91ÊÓƵ

The city of Portland in the next election season is facing some interesting choices in regard to infrastructure. On the one hand, the bond measure for park improvements is expected to be on the ballot. On the other hand, additional funding for roads and streets likely won’t be resolved.

Portlanders will voice their opinions as to what is needed and what would be nice to have. Do parks fall into the nice-to-have category? Is infrastructure really needed?

Many people will argue that parks are an essential part our daily lives and enhance our day-to-day existence. That argument will resonate with those in the urban areas where mobility is primarily public transit, walking or bicycles.

While a large number of fortunate individuals can manage their day-to-day lives with these modes, a large number of Portland residents still are unable to find work close to where they live and have no choice but to commute longer distances. These longer-distance commutes require adequate infrastructure.

As the economy has improved, traffic has gotten consistently worse. The Oregon Department of Transportation reports that traffic counts have increased, and anecdotal evidence indicates that commutes into and out of town are taking longer. For those who live on the north side of town, they know that commuting to North Portland in the late afternoon has become a difficult proposition.

But infrastructure is more than just a people mover. Good roadway infrastructure provides freight mobility to allow products to be moved around the area. Many jobs are still dependent on the physical movement of goods and services around the metropolitan area. In fact, the latest economic indicators are showing the manufacturing sector making gains in the Portland area. Employment in the manufacturing sector provides good wages and forms a solid base for an improved economy.

We also know that abundant recreational opportunities, including community centers, make for a more satisfied population as well as provide alternative activities for those who may not otherwise have the opportunities to engage in them.

In the short run the question will be how to finance both of these necessary services. For all to appreciate the value of the services, none should be exempt from the additional costs involved.

Fundraising should be based on participation and not on property ownership. The arts tax, which has been challenged in many areas, may be the germ of a more equitable seed in which everybody provides financial support for something that benefits everyone. The payment should connect the fee payer to the benefit. Severe cases should be accommodated in the contribution calculations; however, exceptions should be limited to those truly in need.

By making a direct connection between the benefit and the fee payer, the administrative entities executing these programs should feel a greater need to be more efficient in the way in which they carry out their parts of these programs. At the end of the day, however, adequate financial strategies must be developed to carry both of these efforts forward on a sustainable basis.

It is difficult to make long-range capital project plans without a consistent financial base. The dilemma with the degradation of both parks and infrastructure is that it happens slowly, and the user becomes gradually used to the deteriorated condition. It is only when there is a catastrophic event that attention is suddenly focused on the need.

Christian Steinbrecher is president of Columbia River Port Engineers Inc. and the immediate past president of the Oregon Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers. He is the editor of ASCE Oregon’s Report Card on Oregon’s Infrastructure. Contact him at cfs@[email protected].