

And the $19.9 million in Metro funds up for a vote this week make up 25 percent of all the money bike and ped projects get from the state and Metro. Dropping from $19.9 million to $12 million, as proposed, will take a big bite out of bike funding, cutting roughly 10 percent of the entire statewide budget spent on bike/ped project. Yikes.

The JPACT meeting on Thursday from 7:30-9:30 AM at Metro (600 NE Grand) is open to the public (and they have snacks) but the public is not allowed to testify. Instead, you have to email Metro your opinion.

Sarah Shay Mirk reported on transportation, sex and gender issues, and politics at the Mercury from 2008-2013. They have gone on to make many things, including countless comics and several books.

13 replies on “Bikes vs. Trucks: Metro Votes on Swapping Bike Funding for Freight”

  1. Good for catching this.

    BEST, what is your list of freight projects than can be done for an additional 6 million (or even the total of 19 million? Inquiring minds want to know.

    For roads, 6 million doesn’t do much. For bikes it does a huge amount.

    Of course if you want to give it to the CRC for further studies, it can employ a few consultants…

  3. R and Truckdriver, you both make excellent points, but I’m leaning toward the comment that doesn’t sound like it was regurgitated from an inbred orangutan’s ass, for what it’s worth.

  4. If we are going to spend it on freight can we at least stop wasting it on dangerous truck based freight and start spending it on the much wiser investment of rail based freight.

  6. Econoline, a large percentage of freight is delivered by rail to rail yards. But from there it has to be delivered by truck. Also, a truck can go coast-to-coast (with team drivers) faster than rail. Go visit any rail yard in PDX and see how much freight is delivered both to and from there, by truck.

  7. Let’s all compromise: Bicycle Freight. Everyone grab one box and start pedaling.

    We’ll get new bike lanes, create new jobs, and at least a couple of things will get delivered eventually.

  8. I don’t know about you, but riding my bike on the busier streets is a little scary, but its faster than going through Portland’s slightly maze like side streets. So more bike paths make sense, especially since the amount of people on bikes is growing in Portland. Which means less cars on the road. Which means less traffic for the trucks. Which means they don’t need more money for more roads because the old ones will have plenty of room. And offering more paths will raise the steady rate of bikers because we have this beautiful craze of more people wanting to be fit and healthy without diets and supplements, but its just not efficient to ride to work because its not a straight shot. Well, we can give them a straight shot.

  11. @Allistaire – Well, at least some people are, right? Also, we are having babies.

    Well, not you and me, like, personally, but…well, you get it…

  12. Haha. Well I’m glad you said something, because I obviously didn’t take that into account. Even though its a pretty important factor.

Comments are closed.