I think Vancouver and Portland will be at odds as long as we have different tax structures, land use rules, and transportation priorities. Demand management vs. paying for construction is one manifestation of this bigger theme in my opinion. Too bad we couldn't all be part of one great city without a state line running down the middle... maybe we could align or priorities vis-a-vis the CRC and many other issues.

“Where and when do we imagine these conflicting views will get reconciled?”

How about a vote of the people! Or better yet a vote of only the people who drive across the bridge, would pay and be financially impacted by the tolls.

The difference of opinion here represents who is being represented and who isn’t. On the Washington side it is the working class people. On the Oregon side it is the special interests. That is the difference between truly representative government and a socialist thinking government that wants to dictate lifestyles, housing choices and how people travel. One is democracy - the other is social engineering.

GOOD FOR YOU WASHINGTON!

BRAVO BRAVO!

For once I completely agree with Terry Parker!

"How about a vote of the people! Or better yet a vote of only the people who drive across the bridge, would pay and be financially impacted by the tolls."

So the people that live near that freeway and get asthma from it, but don't actually cross the bridge wouldn't get to have an opinion?

"On the Washington side it is the working class people. On the Oregon side it is the special interests."

Yes, those annoying special interest groups like "people who breath air" are always up in arms about something.

Matthew Says: So the people that live near that freeway and get asthma from it, but don't actually cross the bridge wouldn't get to have an opinion?
JK: I hereby nominate Matthew for a Nobel prize in medicine for doing what decades of medical research could not do: finding the cause of asthma.

Now, Matthew, please tells how pollution causes asthma, yet as pollution goes down, asthma goes up?

Thanks
JK

Uhmm, 5 seconds on google will tell you that freeways and children developing asthma are statistically linked:

NYTimes.com Article

And since I'm fairly sure that high asthma rates don't cause freeways to get built, (but I could be wrong about that, maybe if we cured the asthma in north Portland then we wouldn't build the CRC,) then it looks like the freeways might be causing asthma...

[Moderator: Link shortened to restore page formatting.]

I don't see that there's a huge difference to be resolved here. Every local government group seems to agree there should be six freeway lanes across the river, plus light rail, and the project should be paid for by tolls.

The only difference in opinion is whether the toll should be a flat rate or variable based on demand. That's a pretty minor issue in the big picture. So when the project goes forward, design and build a tolling system capable of variable pricing, and hash out how to actually use it later.

If there's a "six freeway lane plus light rail" consensus, the major issues to me are (a) do you add width to the new freeway bridge for light rail, build a brand new light rail bridge, or rehab the existing bridges for light rail plus "supplemental lanes", and (b) do you lump a whole bunch of interchange improvement projects as part of the "bridge" package, or build and fund them as separate projects instead?

Against that, the toll structure on the new bridge seems a pretty minor detail.

Matthew Says:

Uhmm, 5 seconds on google will tell you that freeways and children developing asthma are statistically linked:

You can also throw the word "benzene" and "Portland" into the mix for a number of studies. I'm amazed that anyone here would have missed the articles on the subject just within the last year.

The solution is simple:

Tax persons coming into Portland only. Those wishing to leave can do so for free. (Just like drivers crossing the Oakland-SF Bay Bridge only pay a toll heading into The City--if you want to leave the socialist paradise, nothing stops you...)

:-)

Seriously, the issue of whether or not tolls should be discontinued after construction bonds are paid off is one that needn't really be visited for quite a while--like, when the bonds are actually paid off, or close to it.

I like how Matthew assumes that a measure put on a ballot in Clark County can't also be put on a ballot for Multnomah County.

This doesn't need to be either / or. I'm pretty sure both sides of the bridge can vote.

MachineShedFred Says:

I like how Matthew assumes that a measure put on a ballot in Clark County can't also be put on a ballot for Multnomah County.

He said that? Funny, I thought the comparison was between people who traveled on the bridge and those who only live near it. How did that turn into Clark v. Multnomah counties?

Hey Terry, fill in the blank:

Of the two MPOs in the Portland metropolitan region, ___ has democratically elected leadership.

a) RTC
b) Metro

I like how Matthew assumes that a measure put on a ballot in Clark County can't also be put on a ballot for Multnomah County.

I believe that under existing law, the only portion of this whole project that has to go to a public vote is the operating funding for Light Rail on the Washington side.

