It is interesting to see the number of anti-transit comments left by Tribune readers at the end of the article. Even though the RTP proposes an improved network of major arterials and local arterials, because it does not include new freeways some people characterize it as being "anti-road". Apparently, anything short of all-freeways, all the time is insufficient.

The Tribune also ran an article quoting the ballpark cost of the Columbia River Crossing project to be $6 billion dollars.

That's more than double what we've spent on light rail so far, for just 5 miles of corridor, serving roughly the same number of daily trips.

And no, gas taxes and user fees won't pay for it. If you take $6 billion out 50 years (not accounting for inflation or finance costs, bridge and pavement maintenance, etc.) and take the current corridor load of 110,000 daily vehicles, the toll would have to be $3 each way. Anything short of that $6 round-trip toll would amount to a subsidy.

That toll works out to 60-cents per vehicle mile. If tolls are not used, assuming a fleet average of 25mpg, the gas tax would have to be $15 per gallon to cover that bridge! (Yes, there is a big mathematical hole in that argument -- only those gallons used while driving across the bridge would have to be taxed at $15 -- better to have a toll.)

- Bob R.

I have heard from very reliable sources that David Cox is very anti-transit. He even tried to convince ODOT that they shouldn't allow the I-205 MAX to be built next to the freeway since this would place limits on future road expansion.

I can only think back to the old adage about a hero being best defined by the qualities of his or her enemies.

Current interstate bridge ADT is about 135,000. This brings your calc down to $2.50 each way. And, if you remember from the article, the bridge structure itself is about 1 billion. Using that number, the toll would be about $0.40. For that matter, the LRT/BRT bridge would also cost 1b. Not sure if TriMet would add an extra 80 cents to the cost of a ticket. Clearly infrastructure is built with subsidies (none greater than LRT. I like LRT too). What we've spent on LRT so far does not take into account the time value of money so you're comparing apples and oranges here. Your back of the napkin calcs are fun but unfortunately far too simplistic for reality. In any case, that's not "how it's done" when it comes time to decide whether or not to move forward with a project.

The RTP may call for an improved network of major arterials, but the PDOT is doing just the opposite by reducing vehicle capacity on the arterials that already exists. Arterials like Sandy, Hawthorne, Lombard, and Foster have or will have what is called street modernization done to them; basically adding aesthetics along with curb extensions so busses then load and unload in travel lanes thereby blocking other traffic and creating more congestion. Adding streetcar service to streets like Grand, MLK, Broadway, Burnside and Couch only further congests the major arterials. What Metro is actually proposing along with some of the Goldschmidt hired henchmen at PDOT is promoting more congestion on existing streets. For novices in transportation planning, they mask it as livability.

However, the biggest problems with the RTP is that it does not address reality, does not place transportation needs first in a transportation document, does not recognize the majority of people vote with their cars by driving them, and the fact that growth will bring more cars and the need for increased highway capacity.

What the RTP represents is a social engineering experiment that has yet to work, and probably never will.

Current interstate bridge ADT is about 135,000

The article I read said 110,000, and I just went Google News searching and found another that says 125,000. Forgive me if I didn't find your numbers first.

Your back of the napkin calcs are fun but unfortunately far too simplistic for reality.

Mr. Tired -

I've had to rely on numbers from newspaper articles and other public sources, and I've fully admitted when something is "back of the napkin" and I've identified my sources.

You come in here and drop "this is how it's done" arguments from authority from time-to-time, but when pressed for numbers, sources, and reasons (especially with regard to alternatives analysis), your only response has been to occasionally slam people for allegedly not knowing what they're talking about.

I'll stick with the napkin analysis until somebody posts comprehensive, real numbers and not just arguments from authority.

- Bob R.

PS... If you want to separate $1bn for the bridge from the $6bn for the project, can you tell me what of the remaining $5bn in projects would be necessary and would be implemented were it not for the bridge rebuild proposal? If the $5bn is not to come from bridge tolls, where will it come from?

Well, I say that if it takes a $5 one-way toll to build a new Columbia River crossing, and people *really* want it that bad, and it can be done using the bonded proceeds from that toll without any other taxpayer subsidy, and it *will* include a new light rail link to deal with the fact that a new bridge will not erase any congestion from the rest of the freeway network --

I say, let's put it to a bi-state, 4-county vote. If the people want it that bad, and are willing to pay a $5 one-way toll (free the opposite direction to save some $$ by building only a single toll plaza), then fine.

But the toll plaza goes on the Vancouver side of the river, and is for southbound travel only.

Howzat?

If folks want more highway capacity, let them pay for it with tolls on all new facilities that fully cover the entire capital and operations cost.

Otherwise, let Metro do its job and allocate what limited regional funding they have control over, as they see fit.

