This week’s Business Week has an article (“Can’t Stop Guzzling”) that suggests that higher gas prices are NOT reducing driving, except perhaps among lower income drivers. The Oregonian’s Jim Mayer finds the same effect looking at vacation travel in Oregon.
One theory I’ve heard before is that changes in driving behavior will only occur if there are very sudden and dramatic increases in price – slow changes will just “boil the frog to death” slowly.
Which calls into question the idea that market mechanisms will cope with Peak Oil. If we don’t get behavior changes until we have dramatic scarcities, the adjustment is going to be very painful.
36 responses to “Inelastic Demand”
In the 21st century, people are richer than ever. High gas prices don´t make a whit of different to people who routinely drop $10 a day on triple non fat lattes.
People won´t abandon their cars until mass transit becomes faster and more convenient than driving. I´m in Copenhagen right now, where buses come every five minutes, even on Sundays, the new subway runs every three minutes and a network of long distance trains gets you to the suburbs faster than any car.
If Tri Met buses ran every five minutes, Portland would experience a mass exodus from the car. How do we shift transportation subsidies to achieve such efficiencies?
If Tri Met buses ran every five minutes, Portland would experience a mass exodus from the car
I think this overlooks the land use part of the problem. Destinations are not concentrated enough to allow for efficient transit and large parts of the Portland region are not walkable.
Trying to create transit connections between all the sprawling office parks in the suburbs and local service centers is not just a question of investing in transit. It requires forceful planning, something most Americans are not very comfortable with and even Oregonians with their long experience with land use laws are reticent about. Witness Measure 37.
I agree that coordinating land use and transit is the only meanginful solution to the problem.
But even in the city, buses can´t compete with the convenience of driving. The exceptions, perhaps, are rush hour traffic and trips downtown, where parking is scarce. On weekends, I wait an average twenty minutes for the 15 on SE Belmont. You have to be a committed transit user to dawdle that long for a ride.
It would be interesting to see just how many Portlanders rode the bus during a weeklong test period– featuring bus service every five minutes along key routes.
“and large parts of the Portland region are not walkable.”
Yet they piss money away building trails (which I
happen to enjoy using, BTW) instead of sidewalks
and adequate shoulders on the streets and roads.
Boy, are the priorities in this town out of whack!
Energy use IS relatively inelastic, but “high price” isn’t a helpful way to think about it.
Think instead about percent of income devoted to transportation…. there are limits to each person’s willingness to pay, but they will be highly income dependent. The article should emphasize this… but it only mentions it in passing.
For the upper 50% of income brackets the percent of income devoted to transportation is still acceptable and will be at even higher prices.
Fuel price will take its toll on low income families and individuals first.
Price will take its toll on deferred expenditure for other goods by low income families first.
Gradually it will work its way up the income scale, reducing travel slightly, but eating into expenditures in other areas, and making expenditures in other areas more expensive (because fuel is a component of almost everything we buy). In short it will contribute to general price inflation… as much or more than it makes a dent in transportation in terms of miles travelled. Then of course the Fed will tighten down to control the inflation…. reducing the availability of credit to invest and create jobs…
The individual elasticity function for gas consumption in response to price will be strongly determined as a function of transportation costs / income… not the price of gas in the abstract.
—
I noticed the article you cited, and I thought it was typical of American writing and journalism in its lack of interest in income and class issues. Yes it mentions income and responsiveness to price in passing, but it is basically oriented toward its upper middle class readership, and has no interest in the transportation issues of the bottom third of the income scale.
That’s where people will first be making new choices to own or not own a car, to live closer or further from work… as they already must today.
In the 60’s a gallon of gas was $.30, BMWs cost $3K as did a year in a good private university. Now gas is $3, BMWs are $30K as is a year in a good university. So what’s changed?
The real cost of fuel should the Iraq war and a big piece of the overall defense establishment; including those, we may be paying more like $10 per gallon.
The price of gas is not REALLY up… to use the demand curb isn’t really going to show you anything.
Then there is the problem that people still DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE in America…
“People won´t abandon their cars until mass transit becomes faster and more convenient than driving.”
…even here in Portland, the majority of people drive there cars EVERYWHERE. Unless a REAL service is provided to enable them this ability the trend CAN’T continue without drastic economic changes to the way each of us live our lives.
I build my life around NOT needing a car, I still own one though, for those days I need to be extra productive, and also for vacation/fun stuff.
But in all seriousness, there is no solution to get rid of the car(s). They are too convenient. Mass transit really can only compete on price, and the only real way to balance it out at all is to really let the market enter into the scenario.
…but I digress.