Of the two MPOs in the Portland metropolitan region, ___ has democratically elected leadership.

To be fair, most of the RTC members are in fact elected, but to local government positions, not to the RTC itself (comparable to JPACT on our side of the river).

Seriously, the issue of whether or not tolls should be discontinued after construction bonds are paid off is one that needn't really be visited for quite a while--like, when the bonds are actually paid off, or close to it.

I beg to differ. This has HUGE implication on traffic volumes land use over the long term. If the crossing becomes free after 20 years, we would see huge jumps in traffic and development when that happens (actually, development would probably anticipate it by a few years).

It's also worth noting that ironically, it may be preferable to implement the tolls on the Washington side, since the revenue can be used more flexibly (toll revenue in Oregon is limited by the constitution to road uses). So if we want the tolls to help pay for the light rail (not necessarily part of the plan - but if we want the option), they would have to be collected on the north side of the bridge...

I think MSFred was talking about Terry... I think.

I love the socialist arguments... Why is it that when people vote to ignore problems, take the me first mentality etc. it's democracy. But when people VOTE for funding for bike lanes, transit, etc it's social engineering. You guys crack me up:-)

Terry Parker Says: "Or better yet a vote of only the people who drive across the bridge"

This isn't democracy because a: the tolls for payment would only be a percentage of the cost. The rest would come from local/state/federal dollars. Everyone gets a say in that. b: This crossing impacts lots of people that don't drive over it every day.

lastly,
Douglas K. Says:
"Every local government group seems to agree there should be six freeway lanes across the river..."
I don't think this is accurate. I have been to some of the council meetings and read the votes. From what I've seen they are only voting on the LPA. They are all in favor of a replacement bridge but the details of exactly how many lanes is not on the table at this moment. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's my understanding. I'm guessing the decision makers in PDX will likely want fewer lanes.

My wish: Three through, 1 merge all the way, remove Hayden Island ramps and build a bridge off of Marine Drive/Columbia for local Hayden access. (each direction)

Is Metro elected?

Then how come they are all, always, clones?

Just,,, sort of, kidding :)

You can't really call Metro elected because a lot of people are confused of what they do--

Most of my family, neighbors, and peers think of them as a department that runs the garbage service and the zoo...

Of course, when you let the garbage company plan for things like freeways, mass transit, and re-development---

“Tax persons coming into Portland only”

Included in the RTC resolution was an amendment that all commuter tolls paid by Washington residents that have jobs in Oregon should be deductible from the Oregon Income Taxes they pay. (See my post under the topic “Last Vote on CRC LPA”)

“Every local government group seems to agree there should be six freeway lanes across the river, plus light rail, and the project should be paid for by tolls.”

Not true, the number of auxiliary lanes are still in dispute. The local government groups have agreed on six through lanes. WTC appears to want four to six auxiliary lanes while Metro and the Adams Government want the final say on which may mean zero, more congestion and spending 4.2 billion dollars for a highway crossing no better than we have now.

“This isn't democracy because a: the tolls for payment would only be a percentage of the cost. The rest would come from local/state/federal dollars.” that.”

The percentage of the project covered by tolls is part of what is in dispute. Tolls have climbed to the point of now being projected to pay for one-third of the project. Since the Columbia River Crossing is on an Interstate Highway, WTC wants the federal government to pay for 90 percent of the project with the remaining 10 percent shared equally by the states of Oregon and Washington. WTC also agrees with tolls only as a last resort to cover the state’s contribution.

“Everyone gets a say in that. b: This crossing impacts lots of people that don't drive over it every day.”

Maybe everybody should also get a say in who pays the tolls and/or user chargers. Put it to a vote of the people: Tax or toll bicyclists for their share of the project and add a surcharge to transit fares to pay for the transit component.

“It's also worth noting that ironically, it may be preferable to implement the tolls on the Washington side, since the revenue can be used more flexibly (toll revenue in Oregon is limited by the constitution to road uses). So if we want the tolls to help pay for the light rail (not necessarily part of the plan - but if we want the option), they would have to be collected on the north side of the bridge...”

Motorist paid tolls must not be used to subsidize light rail and/or light rail operations. Metro Counselor Rex Burkholder made a comment during his closing statement just before the vote on Metro’s resolution to accept the LPA (with conditions) that went something like this: “people who use something should pay for it”.

