If just those who use the bridge were to pay for it, the toll for each car crossing the bridge would be about $7.50.

At a toll of $15 for a round-trip we'd take care of our congestion problems on this bridge (most of it would use I-205 instead). I'm sure we'd see more than a few people moving south, too.

So if Clark County commuters aren't willing to pay $15 a day for a round-trip to Portland, that means they want the new bridge -- but only if somebody else pays for it.

Of course this is true. God forbid we should have to incur the actual costs of the choices we make. Unfortunately this is the mindset that led us to build out the Interstate highway system to a point where we can't afford to maintain it. And yet we keep building more.

If as a whole the Columbia Crossing project is considered for the good of the people and a for the good of the people funding model is used, then NO tolls should be charged at all. If the user paid financing model is also part of the funding mix and tolls are charged, then the users of all modes of transport MUST pay a toll. Anything less is discriminatory socialism.

Terry,

Can you define a "for the good of the people funding model" for me? This seems a bit subjective. I could argue that tolling is for the good of the people because it limits SOV commuters and that is good. Other arguments can be made around and against me here.

Also, are you suggesting that creating a system where there is an incentive to ride a train or bus or carpool is discriminatory socialism? How? We use incentives all the time to try and get people to make choices that limit their individual negative impact on society. For example you can get a tax rebate if you by a new high efficiency washer rather than old style in-efficient model.

Ken-- Please explain why limiting "SOV" commuters is good for society? "SOV" commuters happen to pay the most fuel tax per-person-per-mile then any other mode out there.

If all the SOV's dried up, how would your trams, trollies, esplanades, and trains be funded?

I always thought of transit as a welfare program [and it is], so encouraging transit is the same as encouraging people to become dependent on government hand-out programs.

Do we encourage people to switch to food stamps?

Bumper sticker politics. :)

No CRC sticker

Well I think that bikes are for the good of the people, so I think we should pay money to bicyclists who cross the bridge!! And perhaps free ice cream and strawberries for transit riders.

How's that for contrarian demogoguery?

Honestly, I think this is a great editorial. The CRC seems like a wasteful monstrosity to me. At the beginning, he says "most everyone is in favor" of building. Is that true? I haven't seen polls, but I can't imagine that it's the case if Portlanders are well informed about the project.

I though that one of the key components to this project was to ensure that this critical stretch of 1-5 did not become a bottleneck. If this is the case then how would a toll on this bridge even be possible? Sure the people that pay electronically would possible glide through but the line of people backed up in the cash line would be a mile deep.

Of the estimated $4 billion price tag, exactly one-half of one percent -- $20 million -- has been identified. The other 99.5 percent will have to come from somewhere else -- from new taxes or tolls.

A valid point, to a degree. New taxes or tolls? Really?

Why not existing taxes for a large chunk? Maybe we could ask the federal government for some of that money they're spending due to I-5 (in it's entirety) being a High Priority Route as determined by Congress in the SAFETEA-LU act.

We're looking at variable rate tolls, which would allow for charging (as is done in Riverside and San Diego Counties in California) up to $15.00 for a one way trip.

On top of that, how much will come from gas taxes and weight mile taxes already being paid?

As I've tried to point out before, a deficient bridge is very unlikely to get FHWA approval to add tolls. They can't remove lanes to gain shoulders, they can't add auxiliary lanes without rebuilding, and they can't get federal monies without improving I-5.

I think that it would be reasonable to try to get a waiver to allow funding for adding two arterial/transit/ped/bike bridges at both N Portland Rd to Mill Plain (maybe with a new BNSF bridge?) and NE 33rd to SE Victory (with new ramps to SR-14 and US-30 maybe?).

I bet it could reduce the current I-5 traffic going from Downtown Couv/SR-14/Port of Vancouver to N Portland pretty well, and maybe even give enough alternates to really improve the current bridge.

I'd still love to see the current bridge replaced, but maybe by a cheaper solution coupled with other bridges across the Columbia.

If we can't make the other options a reality, let's just make a sufficient I-5 bridge.

In the Bay Area there is a surcharge added to the fare of BART riders going through the Transbay Tube, it is 79 cents. There was also a surcharge added to the fare of Key System trains going over the Bay Bridge when the predessor Key System operated.

Sure the people that pay electronically would possible glide through but the line of people backed up in the cash line would be a mile deep.

There may not be any cash tollbooths, just the requirement that all users pay electronically, with camera enforcement for vehicles not properly equipped. The new Tacoma Narrows Bridge has offline tollbooths to supplement the electronic tolling on the mainline. Apparently the percentage of traffic using the electronic tolls has greatly exceeded expectations.

I was discussing this with someone recently, and the suggestion came up to have camera enforcement rather than tollbooths, but allow one "freebie" for traffic heading through the region so they wouldn't have to worry about the toll. The cost of tracking down each of these drivers, mailing the fee, etc, would most likely exceed the revenue that would be gained.

That;'s actually not a bad idea. Let every vehicle get one free trip each way per month before you start billing them. Or maybe don't send out out bills until the accumulated tolls exceed $20 or so.

Drivers using the electronic system should get a significant discount. This would encourage users to buy into the system and facilitate billing.

Ken asked: “Can you define a "for the good of the people funding model" for me? This seems a bit subjective. I could argue that tolling is for the good of the people because it limits SOV commuters and that is good.”

Actually Chris brought up the for the good of the people model concept (as opposed to the user paid concept model) at a candidates forum Tuesday evening to my question that sustainability must also include “financial self-sustainability” - and you are correct, it is subjective and means different things to different people. That is also part of diversity. However just as subjective is the term “quality of life” and limiting SOV commuters, the number of cars, etc, especially when you consider (with or without tolls), motor vehicles and their drivers currently pay the majority of transportation taxes to support transport funding. For example, the Federal monies that help pay for light rail, new busses and other transit/alternative options comes from the Federal taxes on motor fuels. About 20 percent of Federal Highway Trust Fund dollars are siphoned off for transit subsidies. Therefore it can be argued that for the good of the people, and the financial health of all the people, and since motorists already pay more than their share for transport infrastructure; driving a motor vehicle is for the good of the people and at the very least at the local level, the users of transport modes such as transit and bicycling need to pay a greater share of providing the service and user specific infrastructure costs.

Furthermore, cars and trucks will not forever be powered by an oil based product. Motor vehicles meet the time and user demand (quality of life) needs of the majority of the population, including families. Attempting to construct a transit system that would meet similar needs is cost prohibitive. Bicycling is a special interest promoted by the politicians that does not fit the transport needs of most people. Those who ride bicycles need to be directly paying for the specialized infrastructure they keep demanding from other taxpayers. Using the tax code to manipulate transport mode choices (driving or otherwise) is socialism. In a democratic society, the official government servants should be serving all the people, supporting financial equity including making for good of the people highway investments for motorists, and not dictating the mode choices through discriminatory tolls or otherwise. Therefore, if tolls are charged for one mode, they should be charged on all modes – that is equity and for the good of ALL the people.

Why don't we just start making the roads directly pay for themselves - ala tolls. Then we wouldn't have to worry about the stupid "for the good of the people mess" because everyone would be paying.

Then other modes would be truly price competitive and actually be able to have entry into the market. The big positive is it wouldn't cause MASSIVE outlays and funding distractions and nightmares to the local cities, states, and federal government if we did that. The people would then be able to decide where they need infrastructure simply by choosing intelligently (which would be possible if costs where included in the transportation factor, unlike currently) where they should live.

Just for a second, imagine people had to actually do that? Wow, that image of transit, cars, and even clean technologies is vastly more viable than using the supposed influence of political "policy".

Why don't we just start making the roads directly pay for themselves - ala tolls.

The problem is that on a federal basis, roads already do pay for themselves.

At the ODOT level, roads pay for themselves (if you include the transfer from the federal gas tax to cover federal-aid highways).

So you're left with discussing city and county roads. Without city streets, would you also eliminate city provided police and fire service, ambulance service, and garbage service? What about the easements for utility services, would you force utilities to have to own the land used for power lines, telephone lines, cable TV lines, water and sewer lines, and natural gas lines? Without publicly owned streets, would the "freedom to travel" no longer be a freedom but dependent solely upon those who own land to grant a right to access?