Although Portland touts TriMet as a regional transit system, the system truly is not a regional one. It is primarily designed as a “to and from downtown” transit system based on the old spoke and one hub philosophy of the gone by trolley car era. Adding Max to the transit mall does little to help regional transi,t and only slows down transit making its way creeping through downtown Portland. The money being spent downtown could have been better utilized to move people throughout the region rather than concentrating it all in one place. Transit advocates have even called the money being spent on the mall “criminal”.
A few years back, I made a proposal to Metro, including Maps, suggesting implementation of a more regional concept for transit. Currently for the majority of East-West and North-South transit service, passengers must pass through downtown, or make multiple transfers. The basic concept was to make the majority of employment centers, shopping centers, and town centers transit hubs. Local transit service would take people to the hubs where express and semi express service would operate between the hubs. As an example, semi express bus service would then operate between Lloyd Center and Washington Square. Using the route of the Steel Bridge, Naito Parkway, Barbur Boulevard, Multnomah Boulevard, and Olsen Road, the bus would make only four stops along the way; The Rose Quarter, at Salmon Street Springs, Multnomah Village and Garden Home. Another example would be to run semi-express bus service between Clackamas Town Center and Washington Square. Max already provides some links such as Lloyd Center with Gateway and Gresham.
Even in the by gone trolley car era, Portland’s eastside had trolley express service from downtown to the 40’s 50’s and 60’s Avenues on many routes, yet Metro appeared uninterested the express hub to hub concept. If the Portland region wants to attract more people to use transit, Tri-Met and Metro must do more to transport people “directly” to where they want to go, and not through downtown Portland. .
On the other hand, I firmly believe the automobile will continue to be the transport mode of choice for most individuals. Quite frankly, our economy depends on it to maintain a wide variety of good paying jobs. Increased energy costs, tax or otherwise, will only have detrimental effects to the price of all goods and services. The price for oil not only affects the price of motor fuels, but also fuel for transit, the trucking industry, rail service, air service and shipping. It also affects the price of all plastic products and most food packaging including bottled water. Politicians must remove their blinders and put forth an effort to rediscover how the auto and oil industries contribute to the region, something they currently refuse to do, and then reverse the disinvestment currently taking place for motor vehicle infrastructure. With population growth comes more cars. Making an investment to accommodate increased motor vehicle capacity is just as important, if not more important than redesigning and rethinking transit.
The bottom line is, that each mode of transport must help pay for the system. That includes increasing transit fares to cover new transit services, and adding a bicycle tax to pay for bicycle infrastructure.
he bottom line is, that each mode of transport must help pay for the system. That includes increasing transit fares to cover new transit services, and adding a bicycle tax to pay for bicycle infrastructure.
Modes don’t pay any costs. People pay the costs. Bicycle and transit commuters certainly pay more than their fair share compared to those who commute by auto during rush hour.
Chris,
I don’t think the adjustment will be that painful.
People will switch to more economical alternatives, as they did in the 1970s. At some point, gas will become expensive enough that people will switch to short jaunt electric cars and hybrids. Similarly, the biofuels sector will become quickly viable, and oil companies, flush with cash from $5/gallon oil, will rapidly implement biofuel distribution stations.
“Modes don’t pay any costs. People pay the costs.”
Correct, however any tax or fee is assessed against the mode of transport used by a person.
“Bicycle and transit commuters certainly pay more than their fair share compared to those who commute by auto during rush hour.”
Incorrect, I totally disagree. Bicyclists when using bicycle mode of transport on streets, roads and exclusive bicycle infrastructure do not pay a tax or fee. They are assessed zero dollars for use of infrastructure. Many bicyclists claim they have a car and pay taxes on it to side step the free ride bicyclists receive when riding a bike. The taxes and license fees bicyclists pay on their cars are user fees to use their car on streets and roads, not their bicycle. Non-bicyclists are charged the same rates for taxes and license fees for their cars as bicyclists. Either non-bicyclists would be charged a lesser rate or bicyclists would be charged greater rate of taxes and license fees on their cars if the concept was that motor vehicle taxes paid for the bicyclists use of streets, roads and exclusive bicycle infrastructure.
Gas and fuel taxes pay for roads and streets. A driver does not pay a gas or fuel tax unless the car is being driven and fuel consumed. The more miles driven directly relates to a higher road user fee for the driver. Gas and fuel taxes do not change because of the time of day or night when the fuel is consumed. Once a street or road is placed in service, it is a fixture. The time of day or night it is being used has no relationship to the method of payment used to pay for the initial costs or continued maintenance. The only exception is; if there is a lot of congestion on a street or road at specific times, the road system receives a bonus due to the fact that motorists consume more fuel in stop and go traffic than if traffic is free flowing.
Transit fares only cover 20% of operation costs. Paying a driver and consuming fuel to run an empty bus vs a full bus does make a difference. Running the full bus is more cost effective even though it does not pay for itself.
With zero dollars being contributed by bicyclists, only 20% of transit operation costs covered by transit users, and drivers paying gas or fuel taxes on a higher rate of fuel consumption due to congestion, motorists are the only ones paying their fair share of user fees during rush hours.
Terry –
You seem to be under a misimpression that motorists paid for the right of way, they didn’t. Almost all right-of-way was created out of the property owners on each side when the land was developed. Most states ban non-motorists from interstate highways, the one example of where some right-of-way was purchased solely for automobiles.
Second, you are under the impression that bike and pedestrian facilities are there solely for the benefit of their users. But there actual purpose is to separate those modes out in the public right of way so that motorists can drive faster. Bicyclists do just fine using a traffic lane. Its motorists who have to slow down.
Third, you make a false distinction by mode. The fact is that if I don’t drive on congested streets at rush hour I am paying far more than my share of the cost of roads when I do drive. I pay the same gas tax as the people who are using the expensive new Sylvan interchange or Kruse Way interchange even if I drive entirely on local streets that cost a fraction as much. This is like the guy who orders steak and lobster and wants everyone to share the bill for food, but objects to including the drinks because he didn’t have one.
Fourth, you are dealing with this as a zero sum game. But in fact people who bike and use transit, instead of using their car, benefit motorists who continue to drive by reducing congestion. And, for the reasons above, it will cost motorists far more as a result both in time and in gas taxes to provide the additional capacity they will reguire.
The gas tax is clearly not a user fee, it has almost no relationship to the cost of providing the service. Its not even a rough approximation of the number of miles someone drives. When one factors in the variation in the cost of providing capacity in different locations and at different times of the day the amount of tax paid by a motorists has virtually no relationship to how much is spent to serve them.
Gas and fuel taxes do not change because of the time of day or night when the fuel is consumed. Once a street or road is placed in service, it is a fixture.
Yes it is. But isn’t it your argument that “fixture” should only be used by people who pay gas tax even though that tax has no relationship to the cost of the road?
I am curious, why don’t you insist that pedestrians pay a tax/fee for use of sidewalks?
“I pay the same gas tax as the people who are using the expensive new Sylvan interchange or Kruse Way interchange even if I drive entirely on local streets that cost a fraction as much.
Ross, the same amount of gas tax you pay on local roads as those using highways gives you a choice of which route to drive. The difference between a motorist driving down on the local road and the bicyclist using the local road is that the motorist is paying a tax while the bicyclist is not. In truth the bicyclist is also benefiting from the highway because the highway lessens the congestion on the local road, as does the local road lessen congestion on the highway. The motorist is paying their fair share of this balance, the bicyclist is not.
“This is like the guy who orders steak and lobster and wants everyone to share the bill for food, but objects to including the drinks because he didn’t have one.”
It is more like the bicyclist at a table with a group of motorists that has his bike lane order slipped onto the bills of the others, and then rides away from the table paying nothing.
“The gas tax is clearly not a user fee, it has almost no relationship to the cost of providing the service.
That is exactly what the gas tax is, a motorist user fee to pay for streets and roads. If the gas tax was not a user fee, there would be no cries from some politicians to raise it, and it could be eliminated.
“I am curious, why don’t you insist that pedestrians pay a tax/fee for use of sidewalks?”
Sidewalks are paid for with property taxes. Unlike bicycle lanes, everybody uses sidewalks. Bike lanes and bike infrastructure are paid for by siphoning off the gas tax, a direct subsidy to bicyclists paid by motorists. Bicyclists in bicycle mode use the streets and roads for free. At the very least, bicyclists alone should be directly assessed a user fee for exclusive bike lanes, bicycle infrastructure and bicycle infrastructure shared with pedestrians that is paid for with motorist derived dollars. Motorists do not/can not use bicycle infrastructure.
Terry –
I will gladly pay for the cost of using my bicycle if I don’t have to pay for someone else using the Sylvan Interchange.
It is more like the bicyclist at a table with a group of motorists that has his bike lane order slipped onto the bills of the others, and then rides away from the table paying nothing.
Its more like the guy who orders steak and lobster wanting to charge someone who only had a glass of water a share of the bill for the cost of the chair they occupied.
Sidewalks are paid for with property taxes.
I don’t believe that is true on most arterials. But why not charge pedestrians for use of the road where there are no sidewalks?
Bike lanes and bike infrastructure are paid for by siphoning off the gas tax, a direct subsidy to bicyclists paid by motorists.