I agree with that premise in principal, and in particular applying that premise to the CRC. However, having Burkholder say it, the statement is all rhetoric. If it was not, Burkholder would be standing by his own words when it comes to bicyclists and transit passengers paying for the infrastructure they use thereby requiring transit passengers to be obligated to pay any proportionate local share of the transit infrastructure costs on the CRC (possibly with a surcharge on transit fares), and instead of freeloading, bicyclists too would be expected to pay their own way with a bridge toll or tax to cover any local match monies spent on providing bicycle infrastructure. However, the resolution introduced by Burkholder and passed by the Metro Council only tolls cars and trucks.

It should also be noted that between Canada and Mexico - nowhere on the I-5 Interstate Highway do tolls exist, and the CRC ought not to be the place to set that kind of precedent. The bottom line is that any tolls motorists pay MUST be kept to a bare minimum, MUST only help to pay for the highway portions of the project, and MUST be removed when the project is paid off!

It should also be noted that all current funding for highways, transit and bicycle infrastructure that comes from the Federal Government is paid for by motorists paying the Federal tax on motor fuels. Therefore, the drivers of cars and trucks will already be subsidizing the transit and bicycle components of the CRC, and therefore no local contributions using motorist paid tolls ought to be made to those non-highway components.

"You can't really call Metro elected because a lot of people are confused of what they do"

Ignorance is no excuse. You CAN call them elected, because that is precisely what they are. Directly elected to serve, among other things, as the conduit for federal transportation funding (a power granted to them through a little thing called a public vote).

"You can't really call Metro elected because a lot of people are confused of what they do"

THIS IS FREAKING PORTLAND!

They got so many layers of government here who knows what the hell any of them are actually doing and how many governmental functions are overlapping and duplicating.

Ignorance is EXACTLY how the government keeps itself in power, ignorance and fear.

You need a masters degree in public administration to figure it out!

What we have in Portland is exactly what we have in Washington.

A cabal of "activists" have seized the reigns of power, at the expense of the majority of citizens.

In Washington it's the right that has taken over, in Portland its the left.

It's the majority of working stiffs that have to suffer for it!

Those of us neither on the right or the left

Terry Parker Says:

It should also be noted that all current funding for highways, transit and bicycle infrastructure that comes from the Federal Government is paid for by motorists paying the Federal tax on motor fuels. Therefore, the drivers of cars and trucks will already be subsidizing the transit and bicycle components of the CRC, and therefore no local contributions using motorist paid tolls ought to be made to those non-highway components.

If that were true, why would the FTA have to request funding from Congress? The money comes out of the General Fund and FTA has to request specific amounts for specific projects and programs. You can look at the FY08 budget document at the FTA website and there is nothing in there that ties the funding request to the income from the fuel tax, at least nothing I can find.

If "Portland" (and by "Portland" I mean the folks that believe they speak for everyone) wants to impose a congestion fee, it should not be tied to this bridge.

Portland's City Council, along with Metro and TriMet, can right now, this very day, impose a congestion charge on the City (save for state highways, but realistically the only highways truly exempt are I-5, I-205, I-84, I-405, U.S. 26 (Sunset Highway west from downtown) and U.S. 30 (Yeon Boulevard/St. Helens Road). The other "state highways" can easily be taken over by the City of Portland (i.e. Barbur Boulevard, Lombard/Killingsworth, 82nd Avenue, Powell Boulevard, McLoughlin Boulevard, Marine Drive (west of I-5), Sandy Boulevard (east of I-205) - PDOT has already taken over several former state highways - Front Avenue, Interstate Avenue, Sandy Boulevard, Grand/Union Avenues (now M.L.K. Boulevard), and Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway.

Any vehicle travelling on city streets should be charged a fee dependent upon the zone of travel (i.e. downtown will be more expensive than Lents), time of travel (8:30 AM on Monday more expensive than 11:30 PM on Saturday night), by weight (a motorcycle will be less expensive than a compact car than a SUV than a truck). All vehicles travelling within the City of Portland will be required to register with the city and carry a transponder, and there will be various transponder antennas located throughout the city (along with mobile units).

Likewise, TriMet should also adjust their fare structure to impose a congestion charge, so that people using TriMet at rush hour will pay more than someone commuting at off-hours.

Doing that will have far more impact than any toll on the Interstate Bridge intended to "impact the choices that people make".

As I've stated previously, the various agencies can start with themselves - eliminate all City/Metro/TriMet owned "free" parking, and charge congestion fees to access all City/Metro/TriMet facilities. There is no reason that Metro can claim to demand a fee to cross the non-Metro owned Interstate Bridge, but at the same time charge only $1.00 to park at the Metro owned Oregon Zoo (when parking should be more legitimately $10.00/day if not more); and TriMet should be charging for use of a TriMet owned park-and-ride lot (whereas I contribute to my smaller "carbon footprint" by, get this, WALKING to and from both my home and work bus stops without the need to drive to a parking lot)

"All vehicles travelling within the City of Portland will be required to register with the city and carry a transponder, and there will be various transponder antennas located throughout the city (along with mobile units)"

NOW YOUR TALKING!

I like it.

This would fit Portland perfectly!

Jeff does make sense here.

The question of tolling for construction funding, and tolling for other reasons (congestion management, operations/maintenance) are two separate ones.

Many assume it as a given that tolls (backing revenue bonds) for construction funding should only be on the new infrastructure; i.e. that a toll shouldn't be imposed on the Terwilliger Curves in order to finance the CRC, in whatever form.

But tolling the other inbound freeways as a means of congestion management certainly is an issue separate from the CRC. Of course, the costs of the CRC make a new toll more politically doable (coupled with the fact that if you want to cross the Columbia, you only have two choices; whereas commuters can elect to use surface streets to avoid tolls on other corridors). But there is no reason, in general, that Vancouver commuters should have to pay for "congestion management" whereas commuters from Tualatin, Beaverton, Gresham, or Oregon City should not.

ODOT and Metro are lookening into widening Highway 217 and one of the options on the table is a tolled express lane. Tolls are also being considered for the Newberg/Dundee bypass; in both cases, the tolls appear to be key parts of the funding for construction. In both cases, there are surface street alternatives, and in the 99W case, there has been the proposal to toll the existing 99W alignment as well--an unpopular idea.

The alternative, of course, is dollars out of the general fund. Or not building at all.

I think EngineerScotty raises a valid point about deferring the tolling decision. By the time the bonds are paid off, one of two things will have likely happened:
1) Congestion will be so prevalent that congestion pricing is a common practice to manage demand throughout the US, and it will be a no-brainer here.
2) Energy costs and an economy undermined in a short 8 years by a reckless and subsequently imprisoned president will have made personal travel less affordable, and congestion pricing will not be needed for our overbuilt roadway infrastructure.

While I tend to think the former is more likely, whichever happens, the choice will be relatively easy to make in its time, rather than our trying to predict what will happen in the future. So long as the decision is conditioned to require approval from both sides of the river to remove tolls at that future time, it's not that critical to decide now.

Federal money for transit projects currently comes out of the Federal Highway Trust Fund which supported by the Federal tax on motor fuels. About 20 percent of the fund is used for non-highway uses and not being replaced by any tax on the users of those non-highway projects. This is one reason the fund is being drained so fast. Congress must approve any spending allocations from this fund.

As for transponders, motorists already pay a fuel tax to pay for roads, but bicyclists continue to freeload on the financial backs of others. Therefore it makes total sense to have transponders on all bicycles used in Portland to pay for the infrastructure the bicyclists use.

Therefore it makes total sense to have transponders on all bicycles used in Portland to pay for the infrastructure the bicyclists use.

It makes total sense to use a device which costs more than most of the actual bikes themselves? I don't think so. (Not to mention the privacy ramifications... I've been on record in the past about my opposition to any GPS-based revenue schemes for any vehicle type because of privacy concerns in addition to technical hurdles.)

"Not to mention the privacy ramifications"

THIS IS AMERIKA BOB!

There is no such thing as privacy anymore!

Don't ya read the papers old buddy?

Al M

Some meta-questions to think about:

1) Transportation, whatever mode, should primarily be funded by:

a. The general public, without regard to usage (i.e. through general taxation)
b. As much as convenient or tractable, users of transportation (i.e. through tolls, fares, fuel taxes, license/registration fees, weight-mile taxes, etc.)
c. A combination of both should be used. The general public benefits from transportation, even if specific members don't use it; however, some usage fee is appropriate to fairly charge heavy users and discourage free-riding or overuse.

2) Transportation funds should be allocated among the various modes of transport based on:

a. Established current (and recent past) usage trends--if x% of trips are on the roads, then roads should get x% of funding. Funds recovered from fees on one mode should not be diverted to another mode.
b. With regard to future needs--if mode X is likely to be more practical or useful given predictions about the future (things like population growth, fuel prices, pollution), even if doing so causes expenditures on a mode that well exceed current usage.