Without streets, one could not receive mail or packages. Food would have to be grown in your own yard (but alas, since there is the desire for "dense housing" there is no ability to have a garden, because having a yard is not politically correct). So everything would have to be grown hydroponically (provided you have access to well water), and the ability to pump water with whatever electric supply you can create).

Joseph Edge Says:
So if Clark County commuters aren't willing to pay $15 a day for a round-trip to Portland, that means they want the new bridge -- but only if somebody else pays for it.

Of course this is true. God forbid we should have to incur the actual costs of the choices we make. Unfortunately this is the mindset that led us to build out the Interstate highway system to a point where we can't afford to maintain it. And yet we keep building more.

JK: Excellent comment. Now let’s apply that principle to TriMeth:
If people aren’t willing to pay their real cost of about $8.00 every time they board a bus or toy train, that means they want transit -- but only if somebody else pays for it.

If they aren’t willing to pay that $8.00 PLUS a bridge toll, perhaps we shouldn’t build the toy train bridge.

God forbid we should have to incur the actual costs of the choices we make.

Thanks
JK

[Moderator: Italics added for clarity.]

TriMeth
toy train
toy train bridge

Whatever.

$8.00 every time they board

It does not cost $8.00 to deliver a light rail ride.

TriMet claims an operating cost of $1.48 per light rail boarding ride in FY07. You can argue about the methodology and what is or is not included in operating cost calculations, but you're going to have to a whole lot of arguing to get the per-boarding operating costs up to $8.00.

Bob R: TriMet claims an operating cost of $1.48 per light rail boarding ride in FY07.
JK: Why does “busmaxstat.pdf” (2006) claim that rail’s fare recovery ratio is 35%? That would put the actual cost per boarding at $1.75 per ticket / 0.35 = $5.00.

How do you reconcile these two numbers?

I get an average ride length of 7.18 miles from that same document, so at the $1.11 per passenger-mile, you get $7.97 per boarding. (see PortlandFacts.com for the source of that $1.11 per passenger-mile) If I recall, none of these numbers include maintenance cost.

PS: Did you see the news that the USA may have 10 times the oil reserves previously thought? (enough to end imports for 50 years!)

Thanks
JK

You may be confusing the costs stated in relation to system costs and those stated in relation to operating costs. And operating costs do include maintenance, this is explicitly stated (scroll to end):

• 1) Passenger Revenue = Cash, ticket, and pass fares. Does not include fares from SNT.
• 2) System Costs = Operations cost plus general administrative costs shared by both bus and rail(i.e. finance, planning, scheduling, etc.). Does not include SNT program costs, and Streetcar costs.
• 3) Operations Costs = Transportation costs + maintenance costs (all related staff and materials). No general administrative, SNT, & Streetcar costs included.
• 4) Subsidy per Boarding Ride - The difference between the passenger revenue per ride and the operating cost per ride.
This represents the portion of the cost of each ride that must be subsidized(primarily by taxes).
• 5) All financial information are based on audited statement.

I get an average ride length of 7.18 miles from that same document, so at the $1.11 per passenger-mile, you get $7.97 per boarding. (see PortlandFacts.com for the source of that $1.11 per passenger-mile)

FY07 Rail Passenger-Miles: 175,964,052
FY07 Rail Boarding Rides: 34,035,600
FY07 Rail Operating Costs: $50,230,466
FY07 Rail System Costs (Operating Costs + General Admin Costs): $75,685,134

That calculates to 5.17 passenger-miles per boarding ride.

Operating costs per boarding ride calculates to $1.48 ($2.22 for system costs per boarding ride.)

Taking the $1.48 operating cost per boarding and dividing by the 5.18 average passenger-miles per boarding, results in a per-passenger-mile operating cost for light rail of 29 cents.

Did you see the news that the USA may have 10 times the oil reserves previously thought?

Link? Nothing in the top results on Google News about this at the moment.

Link?

nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

Thanks
JK

Bob.. dont forget to add up:

initial cost of building the rail lines

initial cost of bus "improvements" such as bubble curbs, concrete pads, and artsy bus stop signs and etched glass eco shelters.

WEAR AND TEAR on the roads that were primarily financed from the gas tax.

Cost of extra security necessary when a great many low income people are grouped together [before anyone makes a comment on this please take a SOC101 class], and

All of the tax breaks and subsidies deemed necessary to generate "desired" development as to artificially inflate ridership numbers.

Thanks for the oil link, JK ... the speculation about the amount of "recoverable" shale oil apparently hinges on the outcome of an as-yet-unpublished USGS survey.

See this short Red Orbit article.

If anything comes of the study, it may be worth discussing in another thread. Back to the CRC.

Bob.. dont forget to add up:

Thanks, I didn't forget. I was discussing operating costs, and was careful to label my comments thusly.

Capital costs are an important consideration, as well as costs which can be classified as "external costs", such as the problems caused by air pollution from burning coal to generate some of the electricity used to propel trains, or problems caused by air pollution caused by the burning of oil in buses and automobiles, or the degree to which wars are fought to secure power over the oil used to power buses and private automobiles.

Jim, that isn't new news. There is a lot of oil in that field, and while a few people have said there may be 500 Billion Barrels in it, most estimates say that less than 10% of it is actually recoverable at any price: most of the oil is in 10 foot minus layers that are never going to be economical to chase, (running the drilling rigs takes energy, and you only get so much energy out of the oil in those layers.) In some places the oil layer is 20-30 feet thick, and those are worth chasing, (most of Saudi Arabia is 250+ foot layers that aren't nearly as expensive to drill...)

Once you drill into those layers, the good wells will produce 500 Barrels/day, but more typical is 200, for a couple years, (until you suck the layer dry and it collapses into the pipe.) Last year, with prices above $60/barrel, they drilling 117 wells into the field, and it made a few companies a lot of money, but they definitely started with the easiest ones to drill. The most optimist hope is that once they understand it more, they might be able to do 2,000 wells a year, starting in 2020 or so, which would give an output of 1 MBarrels/day. To put that into perspective, the US uses 21 MBarrels/day right now, of which 5 is currently produced in the country.

March 31, 2008 6:51 PM
Bob R. Says: You may be confusing the costs stated in relation to system costs and those stated in relation to operating costs. And operating costs do include maintenance, this is explicitly stated (scroll to end):

JK: Lets try again:
Bob R: TriMet claims an operating cost of $1.48 per light rail boarding ride in FY07.
JK: Why does “busmaxstat.pdf” (2006) claim that rail’s fare recovery ratio is 35%? That would put the actual cost per boarding at $1.75 per ticket / 0.35 = $5.00.

How do you reconcile these two numbers?

Or are you saying that:
Trimet claims a fare recovery rate of 38.8% (2007-System Costs) and an actual cost of $1.48, so, are they saying that they only get 39% of the $1.48 at the fare box - that is only $0.56, yet the tickets are over three times that amount. If that 56 cents is the actual paid-in fare, I have a few suggestions for making TriMet solvent, starting with asking people to actually pay.

Thanks
JK

How do you reconcile these two numbers?

The numbers I presented were on a per-boarding basis, which is how you characterized your $8.00 figure originally. Entire transit journeys, which are still covered by a single fare, can involve more than one boarding (transfers.) That's part of it. Another part of it is legitimate fareless rides (which is a separate, hotly-debated topic), and another part of it is discounted annual passes, people boarding more than 3X on an all-day ticket, senior discounts, etc.

Further, the numbers you are quoting are definitely in relationship to System Costs -- something I mentioned before might be the cause of confusion. You'll need to calculate a system cost per boarding ride to compare the system cost fare recovery ratio you quote.

The 38.8% figure you quote is FY07 rail system fare recovery, but the $1.48 figure you compare it against is FY07 rail operating costs per boarding ride. If you're going to compare to the $1.48, you need to use the rail operating cost recovery ratio, which is 58.4%.

Personally I do think we should look at system costs -- for one thing it keeps pressure on an agency to hold down administrative costs -- rather than just operating costs. But TriMet's numbers do add up on this, in relation to their other numbers. (And they don't add up to $8.00 per boarding.)