When we talk about 'funding crisis' we should really distinguish between whether it's a temporary cash flow/liquidity problem, or an insolvency one. With PBOT, it's insolvency, and I don't think it's a bad thing we are where we are. 🧵 - ThreadSky

robgalanakis.bsky.social • 13 days ago

When we talk about 'funding crisis' we should really distinguish between whether it's a temporary cash flow/liquidity problem, or an insolvency one. With PBOT, it's insolvency, and I don't think it's a bad thing we are where we are. 🧵

Reposted from Fischer

PBOT’s work is really foundational to a lot of things that make this city great and it’s a crime that we’ve let this funding crisis stretch out so long www.wweek.com/news/city/20...

Comments

robgalanakis.bsky.social•13 days ago

Cash flow/liquidity problems are when you have a bad week/year and you need some help. Everyone and everything runs into them. Insolvency means, you cannot cover your obligations anymore. PBOT is not illiquid, they are insolvent, and it means we need serious reform to fix it. /

robgalanakis.bsky.social•13 days ago

PBOT has a $13 billion maintenance backlog, against yearly revenue of $500-600m. If we raised their revenue another $60m, they'd still have backlog longer than a decade. What is $60m in revenue? Well, the current $0.10 gas tax raises less than $20m/year. We'd need to triple that. /

robgalanakis.bsky.social•13 days ago

What does $60m buy? Depends what you use it for. You could use it to pave, but you'd have to quadruple it to keep assets in decent shape. If you could spend $1-2b overnight to repave all streets, you'd still need about $120/year to keep them in good condition (per 2023 BAC presentation). /

robgalanakis.bsky.social•13 days ago

PBOT's financial problems (like many DOTs including ODOT) are because their "assets" are actually "liabilities". They require maintenance, and have no saleable value. If PBOT did more honest accounting, they wouldn't be $38m in the hole, they'd be *billions* in the hole. There's no way to catch up /

robgalanakis.bsky.social•13 days ago

DOT budgets have been based on perpetual growth, low interest, and easy capital. At least two of those things are gone forever, for structural reasons. If we keep funding this model, we are throwing good money after bad (see also, the last few years of PBOT budgets). /

robgalanakis.bsky.social•13 days ago

Much better to use this crisis to address structural problems in PBOT's balance sheet and operations. First, reduce their liabilities by offloading ROW, for housing and development (bonus, this helps stormwater costs). See https://bikeportland.org/2025/02/10/opinion-portland-needs-more-culdesacs-392786 for an example of how this could be done. /

kmachiz.bsky.social•13 days ago

The solution is simple, though unpopular. Ban cars from a bunch of streets and tell voters more such bans are coming unless and until they approve a new funding source that actually covers maintenance costs. Let voters decide whether they want streets that they pay for or fewer streets.

robgalanakis.bsky.social•13 days ago

I don't agree with calling any choice "unpopular." We need to make some type of choice (structural change, massive new revenue source). So, like you say, be clear with voters about the stakes. But what they choose is defacto popular!

kmachiz.bsky.social•13 days ago

Yeah, start by banning in places where it is particularly dumb for cars to be allowed, like N Interstate Ave, and just keep working your way down the list.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply