Cascade in the Capitol: Testimony for the House Education Committee Against SB 1538 which would limit new charter school options

February 19, 2014

Testimony Against SB 1538 Before the Oregon House Education Committee

Chair Gelser and members of the Committee, my name is Steve Buckstein. I’m Senior Policy Analyst and founder of Cascade Policy Institute based in Portland.

I would like you to reject SB 1538.

Interestingly, the Senate has overwhelmingly approved SB 1525, which would make it easier for Oregon college students to take online courses from institutions outside the state. The chair of the Senate Education and Workforce Development Committee noted how fascinating it was that the proposal would break down borders standing in the way of Oregonians having more higher education learning opportunities. That seems non-controversial and clearly a good thing.

Unfortunately, by a much closer margin, the Senate also approved SB 1538, which does the exact opposite of SB 1525. It actually builds up borders that will stand between Oregon’s Kindergarten through 12th grade students and new public charter school options that might offer the very educational opportunities they want and need.

Several years ago I was watching a Portland Public Schools Board Meeting where several charter applicants were making their cases to the board.

One group wanted to start a school with, what I recall, was a particular arts curriculum. They’d jumped through all the hoops required of a charter applicant, but when the board members began commenting, it became clear that the applicant stood no chance of approval.

One board member looked at the applicants, and at the audience, and stated, “We already have one of those.”

She went on to explain that the district already had a school with a similar curriculum focus, and therefore they obviously didn’t need any more. How she knew that there was no more demand among parents and students for such a focus was unclear.

They already had one of those, so that ended the discussion.

This bill would make it even easier for Portland and other districts to write off competent, innovative charter applicants by simply stating that their schools wouldn’t advance one or more educational goals that the board had identified.

We already have one of those” would become… “We don’t need even one of those.”

This bill would stifle innovation, and stifle opportunities for students currently “captured” by their local public schools to find any way out…to find a better fit for their educational needs.

I hope you reject it.

Cascade in the Capitol – Testimony Against Placing Limitations on New Charter Schools (SB 1538)

February 6, 2014

Testimony Against SB 1538 before the Oregon Senate Education and Workforce Development Committee
By Steve Buckstein

Chair Hass and members of the committee, my name is Steve Buckstein. I’m the Senior Policy Analyst and founder of Cascade Policy Institute, a Portland-based free-market think tank.

I’m here to ask you to reject SB 1538.

Chair Hass, the committee just approved SB 1525, which would make it easier for Oregon college students to take online courses from institutions outside the state of Oregon. You noted how fascinating it was that the proposal would break down borders standing in the way of Oregonians having more higher education learning opportunities. That seems non-controversial, and clearly a good thing.

Unfortunately, if you approve the bill we’re discussing now, SB 1538, you’ll be doing the exact opposite. You’ll be building up borders that will stand between Oregon’s Kindergarten through 12th grade students and new public charter school options that might offer the very educational opportunities they want and need.

A few years ago I was watching a Portland Public Schools board meeting where several charter applicants were making their cases to the board. One group wanted to start a school with, what I recall, was a particular arts focus. They’d jumped through all the hoops required of a charter applicant, but when the board members began commenting it became clear that the applicants stood no chance of approval.

One board member looked at the applicants, and at the audience, and stated, “We already have one of those.” She went on to explain that the district already had a school with a similar curriculum focus, implying that obviously they therefore didn’t need any more such schools. One was enough.

SB 1538, brought to you by the current Portland Public School Board, would make it even easier for Portland and other districts to write off competent, innovative charter applicants by simply stating that their proposed schools wouldn’t advance one or more educational goals that the board had identified.

Back when I was about to graduate from a Portland elementary school, I considered attending Benson Polytechnic High School. It was the one Portland public school with an emphasis on technical education, and it seemed to always have a waiting list to get in. I wondered then why the district never opened another Benson type school to meet the obvious need.

Why was “We already have one of those” the mindset then, and why is it the mindset still?

I now believe it’s because board members and administrators don’t have to be concerned about the needs of most students, because most students and their parents don’t have the means to exercise other options, such as moving near a school that better meets their needs, or paying taxes for the public school system and tuition for a private school at the same time.

If SB 1538 becomes law, this mindset of “We already have one of those” could easily morph into “We don’t need even one of those.”

This bill would stifle innovation, and stifle opportunities for students currently “captured”* by their local public schools to find any way out…to find a better fit for their educational needs.