So far, they've done a pretty decent job delivering the #1 most livable region in the country on what amounts to a shoestring budget.

I have heard from very reliable sources that David Cox is very anti-transit.

Lets just say its likely David Cox and Mr. Tired would be very comfortable with one another's views.

But the choice is not between using an auto or transit. People can now use an automobile for almost any trip. No one is proposing changing that. In fact, the idea is that by having a local street and arterial grid, rather than channeling traffic onto highways, you will actually provide better service for most of the trips people make by auto.

On the other hand there are many trips where there is no alternative to using an auto. We ought to invest in making sure people are really choosing to use their car, not just forced to because they have no other option. The region's past experience shows that when people have a choice, many use transit. And even people who choose not to benefit from the choices of the people that do.

Just to be clear on the bridge discussion. My guess is that there is no price point that will actually pay $6 billion for the bridge. If you charged a $3 toll each direction the number of vehicles using the bridge would drop dramatically. Which would force you to raise the toll which would cause a further drop ...

Bob,

Check the Clark County RTC (and this is 1999):
http://www.rtc.wa.gov/reports/mtp/mtp99ch3.pdf

I added a little bit of growth (

As for "that's not how it's done". Well, do you think that the DOT's simply take the cost of a project, divide by the number of years and the number of days in a year and then divide by the ADT? Of course you don't. I'm talking present value of funds, inflation rates, benefit-cost ratios, and lots of other stuff that 'back of the napkin' calcs don't include such time travel savings, carbon emissions, operating costs, depreciation, etc etc. One doesn't have to be an 'expert' to know this. Again, this is the type of thing I am 'tired' of - armchair planners/engineers who don't bother to learn about the complexities of the process. Does this answer your question? Take a look at some of the transportation/planning literature, or even just look up benefit-cost analysis - I shouldn't have to take time to tell you where to find that.

As for the $1b for the bridge... A lot of info is inthat article you cited. Another $1b for the LRT/BRT bridge and related transit improvements. (You want that, right?).And how about purchasing ROW - pricey real estate nowadays. And rebuilding/reconstructing the following interchanges: Victory/Interstate, Marine Drive, Hayden Island, SR-14, Mill Plain, and 4th Plain. Not cheap (don't know numbers off the top of my head here but looking at least $1-2b probably. I think that $6b includes contingencies (even a small home remodel effort suggests %20 extra) - there's another billion. I think we are up to $4-5 at this point. Also $$$ for TDM/TSM stuff, tolling infrastructure (no tollbooths though, Electronic toll collection (ETC), the bicycle/pedestrian connections, and some other stuff - anyway, you get the point. A lot of the dough will come from from the feds of course, as usual. Some from the states, especially Washington.

Ross: I'm a huge fan of transit. I'm not sure David Cox and I would agree on everything, but I know that he and I both have the depth of knowledge to see both (or multiple) sides and can argue them as well. And, believe it or not, a toll of $2-3 each way has a very minimal effect (maybe 10%) on demand. I've seen the models...

The toll on the GG Bridge is now $4, as well as the Bay Bridge - and it's packed all day...

Oops. That little bit of growth was slightly less than 1 percent. (about 0.8%).

>

AMEN TO THAT GARLYNN!!!! Sometimes I get a little bummed out when reading all the negative things people say about Portland on these kind of blogs, but then I realize: it's just a couple very vocal, passionately dis-satisfied individuals who represent an extreme minority of the population of this city. I simply can turn off my computer, walk outside, and see the reality: a stunningly beautiful city with a poplace that is generally very happy with how their city is growing and evolving!!

And no, Terry, people do not "vote with their cars." How silly is that?!?! They vote with paper ballot for individuals that they think represent their interests and would promote their values.

Garlynn,

My "Amen to That" was from this comment of yours:

"So far, they've done a pretty decent job delivering the #1 most livable region in the country...."

Apparantly using certain symbols while posting makes things disapear! ;-)

a toll of $2-3 each way has a very minimal effect (maybe 10%) on demand

That is pure nonsense whatever your private model says. There have been numerous public studies done in the region on toll roads. They all end up in the same place. Not enough people are willing to pay a high enough toll to cover the costs.

The toll on the GG Bridge

Yes, there are crowded toll roads. But Vancouver is not Marin County and Portland is not San Francisco. And people don't drive across the Golden Gate bridge just to avoid paying sales tax.

BTW Mr. Tired - Since when is even a 10% reduction in traffic a "very minimal effect"?

Ross:

Hardly a private model - it is right out of Metro HQ (Give them a call if you want). You are right - 10% is a significant effect, relative to transit usage or to various TDM techniques. I meant "very minimal" both as a counterpoint to your "drop dramatically" description as well as to the overall effect on total travel demand during peak hours. If we are looking at demand estimates close to 28000-32000 vehicles over a 4 hour peak period (in 2030), then 2800 to 3200 veh (over 4hrs), while significant, doesn't make too much difference when considering that a) 700-800 vph has very minimal effect on operations and b) with the new bridge operating at a better LOS, vehicles travelig duing the shoulders of the peak will tend to travel closer to the 'peak of the peak'. Tolling might not make sense in a (currently) sparsely populated area like Sunnyside, or as an alternate route (when the main route is untolled) near Dundee.

Furthermore, the SF/Marin Co. and SF/Oakland examples are actually good ones, because the majority of those trips, just like the majority of trips from/to PDX/VAN are commuters (at least during peak hours). Those folks are going and leaving work - not going shopping. Plus all the freight traffic are not shopping. In any case, we aren't talking about toll roads, we are talking about a toll bridge. Very different animals. Also considering the possibility of a toll on I-205. And, we are also not talking about building a completely new facility (in terms of total length and features such as access/egress points, overcrossings, ROW, etc), just "redoing" a part of an existing one.

At the Metro Council work session yesterday, Counselor Liberty made a power point presentation of which one part broke out the projected bridge costs into three categories, the crossing for motor vehicles, the crossing for transit (light rail) and the connecting infrastructure on each side of the river. The projected price tag for each category was one to two billion dollars. Although I did not pick up on any price tag for the bicycle and pedestrian portion of the crossing, it was probably lumped in with one of the two crossing groups.

Given Counselor Liberty’s figures, it would appear that it costs as much to build ten to twelve lanes for motor vehicles to cross the river as it does to get additional Max service across the river; therefore, if tolls are part of the funding mechanism, the tolls should also be equally split between motorists and transit riders, with the bicyclists contributing tolls into which ever half of the crossing the bicycle infrastructure costs are lumped into.

Yeah, I'm a non-driver and therefore heavy transit rider, and I agree that transit users should pay a surcharge for going over the new bridge.

What I don't understand is why there has to be a separate bridge for LRT/BRT. Why not have two 11-12 foot dual-mode lanes for transit on one of the structures?

Terry and Mr Tired,
I'm not disputing your numbers which say that LRT will cost up to 2 billion....

But, wow, that would be some expensive LRT!

I really have a difficult time believing that.... And I have a difficult time believing that this new bridge, even with new interchanges, could cost 6 Billion Dollars!

No way. Impossible. This would probably be the most expensive bridge ever built in the US. Does anybody know?

This whole project is absolutley insane! Just think what we could do for regional transportation with 6 Billion. Holy shit, wtf is going on in the CRC guys' heads? Are they actually really considerng this project? Really?!

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. ;)

Furthermore, the SF/Marin Co. and SF/Oakland examples are actually good ones, because the majority of those trips, just like the majority of trips from/to PDX/VAN are commuters (at least during peak hours)

The reality is that Marin County is hardly a refuge for people looking for affordable housing. That house in Vancouver is not going to look so cheap if you add $130 per month in tolls on the bridge. Or $260 per month if you have two people driving their own autos across the bridge.

is right out of Metro HQ

Metro HQ has done a lot of reports. Which public modeling result specifically are you referring to? If they have modeled paying the full cost of the bridge project with tolls, where is it? My guess is this is another example of your misuse of models of mode splits.

Those folks are going and leaving work - not going shopping.

What the people who continue to use the bridge are doing isn't relevant to the question. The reality is even at rush hour a significant number of trips across the bridge have nothing to do with commutes.

In any case, we aren't talking about toll roads, we are talking about a toll bridge. Very different animals. Also considering the possibility of a toll on I-205.

Maybe its a very different animal. But where is the study that shows that it would work any better? If you also toll I-205 you can certainly make it work financially. But then you are no longer tolling new capacity to pay for itself, you are tolling existing capacity. And if you just tolled the existing capacity on both I5 and I205 you wouldn't be congestion on either bridge.

I think the truth is there is no intention of paying for the bridge with user tolls. It is going to be heavily financed with federal transportation dollars. There will likely be a toll to pay some or all of the local match. But a toll for the full cost would cause a revolution in Vancouver. Especially since, as you pointed out, that $3 back of the envelope number is really low-balling what would actually be required.

And, we are also not talking about building a completely new facility (in terms of total length and features such as access/egress points, overcrossings, ROW, etc), just "redoing" a part of an existing one.

You are right. Its a much more expensive project than the ones that have been contemplated elsewhere considering the need to maintain operation of the existing freeway. At some point the question of the costs of construction congestion will get raised.