As I pointed out, the benefits of bike lanes go almost entirely to motorists. Bicyclists would be fine using a normal traffic lane.
Motorists do not/can not use bicycle infrastructure.
But they do benefit from bicycle infrastructure.
In truth the bicyclist is also benefiting from the highway because the highway lessens the congestion on the local road, as does the local road lessen congestion on the highway.
I hate to tell you this, but congestion isn’t much of an issue when you are on a bike.
“I am curious, why don’t you insist that pedestrians pay a tax/fee for use of sidewalks?”
I’d say let companies build them where they want to attract people, just like they did in the past. Pedestrians can otherwise walk on dirt or grass or whatnot. It’s far less money, and much much better for the environment. :)
Ross,
“I’ll gladly pay for the cost of using my bicycle if I don’t have to pay for someone else using the Sylvan Interchange.”
But will you pay for the costs through a tax or fee to use your bicycle on the street like motorists do? Since bicyclists using the bicycle mode of transport contribute zero financially to infrastructure, the only way you would currently contribute to the Sylvan Interchange is to drive a car and pay the user fee gas tax. Basically what your statement says is that you only want to pay for your own bike, but not for the street you ride it on.
“Its more like the guy who orders steak and lobster wanting to charge someone who only had a glass of water a share of the bill for the cost of the chair they occupied.”
If there is a charge for the glass of water or a minimum order charge to be seated at the table, then yes the bicyclist should pay at least that minimum amount and not expect others to cover the bill such as motorists do for bike lanes and bike infrastructure.
“As I pointed out, the benefits of bike lanes go almost entirely to motorists. Bicyclists would be fine using a normal traffic lane.”
Projects like the Sylvan Interchange and other highway projects benefit all users of local streets and roads (including bicyclists) by reducing traffic counts on them. Less traffic on local streets make them safer too, especially for bicyclists and pedestrians. Since bicyclists do benefit from highway projects, maybe bicyclists should be taxed just to help pay for new highway interchanges in addition to bicycle infrastructure.
“I hate to tell you this, but congestion isn’t much of an issue when you are on a bike.”
That is only because the majority of bicyclists do not follow common traffic laws such as riding down center lines passing cars illegally (particularly in downtown Portland), blowing past stop signs and red lights, make illegal turns and even ride against traffic on the left hand side of the street.
will you pay for the costs through a tax or fee to use your bicycle on the street like motorists do?
But I have already paid for it when I bought gas for may car. I paid a lot more for the Sylvan interchange which I had no use for. And I am perfectly willing to pay an additional fee to fully cover the costs to provide a lane for my bike, if I no longer have to pay for all the extra road capacity I don’t need. I will come out way ahead – and I don’t pay much by way of gas tax.
Projects like the Sylvan Interchange and other highway projects benefit all users of local streets and roads (including bicyclists) by reducing traffic counts on them.
No, they don’t.
that is only because the majority of bicyclists do not follow common traffic laws
I suggest you look at your speedometer next time you are driving on an uncongested freeway. If you are going the speed limit you should stay in the right lane to let the normal traffic flow pass you.
Ocassionally I get hung up in traffic on my bike, but its pretty rare even at rush hour. Maybe if I road faster it would be more of a problem.
(particularly in downtown Portland)
What makes you think the Sylvan Interchange reduces congestion in downtown Portland? If anything it actually increases congestion there. Where do you think that extra traffic on HWY 26 is going?
If there is a charge for the glass of water or a minimum order charge to be seated at the table,
Of course there is a charge, its just included in the cost of the food.
Ross,
“But I have already paid for it when I bought gas for my car.”
You are paying to use your car on the roadways, not your bike.
“I am perfectly willing to pay an additional fee to fully cover the costs to provide a lane for my bike”
It is about time!
“if I no longer have to pay for all the extra road capacity I don’t need. I will come out way ahead”
Overruled by the majority of motorists and common sense. And I do not want to contribute any of the taxes I pay towards bicycle infrastructure because bicyclists should pay for bicycle infrastructure and I have no interest in riding one. While OHSU has only 4 registered lobbyists that contact city hall and have taken taxpayers for a ride to subsidize their tram, it takes BTA with twice as many (8) registered lobbyists that contact city hall to make sure bicyclists continue to receive their taxpayer funded welfare for bicycle infrastructure.
“I suggest you look at your speedometer next time you are driving on an uncongested freeway. If you are going the speed limit you should stay in the right lane to let the normal traffic flow pass you.”
I prefer the center lane on three lane roads. There are usually slow moving trucks and other vehicles entering and exiting the highway in the right lane. I to can give advice too; If you use your bicycle on the Hawthorne Bridge or other pedestrian shared bike routes, be sure you keep your speed down to 5 MPH and be sure to call out every time you are approaching pedestrians from behind.
“What makes you think the Sylvan Interchange reduces congestion in downtown Portland?”
It doesn’t, but I-5, I-405, the Markham and Fremont Bridges all do reduce traffic congestion downtown. The Sylvan Interchange reduces congestion on the Sunset, Canyon Road and other streets and roads around the interchange.
“Where do you think that extra traffic on HWY 26 is going?”
The majority of the traffic is not going downtown. Downtown Portland has had a significant loss of jobs over the past few years while the number of jobs in Washington and Clackamas Counties have grown. If you haven’t noticed, the traffic on the Sunset is close to equal in each direction most times including rush hours.
And I do not want to contribute any of the taxes I pay towards bicycle infrastructure
I don’t want to contribute my taxes to building and maintaining freeway capacity I have no use for. I also don’t want to contribute any of my taxes to fighting the war in Iraq. But we don’t get to indvidually decide how our get spent.
You are paying to use your car on the roadways, not your bike.
No. I use my bike on the road more than I use my car, so my gas (and property) tax pays for a little of both. Your gas tax may or may not enough to cover the costs of your car use – probably not if you are commuting during rush hour.
You seem to be claiming that you have a right, as an auto user, to have your auto use subsidized by other auto users. I don’t see why.
Why should people who use transit, walk and ride their bikes to work during rush hour pay the cost of all the extra capacity needed by those who choose to drive to work?
Again, its similar to the guy who buys the steak and lobster, but doesn’t order a drink, and wants the guy who gets a burger and fries with a beer to split the tab for food, but not for drinks.
It doesn’t, but I-5, I-405, the Markham and Fremont Bridges all do reduce traffic congestion downtown.
Not hardly. All you have to do is look at streets that provide access to the freeways. During rush hour they are all congested. Those limited access points speed the travel of people on the freeway, but they create congestion for everyone else. Freeways also create congestion by moving too many people to the same place at the same time.
Downtown Portland has had a significant loss of jobs over the past few years while the number of jobs in Washington and Clackamas Counties have grown.
I think that is literally an urban myth.
Terry wrote: “Downtown Portland has had a significant loss of jobs over the past few years while the number of jobs in Washington and Clackamas Counties have grown.”
Ross replied: “I think that is literally an urban myth.”
I have posted links to the Metro Regional Databook several times to this site which clearly show downtown employment increasing steadily until the last available numbers in 2000.
Nobody (as far as I know) has posted any official numbers to show a decline for 2000-2005, so for the time being I think the term “urban myth” does indeed apply.
One reason for the misconception may be that the _rate_ of employment _growth_ is higher in the suburbs, but this makes a certain amount of sense regardless of economic factors simply because much of Portland is already built-out. Areas with lots of room to grow are going to have higher rates of growth period. But having a lower rate of growth is not the same thing as a decline.
– Bob R.
Ross,
” I don’t want to contribute my taxes to building and maintaining freeway capacity I have no use for.”
I don’t want my gas taxes to pay for anything that motor vehicles can not use. Can you tell me where the motor vehicle access is for that narrow bridge on the north side of the Sylvan Interchange? Gas taxes paid for it, I should be able to drive on it.
“I also don’t want to contribute any of my taxes to fighting the war in Iraq.”
What about your taxes paying for arms for the genocide killing of innocent children and civilians in Lebanon in addition to the property destruction and the rebuilding costs that US taxpayers will probably also pay for?
“I use my bike on the road more than I use my car”
Without a bicycle user tax, that means you are not paying for the majority of your road use and therefore it must be subsidized by somebody else.
“Again, its similar to the guy who buys the steak and lobster, but doesn’t order a drink, and wants the guy who gets a burger and fries with a beer to split the tab for food, but not for drinks.”
It is more like the bicyclist that comes to the table with a spending plan for bicycle infrastructure, but leaves without a bicycle user tax plan to pay for it. The bicyclist doesn’t even want to pay for his/her own meal no matter how the costs are divvied up.
“All you have to do is look at streets that provide access to the freeways.”
So then you would suggest that all I-405 traffic could be rerouted to SW Broadway and SW 4th Avenue while all I-5 traffic could be rerouted to Naito Parkway with no impact to downtown
Portland.
“Freeways also create congestion by moving too many people to the same place at the same time.”
First of all, talk about a myth, people using the freeways are not all going to the same place. Freeway users have a diversity of destinations, far more than transit or wit bicycling. If as you say, freeways are moving too many people, then even with congestion, freeways are a highly efficient method of moving people. How can you move too many people?