I hope you reject it.


SB 1538 was approved on a 4 to 1 vote in the Committee and will go to the Senate floor for a vote.

Archived audio of the entire February 6, 2014 hearing is here, beginning with the hearing on SB 1525. Senator Hass’s comment about breaking down borders beginning at 08:19 into that hearing. The hearing on SB 1538 begins at 17:20, with public testimony for and against the bill. My oral testimony begins at 51:04.

* Public school districts often try to maintain or increase the percentage of eligible students living within each school’s particular geographic boundaries. This percentage is openly referred to by district officials as the “capture rate.” Anything that could reduce the capture rate of a given district school, such as creation of a new charter school, is seen by those officials as a potential threat to their capture rate goals.

Cascade in the Capitol – Testimony Against Additional Tobacco Taxes (HB 4129)

February 11, 2014

Testimony Against HB 4129 in the House Revenue Committee

By Steve Buckstein

Chair Barnhart and members of the committee, my name is Steve Buckstein. I’m the Senior Policy Analyst and founder of Cascade Policy Institute, a Portland-based free-market think tank.

I’m here to ask you to reject HB 4129.

Why the state should not increase so-called sin taxes

• Funding any state program through additional tobacco taxes would add one more advocacy group to those who openly or secretly applaud more smoking in Oregon.

• Oregon’s addiction to tobacco revenues will only grow if we become dependent on those revenues to fund any new programs.

• Taxes on alcohol and tobacco are frequently justified as a means of discouraging “unhealthy” behavior. But this objective quickly gives way to a different one: raising revenue. This creates a “moral hazard” problem: sin taxes cannot simultaneously both discourage consumption and raise more revenue. For one to succeed, the other must fail.

• As cigarette smoking continues to decline, tobacco taxes will fail to fund current, let alone new, programs, punching more holes in future state budgets.

The regressivity of sin taxes

Providing health care services to specific groups of people, in this case smokers, may make some smokers better off; but it will also make other smokers and their families worse off. As you may know:

• Cigarette smoking adults are more likely to be uninsured than non-smoking adults.

• Cigarette smokers are in poorer physical condition than non-smokers.

• Cigarette smokers generally have lower incomes and less formal education than non-smokers.

• Cigarette smokers are more likely to be unemployed or unemployable than non-smokers.

In summary, increasing tobacco taxes is regressive, targeting less educated, lower-income, and sicker Oregonians.

Policy option:

If funding new or increased health care services for smokers is worth doing, it should be done through the General Fund so everyone participates. This avoids the moral hazard problem and is not nearly as regressive as the tax increases proposed in HB 4129.

Thank you.
————-
Audio of the entire hearing is here. The HB 4129 hearing section starts at 1:03:25 into the audio.

Testimony to TriMet Board on Resolution 14-01-03

Cascade President John A. Charles, Jr. submitted the following testimony to the TriMet Board on January 21, 2014.

 

To the TriMet Board:

In Resolution 14-01-03, TriMet staff proposes to give away a land parcel valued at $570,000 to a developer on the grounds that the net present value of 30 years of increased transit fares generated by the development is estimated to be $648,732.

The staff has neglected to mention that $648,732 is the gross revenue associated with future boardings. Since TriMet loses money on every trip, the net value of future fares will be a negative number.

For example, the operations cost/boarding for light rail in FY 14 has averaged $1.87. The average originating fare for TriMet fixed route service is $1.47.

Last year all passenger revenue totaled $152,698,000 while operating expenses were $580,289,000, a 26% recovery ratio. So it doesn’t matter what assumptions you use about 30-year discount rates, rental occupancy rates, or rail usage by TOD residents; under all scenarios, TriMet loses substantial amounts of money servicing the proposed project. Therefore there is no “profit” to subsidize the $570,000  giveaway of a public asset.

Moreover, FTA has had a long-standing policy prohibiting such transactions, as noted in the following guidance document:

“Thus, locally preferred Plans for highest and best transit use may be acceptable even if they do not generate the highest possible level of financial return, although the transit system is expected to realize some financial return (i.e., not transfer the property for $1) in a development.”  (Innovative Financing Techniques for America’s Transit Systems, FTA, September 1998, p. 45, http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/publications/1998_innovative_financing_techniques_americas_transit_system.pdf).