Ross:

I love how you bring up that

"people don't drive across the Golden Gate bridge just to avoid paying sales tax" (referring to the I-5 bridge)

and then try and tell me

"What the people who continue to use the bridge are doing isn't relevant to the question"

and then say

"The reality is even at rush hour a significant number of trips across the bridge have nothing to do with commutes."

The fact is, people are not going shopping at Jantzen Beach between 6am and 10am. Housing in Vancouver will still be cheaper than Portland, probably forever. People have been moving there for years - for cheaper housing, better schools, lower taxes, etc. And many of them still sit in heavy congestion everyday. The majority of bridge trips (as is the majority of all trips) during the morning and afternoon peaks are commuters. Exactly when do you think people are going/coming from work?

The models I am referring to are the macrosimulations run on Metro computers that detail traffic flows on the transportation network. In these models, tolling costs are input into the gravity model's utility equations to represent the positive and negative aspects of the 'costs' (money, waiting time, in-vehicle time, comfort level, etc etc.) of each possible way of getting from A to B. "Mode split" is an OUTPUT of transportation models, not an INPUT.

The tolls will pay for part of the cost - the majority will be from the feds and states. I don't believe anyone is suggesting that the bridge will be financed 100% by tolls.

Mr Tired Says:

The fact is, people are not going shopping at Jantzen Beach between 6am and 10am.

Having been there at those hours, I'm going to have to disagree with that. They aren't in the same numbers they are at 3pm on a Saturday, but there are still plenty of customers there...

Mr. Tired is correct in his statement: “The majority of bridge trips (as is the majority of all trips) during the morning and afternoon peaks are commuters. The models …are the macrosimulations run on Metro computers that detail traffic flows on the transportation network. In these models, tolling costs are input into the gravity model's utility equations to represent the positive and negative aspects of the 'costs' (money, waiting time, in-vehicle time, comfort level, etc etc.) of each possible way of getting from A to B. "Mode split" is an OUTPUT of transportation models, not an INPUT”.

The reason public transportation shows up so poorly in the OUTPUT of the transportation models is because the design of the transit networks INPUTED do not provide a fast and direct way to get from A to B.

If the INPUTED transit systems in Clark County, Hayden Island and N and NE Portland were intelligently designed multi-destinational grid networks with frequent service, connected to the Yellow Line extended to Vancouver, the “Mode split” OUTPUT would be much different --- garbage in – garbage out.

love how you bring up that

You apparently think there is something contradictory in those three statements, but there isn't. They mostly aren't even related.

people are not going shopping at Jantzen Beach between 6am and 10am

So what? We weren't talking about rush hour tolls, we were talking about tolls on every trip to pay for the bridge.

Housing in Vancouver will still be cheaper than Portland

Sure, because it will always be less desirable. And a $260/month toll bill for a couple that commutes is going to reduce the market price of housing in Vancouver pretty substantially by making it even less desirable.

"Mode split" is an OUTPUT of transportation models, not an INPUT

Which is exactly what I said. You are drawing unwarranted conclusions about "demand" from a model designed to output mode splits, not evaluate tolling economics. I doubt Metro has ever even attempted to model the economics of a $6/day toll on I5 with no toll on I205. Modeling costs money.

I don't believe anyone is suggesting that the bridge will be financed 100% by tolls.

Wasn't that what the back of the envelope calculation that started this discussion was intended to do - show the cost of fully funding the bridge?

Wasn't that what the back of the envelope calculation that started this discussion was intended to do - show the cost of fully funding the bridge?

Speaking as the person who did the back-of-the-envelope calculation, YES, that's what I intended to do. :-)

Seriously, I don't mind a surcharge for transit users to help pay for heavy infrastructure - BART in San Francisco charges extra for trips that utilize the TransBay Tube, plus the normal distance-based fare.

I'd have no real monetary objection to a big, single CRC bridge (I do still have quality-of-life and local-traffic-based objections) if it were shown that tolls would pay for the project. But for now I haven't seen anything to convince me that this project won't eat up a hugely disproportionate share of local and regional transportation dollars -- dollars that could go to BETTER road projects region-wide, not just transit projects.

As for the criticism that I'm an armchair transportation critic - Guilty. It's called being a good citizen. I go to meetings. I work through "what if" scenarios beyond just coming up with an idea. I now serve on a committee. It is unfair to criticise the members of the public who are trying to be involved in these processes for not actually being an insider with a degree in your field.

In my field (primarily software development with a healthy dose of multimedia), I can assure you that my loyal clients would desert me in a hurry if I treated their ideas with the kind of disdain that has been shown by a pseudonymous insider. My role in cases where I think a client is way off base is to educate and enlighten, not dismiss.

In the case of the CRC project, the public is the client. I'm sure most of the staff knows this and interacts appropriately, but I'm concerned that at least a few bad apples are not working to address seemingly-valid concerns coming from the client.

- Bob R.