(Portland Job Loss) “I think that is literally an urban myth.”
Multnomah County
Number of jobs in 2001: 444,397
Number of jobs in 2005: 428,250
Washington County
Number of jobs in 2001: 228,509
Number of jobs in 2005: 235,074
Clackamas County
Number of jobs in 2001: 133,998
Number of jobs in 2005: 143,625
Source: Portland Tribune
Portland with all its so-called smart policies is the obvious looser. Furthermore, Portland’s unemployment rate in June 06 was 5.0 vs 4.6 for the national average. How smart is that?
What a ride this has been…
Terry –
Assuming those numbers are accurate, Multnomah County is not “downtown Portland” which was the claim you made.
Without a bicycle user tax, that means you are not paying for the majority of your road use
Terry – again you claim people who biek should pay more while their gas taxes are spent on roads that they don’t use.
I think the basic problem is that you see the public right-of-way as belonging exclusively to you as a motorist. Moreover you claim the bulk of the money motorists pay in gas tax has to be spent on capacity for your commute, even the taxes paid by people who have no need for that capacity.
Those people using transit and biking during rush hour are actually reducing the amount of gas tax every motorist pays. Its far cheaper to pay for a bus to move 80 people to work than it is to pay for road space for 80 more cars. As you pointed out earlier in this thread, transit is usually slower than driving ones own car. So those transit users are actually paying in increased commute time to reduce your commute time.
So bike and transit users are saving you time and money and you are complaining about it.
“All you have to do is look at streets that provide access to the freeways.”
So then you would suggest that all I-405 traffic could be rerouted to SW Broadway and SW 4th Avenue while all I-5 traffic could be rerouted to Naito Parkway with no impact to downtown
Portland.
Of course not. Do you really believe all the traffic on I-405 would be there if the freeway wasn’t? There are clearly benefits to freeways, thats why they were built, but reducing congestion isn’t one of them.
“Freeways also create congestion by moving too many people to the same place at the same time.”
First of all, talk about a myth, people using the freeways are not all going to the same place.
No one said they were, but its clear the destinations for people on a freeway are limited to freeway exits and the streets connected to them.
If as you say, freeways are moving too many people, then even with congestion, freeways are a highly efficient method of moving people. How can you move too many people?
What do you think causes congestion? Too many people moved to the same spot at the same time. Each of them is contributing to the problem and the freeway, by facilitating all those folks arriving at the same place at the same time virtually guarantees there will be congestion in any urbanized environment.
As for efficient, you seem to be mistaking capacity for efficiency. Freeways certainly aren’t efficient for urban commuters in a cost sense.
Ross,
“Assuming those numbers are accurate.”
The Tribune’s sources were: Population Resource Center, Portland State University & Oregon Employment Department. Do you doubt their ability to provide accurate information? With a job loss of 16,000+ jobs in Multnomah County, how can anyone believe that a significant job loss has not occurred in downtown Portland? Plainly visible vacant and empty storefronts have been one sign of the times.
“again you claim people who bike should pay more while their gas taxes are spent on roads that they don’t use”
Motorists paid gas taxes give drivers a choice of which roads to use. Bicyclists in bicycle mode pay zero, nada, nothing in user taxes.Your statement should be corrected to say: (motorist paid) gas taxes are spent on bicycle infrastructure that they (motorists) can’t use
“So bike and transit users are saving you time and money and you are complaining about it.”
I am complaining about bicyclists and transit users not paying for the government services they use thereby being subsidized by non-users of those same services.
“Do you really believe all the traffic on I-405 would be there if the freeway wasn’t? There are clearly benefits to freeways, that’s why they were built, but reducing congestion isn’t one of them.”
If the traffic was not on the freeways, it would be somewhere else, possibly clogging the local streets you want to ride your bike on.
“its clear the destinations for people on a freeway are limited to freeway exits and the streets connected to them.”
That is why they call them freeways and not local streets. Freeways would not work to reduce congestion if there were exits and entrances every two blocks. Freeways work because many local streets can be bypassed by using them over an entire route of travel.
“What do you think causes congestion?”
Density
“Too many people moved to the same spot at the same time.”
You have just described high density, compacting jobs into one area and downtown Portland.
“As for efficient, you seem to be mistaking capacity for efficiency.”
This sounds like a good description of mass transit in Portland in that ridership fares only cover 20% of operating costs.
Correction: That is why they call them freeways and not local streets. Freeways would not work to reduce congestion if there were exits and entrances every two blocks. Freeways work because many local streets can be bypassed by using them over part of an entire route of travel.
Ah. But by concentrating cars in one place that might otherwise disperse on a grid, freeways are also a factor in creating congestion.
Freeways would not work to reduce congestion if there were exits and entrances every two blocks. Freeways work because many local streets can be bypassed by using them over part of an entire route of travel.
Anyone who has tried to get across the Banfield during rush hour knows that the limited streets with crossings are all congested and the streets with access to the freeway or exits from it are congested worst of all. And, of course, the freeway is congested as well. Freeways clearly cause congestion, where are those streets where they have relieved it?
If the traffic was not on the freeways, it would be somewhere else,
No, it wouldn’t exist at all. People simply wouldn’t travel as far. That has its downsides, but the fact is people determine an acceptable trip length by time, not distance. They are still going to travel further, and require more road space, for a 20 minute trip on the freeway crawling along at 40 mph at rush hour then they will on local streets zipping along at 25.
“Anyone who has tried to get across the Banfield during rush hour knows that the limited streets with crossings are all congested and the streets with access to the freeway or exits from it are congested worst of all. And, of course, the freeway is congested as well.”
Would you rather go to the expense to bridge all streets crossing the Banfield instead of just the arterials, and then have more rapid traffic spread out and flowing through on residential neighborhood streets? The density of people in a compact area, not freeways cause congestion – too many people in too close proximity to each other in too dense of an environment. Furthermore, the reason for more traffic congestion near freeway entrances is due to the attempt by some to limit freeway access with ramp metering. Freeways do not generate traffic, they accommodate it in the most efficient manner.
(traffic) “it wouldn’t exist at all. People simply wouldn’t travel as far”
The majority of people are more like spotted owls than sardines. They have a desire/dream for attached yards for their children and personal open/green space rather than having to live canned up a in a high density people warehouse near a concrete mini-park. If the job base was less concentrated and more decentralized, maybe employment opportunities would be available closer to what people want to call home. Compact high density development has its downsides, but rarely are they pointed out by the promoters.
Terry wrote: “Would you rather go to the expense to bridge all streets crossing the Banfield instead of just the arterials, and then have more rapid traffic spread out and flowing through on residential neighborhood streets?”
That’s kind of a chicken and egg question. There were far more crossings of that area, at ground level, before the freeway was built. In fact, in one place, a limited local connection still exists which goes _under_ I-84, but it now dead-ends at the existing business it serves.
The construction of the proposed Mt. Hood Freeway would have literally destroyed several vibrant neighborhoods which still exist today. I-205 construction destroyed hundreds of homes and most local street grid connectivity.
This is not to say that freeways don’t serve a purpose, or that you should never build freeways in already-populated corridors, but it is really indisputable that freeway construction disrupts existing street grids and neighborhoods.
I for one would love to see more I-84 overcrossings. There are plenty of streets which are not purely residential which would link neighborhoods back together if they crossed I-84.
My high-priority list of desired crossings which would NOT remove existing structures:
NE 7th Ave
NE 24th Ave
NE 44th Ave
NE 57th Ave (This one alone would remove large amounts of semi-truck traffic off of purely residential streets in my neighborhood.)
A lower-priority list of supplemental crossings to consider which would NOT remove existing structures:
NE 11th Ave
NE 16th Ave
NE 63rd Ave
NE 112th Ave (via NE 11th Dr)
Additional crossings to consider which WOULD cause the removal of existing private structures:
NE 9th Ave
NE 92nd Ave
And right now there is nothing, nothing!, between 122nd and 148th. Some one wanting to visit a neighbor just 400ft away as the crow flies must drive a minimum of 40 blocks when they otherwise could have walked 2 blocks.
All of the streets I have mentioned, to the best of my knowledge, used to connect before the construction of I-84, and I haven’t even listed the numerous east-west streets cut off where I-84 and I-205 share a N-S corridor.
– Bob R.
Furthermore, the reason for more traffic congestion near freeway entrances is due to the attempt by some to limit freeway access with ramp metering
Actually ramp meters are there to serve vehicles on the freeway by either limiting access, as you point out, or to facilitate merging without disrupting the flow of traffic on the freeway. As you seem to recognize, their purpose is to essentially transfer congestion from the freeway to the local streets.
If the job base was less concentrated and more decentralized, maybe employment opportunities would be available closer to what people want to call home.
You can always move to Burns, there is plenty of space but no jobs. I assume that is because there are economic advantages for businesses to locate where there is higher density even though it costs more. This is why places like Kruse Way and Downtown Portland have the highest commercial rents.
The majority of people are more like spotted owls than sardines. They have a desire/dream for attached yards for their children and personal open/green space rather than having to live canned up a in a high density people warehouse near a concrete mini-park.
For most of human history you had three lifestyle choices (if you had any choice in the matter): farm, village, city.
The prototypical surban ranch with yard is a purely post-WWII creation. It’s unclear to me if most people really prefer that or if that’s just what pro-suburban federal subsidies until the ’80s (and much momentum since then) have been producing.
The sardines are paying top dollar to squeeze themselves into condos in the Pearl and SoWa. These prices may well be driven by the relative scarcity of this housing type. Maybe if there were more compact urban spaces available, the prices would be more reasonable.
“What do you think causes congestion?”
Density
Density does not create congestion. Why does Washington County have so much congestion? Is it because it is dense? No, it’s because it has a poorly planned road system with few connecting streets.
Density can actually decrease congestion, providing more destinations in a closer area. This must be done correctly though.
This conversation is getting a little old. There’s very little objectivity in these comments…
(referring to the Banfield) “There were far more crossings of that area, at ground level, before the freeway was built.”
“it is really indisputable that freeway construction disrupts existing street grids and neighborhoods.”
The Union Pacific Railroad has used its parallel route since the mid to late 1800’s. Even without the freeway, most grade level crossings would have been eliminated for safety reasons. As an example, the railroad originally had a grade level crossing with Sandy Boulevard. Much of the railroad grade on both sides of Sandy still exists. Many of the original crossings over the railroad were built in the second decade of the 1900s. At least one 1917-18 bridge over the tracks remained intact until Max was built and the freeway was widened in the 1980s. The land the freeway now occupies near Benson High School was a golf course. The land under the freeway between 63th and 68th was still in farm use well into the late 1940s. the freeway was built originally built in the early 1950’s.
(in reference to a Banfield over crossing at 57th)
In about 1993-94 a design was developed through community to replace the warehouses between Normandale Park and the Banfield with housing. This would have eliminated the majority of the truck traffic using 57th Avenue to serve those structures. The warehouses were built there to have railroad access that is little used today. Part of the study included connecting the west end of the 60th Avenue Max station with a pedestrian over crossing that would bridge the freeway between the would be new housing on the north side and the housing complexes that are now at 60th and Glisan.
“You can always move to Burns, there is plenty of space but no jobs.”
So are you saying Burns needs some economic assistance? There is a big difference between Burns and decentralizing some jobs to the suburbs.
“For most of human history you had three lifestyle choices (if you had any choice in the matter): farm, village, city.”
Suburbs are the modern day villages. Cities like Portland are indirectly creating more of them due to over densification.
“The sardines are paying top dollar to squeeze themselves into condos in the Pearl and SoWa.”
So the fish have been reeled in and there is no need to subsidize high density housing and TODS with tax breaks, cheap taxpayer supplied land, urban renewal and property tax abatements, yet City government still does.
Terry –
I agree that most grade level crossings would have been eliminated by the railroad over time, however I believe that the important ones would have been replaced with grade-separated crossings, and more numerous ones than now span the freeway.
Regarding the Normandale Park / 57th area, yes gradual transition from warehouse to housing would alleviate the truck traffic problem. But it does not appear that any of the current warehouse occupants plan on moving/converting anytime soon (especially with some recent upgrades/remodeling that have occurred), nor do I believe that they should be forced out. Regardless of future uses of this land, a crossing at 57th would better connect the neighborhoods and provide an alternative to frequent truck traffic.
Most trucks from I-84 now run on Hassalo between 53rd and 60th. From Normandale Park to 60th, Hassalo is a purely residential street, with limited sidewalks, and children and pets playing in the street, plus numerous pedestrians walking their dogs to the popular off-leash park. The situation is a fatality waiting to happen.
The problem regarding sidewalks is, near as we can tell, the street was widened in the past (perhaps in the 50’s or 60’s), probably to accommodate the truck traffic, and the sidewalks were removed. 60th was also widened and the sidewalks cut in half (you can still see in places where chunks of the original sidewalk are now used as curb). Clearly, more sidewalks would help… Should property owners be held responsible for the full cost of putting sidewalks back in (and losing setbacks) when there used to be sidewalks that were removed?
A bridge at 57th would allow for the natural residential character of Hassalo to return, while providing improved access for truck traffic.
– Bob R.
If the job base was less concentrated and more decentralized, maybe employment opportunities would be available closer to what people want to call home.
Actually, that is what is happening. Suburb to suburb commuting is where we are seeing a lot of growth, and the reverse commute (live in city, work in suburb) is close to matching the traditional suburb to city commute.
But, having housing and jobs both in the suburbs does not mean a decrease in traffic because people actually arent living any closer to work.
What is actually happening is that people are commuting significant distances from one suburb to a completely different suburb on another side of the region, or from the exurbs into the suburbs.