Elsewhere in the same document, FTA discusses exactly the type of Portland situation contemplated with the SE 17th Street proposal, and declares it impermissible:

“In one property, the highest and best use was considered to be a 9-unit, median income townhouse condominium, with built-in parking for all units. The metropolitan planning organization, Metro, had calculated that social, economic and environmental benefits in that area would be maximized by a rental apartment development, for low-to-moderate income residents, with structured parking for 40 percent of units. Developers maintained that, while the Metro plan could eventually prove economically viable, the current market would not support the higher density plan. The risk of substantial non-payments of rent, and resulting default on project financing, was considered too high. Thus, the value of the land would have to be reduced to reflect this risk. In discussions with Metro, FTA indicated that while the price of the land was to some degree negotiable, FTA would not accept a zero or negative valuation of property to make the project feasible.” 

Other subsidies: In the staff memo, it is also stated that TriMet has agreed to “assistance with permitting fees” for the developer. What, exactly, does this mean? Is TriMet proposing to subsidize the soft costs of development, and if so, why?

Alternative uses: The proposed land giveaway should be rejected and alternative uses considered. TriMet staff recommends against using the parcel as a parking lot, but offers no analysis. In fact, light rail depends on park-and-rides to attract riders and most TriMet parking lots exist to service light rail. If you don’t provide parking at this station, out-of-district riders will simply invade nearby residential neighborhoods, creating a nuisance.

Sincerely,

John A. Charles, Jr.

Cascade Policy Institute

Cascade in the Capitol: Testimony in Favor of Education Equity Emergency Act

Testimony in Support of the Education Equity Emergency Bill

Kathryn Hickok

Director, Children’s Scholarship Fund-Portland

Portland, Oregon

January 16, 2014

Chair Hass and members of the committee, my name is Kathryn Hickok, and I am director of the Children’s Scholarship Fund-Portland. For 15 years our program has provided privately funded partial-tuition scholarships to children from lower-income Oregon families. The Children’s Scholarship Fund-Portland has helped nearly 650 Oregon Kindergarten through 12th grade students have access to diverse educational settings that meet their individual needs.

CSF-Portland is a partner program of the national Children’s Scholarship Fund, headquartered in New York. Our mission is to maximize educational opportunity by offering tuition assistance for children from needy families. We provide partial tuition scholarships based solely on income that are usable at any private school chosen by the students’ parents or guardians. To be eligible for a scholarship, families must demonstrate financial need.

Our experience with the educational choices made by the lower-income Oregon families participating in our program demonstrates several key points relevant to this bill:

First, lower-income parents want to take charge of their children’s futures through educational opportunity. Parents in our program value high-quality education as the way out of poverty for their children and make the commitment and sacrifice of paying, on average, more than half of their tuition out of their own pockets.

Second, demand for diverse educational opportunities in Oregon is real. When our program began in 1999, the parents of more than 6,600 children applied for only 550 available scholarships. Our waiting list continues to grow every week. The last thing parents who call me want to do is see their children not succeed in school.

Third, it does not take a lot of money to change a child’s life. Our scholarships average about $1,500 for a full school year, and that amount makes the difference in allowing children to attend schools they love, that motivate them to do their best and foster their individual talents. The average tuition of our elementary students this year is only about $3,600. So, a relatively small amount of money truly can make the deciding difference for families in where they send their children to school.

While they don’t have much discretionary income, CSF families always must pay part of their tuition themselves. Because they have “skin in the game,” CSF parents are motivated to choose schools carefully and to encourage their children to make the most of their opportunities. When empowered with a modest amount of financial help, parents will invest their own money, time, effort, and discipline to obtain the kind of education they want for their students.

A Portland-area mother named Lisa recently told me, “I wish that the education system could understand that not every child fits into the same sized box, and everyone needs to do what is right for their family.” I witness the lengths to which parents like Lisa go to choose the school they think is best for their kids. The Empowerment Scholarship Accounts in this legislation would empower parents like Lisa to make life-changing choices on behalf of their children’s education, just when they need it the most. I encourage you to support the Education Equity Emergency Bill. Thank you very much.

It’s Time for Renewable Energy to Stand on Its Own Legs

The Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO) is a non-profit organization that carries out energy efficiency activities on behalf of PGE, Pacific Power, NW Natural Gas, and Cascade Natural Gas. ETO also subsidizes the above-market cost of small, renewable energy projects. For 2014, ETO proposes to spend $178.9 million while taking in revenues of $163 million. Revenues are derived from monthly surcharges on the bills of utility ratepayers. The state legislature authorized the imposition of these surcharges (ranging from 3% to roughly 6%, depending on the utility and the year) in legislation adopted in 1999.

ETO’s budget is available for public review and comment (www.energytrust.org) through the end of November 27, 2013 and will be approved by the ETO board in December. Cascade President John A. Charles, Jr. filed the following comments with with Margie Harris, Executive Director of the Energy Trust of Oregon, on November 27:

Dear Margie,

I have listened to your budget presentation twice and also attended the most recent Renewable Energy Advisory Committee (REAC) meeting. Based on those observations I have one suggestion for the 2014 budget/action plan:

Consider shifting the emphasis for renewable energy subsidies away from intermittent sources. Since 2003, ETO has supported the development of 5,217 renewable energy projects of 20 MW or less. Almost all of these projects―99.6%―have been solar and wind, the two most expensive categories. Yet, because these technologies fail to produce any electricity most of the time, wind and solar projects have only accounted for 40.5% of the power generated by all ETO projects.

Not only has the ETO renewable program had high costs with low power output, most of the alleged social benefits of these sources don’t exist because the random failure of wind and solar means that the system operator for the regional grid has to maintain ever-growing amounts of spinning reserve. These back-up sources have adverse environmental effects that are not accounted for by the recipients of ETO subsidies. In essence, wind/solar project owners internalize the benefits of ETO subsidies while externalizing the costs of grid reliability.

In your 2014 draft budget, you propose to spend $9.9 million on solar projects to get 0.9 aMW of power, at a levelized cost of 10.4 cents/kwh. This is roughly triple the cost of your other renewable projects. I don’t think this is a good deal for ratepayers, and it’s not a good deal for the grid.

The “final frontier” for ETO should be to invest in renewable projects that produce reliable, dispatchable electricity. The regional grid craves stability; wind and solar create volatility. This is a fundamental system conflict, and ETO should strive to be part of the solution by terminating future subsidies for intermittent sources.

At the last REAC meeting, someone on your staff noted that solar projects are proceeding even without the Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC) [repealed by the Oregon legislature in 2012] due to declining solar costs of some 40% over the past 4 years. This should not be surprising if you understand the term “co-dependent.” In technological development as well as human interaction, when we stop rescuing people from their own failures, they tend to become self-reliant a lot faster. I’d suggest that after subsidizing 5,000 solar projects, it’s time for ETO to declare victory and move on, allowing this industry to stand on its own legs.

Sincerely,

John A. Charles, Jr.

Cascade Policy Institute

John A. Charles, Jr. is President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Cascade in the Capitol: Testimony in Support of the Oregon Department of State Lands’ Proposal for the Elliott State Forest

The Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) is proposing that the Oregon State Land Board―comprised of the Governor, the Secretary of State, and the Oregon Treasurer―sell off 2,700 acres of the Elliott State Forest. The Elliott is a 93,000-acre state forest located on the southern Oregon coast. Most of the forest is required by state law to be managed to generate revenue for the Common School Fund, an endowment for public schools. Due to environmental litigation, timber harvesting has plummeted on the Elliott, making it impossible to fulfill the mission of providing income for the Common School Fund. Therefore, the DSL is proposing to sell three small tracts in order to generate funds.

Cascade President and CEO John A. Charles, Jr. submitted testimony earlier this week in support of the sale:

“I am writing in support of the proposed sale of three parcels within the Elliott State Forest―the Adams Ridge, Benson Ridge, and East Hakki Ridge Tracts. Sale of these parcels is consistent with the Constitutional and statutory directives to the Land Board that it maximize revenue over the long term from Common School Trust Lands.

“Clearly the annual returns on the Common School Fund over the past 20 years have been far superior to the returns from timber harvesting on the ESF, as noted in the Department’s Real Estate Asset Management Plan. Given that the returns on timber harvesting have been declining and will likely decline even more in the near future due to environmental litigation, public schools that rely on the twice-annual distributions from the CSF would be better served with the sale of timberland from the ESF, with the proceeds placed under the management of the Oregon Investment Council.”

Cascade has long supported the lease or sale of Common School Trust Lands, and welcomes the move by the SLB to sell off small parts of the Elliott State Forest. The Land Board will consider the matter at its upcoming meeting in Salem on December 10.

Cascade in the Capitol: Testimony Regarding Grand Bargain Small Business Tax Cuts

Steve Buckstein presented the following testimony to the Joint Interim Committee on Special Session prior to the September 30th special session. The audio of the hearing is here. Steve’s testimony begins at 1:09:22. He was the first member of the public to testify on Legislative Concept 3, the revenue raising part of the so-called Special Session Grand Bargain. Each person was limited to two minutes of oral testimony:

Testimony Before the Joint Interim Committee
on Special Session in Favor of
Small Business Tax Cuts
by Steve Buckstein

Good morning, Co-chairs Courtney and Kotek and members of the Committee. My name is Steve Buckstein. I’m Senior Policy Analyst and founder of Cascade Policy Institute, which is a non-profit, non-partisan think tank based in Portland. Cascade’s mission is to develop and promote public policy alternatives that foster individual liberty, personal responsibility, and economic opportunity.

While I do not support the revenue raising portions of this legislation, reducing tax rates on small businesses is a very positive step that I urge you to take.
There was an instructive exchange on this topic on June 20th before the Senate Finance and Revenue Committee.* One tax cut opponent noted that he didn’t believe the person who fixes his washing machine was going to buy another truck and get another employee for his small business because of a reduction in his tax rate.

I then told the committee that while this one repair man may not change his economic behavior, a tax cut just might be the deciding factor for some entrepreneur to locate a new washing machine manufacturing plant here, hiring dozens or hundreds of Oregonians.

We need to understand that in this modern world, people and capital are mobile. Investors and businesspeople change their behavior based on the incentives and disincentives they face. Oregon’s high tax rates shine like a big STOP sign at every border, warning high-income people and many businesses that the cost of staying here or coming here may be too high compared to other states.

So, rather than rely on taxing others more to generate revenue, rely on the fact that lowering small business tax rates will make Oregon more business friendly, thus generating jobs and more tax revenue.

I have it on good authority that each of you would like to take credit for creating more jobs in this state. Here’s your chance.

Thank you.

* June 20th Hearing audio. The tax cut opponent’s repair man story begins at 1:25:40. My full testimony begins at 1:45:37 and my repair man story rebuttal starts at 1:47:40.

Testimony in Opposition to the Oregon Convention Center Headquarters Hotel deal

On August 15, 2013 the Metro Council unanimously approved two resolutions that move the discussion forward toward subsidizing a Headquarters Hotel near the Oregon Convention Center in Portland.

Metro’s news article about the meeting (which quotes from Steve Buckstein’s testimony below) is here. Read his testimony below:

For the record my name is Steve Buckstein. I’m Senior Policy Analyst and founder of Cascade Policy Institute, a free-market think tank here in Portland.

Originally, the idea behind the Oregon Convention Center was that if we put together the right package of amenities, then everyone would come to Portland and spend lots of money eating and shopping when they weren’t attending meetings.

That same idea occurred to people in other cities, and it sparked an ambitious municipal competition that began back in the 1980s and is still going strong.

First, we built a new convention center to attract the convention business. When the original center didn’t generate the revenue we’d hoped for, we decided to expand it. When occupancy rates dropped after the expansion, we turned our attention to the need for a headquarters hotel. That was the magic ingredient we were missing.

Of course, no one wanted to listen to the critics like Professor Heywood Sanders who came here in 2005 to tell us that other cities had already tried what we wanted to try in 2007, and it didn’t work. Big convention center hotels were built in other cities with disappointing results. Not only didn’t they significantly increase convention business, but they didn’t make their occupancy projections either, and now those cities are saddled with money-losing convention centers and money-losing hotels. The fact that the private sector wouldn’t put up much of its own money for such facilities somehow didn’t matter in other cities.

The question you have to answer now is: Does it matter to us?

We like to tell ourselves that Portland is different, but are you willing to risk your taxpayers’ money on that difference, knowing that the competition for convention business is only getting more intense?

As you may remember, in 2007 The Portland Development Commission (PDC) rejected the only Convention Center hotel proposal that didn’t require government subsidies.

The Grand Ronde Indian Tribe said it could do the project with all private money if it were allowed to include a gambling casino. After they were turned down, a tribe spokesman said, “We refuse to raid taxpayer dollars for any project.” He could have added, “especially for hotels which are not core functions of government.”

Rather than deciding today if you want to double down by subsidizing a headquarters hotel, I suggest you do the politically incorrect thing and consider whether you really want to be in the convention center business at all. If the answer to that question is No, which I believe it should be, then consider selling the Convention Center and cut your losses.

[Metro Council] President Hughes, you have correctly pointed out that if you look for a project that’s been scrubbed of all the risk, you will never do anything.

But I hope you will also consider the advice of management guru Peter Drucker who warned:

“There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.”

The core functions of government are to protect our lives, liberty, and property. Providing our entertainment and convention venues should not be done by government at all.

Ironically, in October the Convention Center will host another Scam Jam event where the state attorney general and others will help Oregonians avoid being ripped off by financial con artists. I wouldn’t be surprised if some day in the future publicly funded convention centers and headquarters hotels are listed along with stock swindles as financial transactions to be avoided at all costs by the public.

Further information

The Unseen Costs of Ribbon Cutting: Losses from Economic Development Programs, William B. Conerly, Ph.D., Cascade Policy Institute, June 1998.

Testimony on Beaverton Economic Development Project Grant

Cascade President and CEO John A. Charles, Jr. testified regarding a proposed economic development grant in Beaverton before the Oregon Transportation Commission.

Testimony of John A. Charles, Jr.

President & CEO

Before the Oregon Transportation Commission

June 19, 2013

My name is John Charles and I am President of Cascade Policy Institute. Cascade is a non-partisan policy research center, working to promote economic opportunity, individual liberty, and personal responsibility.

I have analyzed the staff report for Agenda item C1, along with related documents provided by Metro and the City of Beaverton. I have also visited the .8 mile stretch of HW 8 that is being considered for a retrofit, and walked the area on both sides of the highway. In addition, I have conducted extensive field research since 1996 on the nearby Beaverton Round light rail station.

I urge the Commission to reject the IOF grant request, for the following reasons:

 

This is not an economic development project. The primary objective of project advocates is to lower the design speed on HW 8 from 45 MPH to 30 MPH. There is no evidence that such action would incentivize additional capital investment in the region. Indeed, the sad experience of the nearby Beaverton Round district suggests that just the opposite will occur. Deliberately slowing traffic and encouraging more density in the region will make it less attractive.

The series of photos below are instructive on this point. Notwithstanding the seductive architectural rendering that advertised the future project back in 1996 – in which many pedestrians were envisioned relaxing near light rail and no parking was necessary – the reality proved to be quite different. The project went bankrupt twice. Retailers have struggled. And oddly enough, the site is covered with parking, including surface lots, gated private parking, and the tallest single building in Beaverton – a parking garage.

Unfortunately, local planners have learned nothing from the experience. On two different occasions, Metro appropriated $2 million of public money to Beaverton so that the adjacent Westgate theatre could be purchased and bulldozed. The apparent goal was to build more “transit-oriented development” that would improve the neighborhood. The site is still vacant after nearly a decade.

 

The proposed “tie-ins” of the HW 8 project to a low-stress bike route are a waste of money because sensible cyclists are already riding on nearby parallel streets. One of the selling points of the Beaverton proposal is that “traffic calming” on HW 8 will make it easier for cyclists. But low-stress cycling options already exist, as shown below.

 

Attempting to turn a state highway into a boutique “Downtown Main Street” is a nostalgic trip to the past that has no relevance. Metro has encouraged most local governments to subsidize downtown investments based on a “Main Street” model. Tigard has done this, but not by trying to re-invent nearby HW 99w; the city has simply created a faux-downtown that benefits a few businesses while being largely ignored by most Tigard residents.

 

There is no need for a new traffic light at the Rose Biggi/HW 8 intersection. The proposed Canyon Road retrofit project would add another traffic light at Rose Biggi Drive, even though there are already 5 traffic lights on HW 8 in the .8 miles of project territory. The fact that the Beaverton City Council is moving the entire City Hall staff to the Round is no reason to add another light; there are already two traffic lights serving the Round, on either side of Biggi Drive.

 

Conclusion: Stripping away the political window dressing, the real point of this project is to degrade the state highway system by reducing the design speed from 45 MPH to 30 MPH on HW 8. The OTC should resist this effort. Local planners have been waging a political campaign against auto-mobility for over 25 years, on such routes as HW 43, HW 97, and HW 26. Planners and the cycling/pedestrian/transit advocacy groups will never be satisfied, and will be emboldened to ask for even more if you keep giving away the mobility functions of the state highway system.

 

Click here to see the full testimony with photos.

1 2 3 4 12