Ryan Phillips

“We are home now. We marched from the park to ICE, very peaceful crowd. We were standing around ICE pushed us down, sprayed us with chemical and I was hit in the head with a projectile. This was so unprovoked. People have to know that the Feds are attacking people with NO provocation whatsoever.”

29 years for me

For Oregonians, Better Elections Are Hidden in Plain Sight | Sightline Institute The state’s constitution lets localities opt for methods that better reflect their mix of voters.

Many Oregon voters are stuck using flawed, outdated winner-take-all voting methods — even though their constitution calls out a better option by name. www.sightline.org/2025/09/23/f...

To be fair, to the extent there has been reporting on divisions within the R’s there are some members who realize the role of a party is to win elections. The opposition to Dallas Heard was such an example. But overall the party has taken too many policy positions that too few Oregonians support.

They could run on a policy platform that could win a majority of seats in the legislature or statewide office. The lack of competition means D’s do not have electoral incentives to competently govern.

No. That’s not what it basically says. What the article states is there’s been no significant policy wins and that’s largely due to a dysfunctional council. A proper defense would say yes there have been and describe what they are. What are policy wins does the article miss?

I regularly wonder if Oregon would have a better Democratic Party if it had a better Republican Party.

The article is too generous towards republicans. Their actual proposal was to eliminate the dedicated transit tax altogether and redirect that funding to the state highway fund.

I think it is partly due to the fact that shamelessness and norm destruction is integral to their appeal

Death by car - that’s just how it works. Death by non-cars - it’s a crisis.

Congestion from cars - that’s how it works.
Congestion from non-cars - it’s a crisis.

It’s so important to show people—esp public leaders—that e-bikes may look like traditional pedal bikes, but they’re used completely differently.

They’re like a miracle drug for replacing car trips.

It’s actually quite easy. All you have to believe is that ridership is not the only orienting value of public transportation.

We don’t provide ADA paratransit to maximize ridership or demand response in rural areas or broad coverage of fixed route in urban areas. There’s a host of other values.

The technocratic formulation of the issue - listen to those who study it - is both anti-democratic and misleads about the value choices involved. There isn’t a technocratic answer to “what should the nature of transit service be?” This is something @humantransit is exactly right about.

IMO the biggest hole in the anti-fare free argument is the issue of (electoral) politics. A candidate made fare free transit a significant priority in their campaign. To what extent does that mobilize a coalition and voters?

IDK, but policy (can) have political feedback loops.

483 employees and almost 1000 positions overall were eliminated at ODOT today. Even when the OR Leg acts the damage has been done.

Next time an elected suggests that public transportation isn’t a “core service,” ask them about the tens of millions of rides each year. Are those all luxury trips?

This article is from May. The transportation bill passed out of committee in Oregon yesterday would raise the payroll tax to .3% and generate ~500m annually once fully implemented. Vote in the legislature this week. So we’ll see…

Transportation bill passes committee (again), now heads to floor vote Dems have navigated rough waters and are on course for full passage.

The bill picked up a Republican vote in the committee, which is a very positive sign as it heads to the House floor tomorrow.

bikeportland.org/2025/06/26/t...

Never forget that in US political discourse, the Pragmatic, Realistic position, the position that Understands Economics and puts away childish "luxury beliefs," is that US citizens cannot enjoy the public services & amenities enjoyed by citizens of virtually every other advanced democracy.

“Under the Defendants’ position, the Executive would be allowed to place any conditions it chose on congressionally appropriated funds, even when it would be entirely unrelated to the Dept’s purpose. Such is not how the three equal branches of gov’t are allowed to operate under our Constitution."

"The Government does not cite to any plausible connection between cooperating with ICE enforcement and the congressionally approved purposes of the Department of Transportation….” 1/n

Trump administration barred from using transit funds to force states’ compliance with ICE “Congress appropriated those funds for transportation purposes, not immigration enforcement purposes,” U.S. District Judge John McConnell said.

www.courthousenews.com/trump-admini...

One can obviously decide that’s a worthwhile trade off. But it is a trade off.

I think lots of people advocated for eliminating fares without changes in revenues. But even if one isn’t, less fares = less service all things being equal.

Per National Transit Databasedata in 2019, fares comprised 15.9% of Trimet’s opex, in 2023 it was 9%. If fares are eliminated with no offsetting change in revenues, service will likely be cut.

APTA 2023 Public Transportation Handbook, p 24.

Fare collection averages 3% of transit agency expenditures. Fares average 15% of revenues. If you want to eliminate fares and not eliminate service, you need to identify new sources or revenue.

As my colleague and friend RJ's beautiful story conveys, transit's value is in providing you access to opportunities you would not have otherwise. Whether that's education, treatment, economic self-reliance, or something else, transit, when adequately funded, can get you there!

#orleg

Not true. 5310 and 5311 funding can be used for operations. Also, federal funding goes to preventive maintenance and purchased services, which are “capital” in name only.

FTA $1.1 bn low-no emission grant program now requires applicant to agree to cooperate with ICE on immigration enforcement.

Congress passes laws, appropriates funds, Trump administration does whatever it wants.

If only the Supreme Court and the Constitution had something to say about this…

First time I’ve seen revenue from a cap and trade program dedicated to highway expansion. Probably explains its viability and also why all the environmental groups hate it.