For the record, I'm 1)c 2)b.

For the record:

1-Get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan,

2-cut the military budget by 2/3,

3-use that money to build "toll free" bridges and "fare free" transit.

P.S. And while their at it, single payer national health care would be nice to have in the richest country in the world

(I keep dreaming anyway)

Al on privacy: Don't ya read the papers old buddy?

(Channeling a Yakov Smirnoff voice...) In great old Amerika, people read the papers. In glorious new Amerika, the papers read you...

Bob R. -

I don't think anyone but the pie-in-the-sky crowd at ODOT in Salem is talking about GPS-enabled tolling. Most transponder schemes utilize an RFID chip in your car, and as you drive under an antenna mast, it reads the ID number from the chip and logs it.

This is currently in use on the FastPass lanes in California on I-15 in San Diego, as well as the 91 Freeway express lanes. Users of the system actually approve of it, because they save a ridiculous amount of money on not being late picking up kids from daycare. $5 paid to save $50/hr is a pretty good deal.

I think police officers should be able to levy taxes on pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists at any time, arbitrarily. City usage fee. And it should be on the spot, cash only. After all, they're all using the public right-of-way.

Although this might seem abusive at first, over the 100-year long run, i think it will end up being fair.

Here's a scary thought from a privacy perspective.

The technology nowadays exists for a camera mounted at a convenient location, to record and automatically log the license plate of any vehicle passing by. Such systems are not widely deployed, but the technology is there.

Terry Parker Says:

Federal money for transit projects currently comes out of the Federal Highway Trust Fund which supported by the Federal tax on motor fuels.

I have no doubt it is "supported" by federal fuel tax, but I see no evidence that it is "entirely funded by fuel tax" as you stated.

Terry Parker Says:

As for transponders, motorists already pay a fuel tax to pay for roads, but bicyclists continue to freeload on the financial backs of others. Therefore it makes total sense to have transponders on all bicycles used in Portland to pay for the infrastructure the bicyclists use.

One of the main reasons that automobiles are assessed some sort of tax to pay for roads is that automobiles (and trucks) (and automobiles with ridiculous studded tires) damage the roads so that they must frequently be repaired. Do you think a bicycle and rider damage roads to any measurable extent at all?

Matthew Says: Uhmm, 5 seconds on google will tell you that freeways and children developing asthma are statistically linked:
JK: There is a vast distance between “linked” (really co-incidental) and cause and effect. Otherwise you would believe that big feet cause better math ability (they are linked throughout grade school - the bigger the feet, the better the math ability.)

Notwithstanding what the scientific illiterates at the NYT say, the fact is that as pollution goes down, asthma goes up. And NOBODY knows the cause of asthma.

This is also the error the Al Gore and his ilk make in blaming CO2 for temperature increase - CO2 and temperature appear to move up and down together. There is even a crackpot theory to explain CO2 causing temperature to rise. Just one problem - the real world data shows that first temperature increases, then CO2 rises. And cause cannot FOLLOW the effect.

Thanks
JK

Just one problem - the real world data shows that first temperature increases, then CO2 rises. And cause cannot FOLLOW the effect.

Under laboratory conditions you can introduce CO2 to a closed system and indeed watch temperatures rise, so your oversimplification of what little is left about the global warming "debate" doesn't even work.

Here's a radical concept (one accepted by the overwhelming majority of actual scientists): CO2 can both be a follower of temperature rise (increased temperatures gradually release more and more trapped CO2 from various natural sinks), and a precursor of temperature rises. The science on this is well-established and backed by experimentation and measurement, not just models.

But you've been told that before.

The correlation between asthma and freeways is way stronger than the one between foot size and mathematical skills (I couldn't even find a study, serious or otherwise, got a link?), whereas investigations into asthma, living locations and air quality abound.

Before this thread degenerates further off-topic into another global warming debate, I'll defer any further conversation on the issue of CO2 delays in historic warming periods to the following great articles:

• RealClimate: What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
• RealClimate: The lag between temperature and CO2
• New Scientist: Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming
• Grist: "CO2 doesn't lead, it lags"

Otherwise you would believe that big feet cause better math ability

Not to mention you'd also believe in global warming, a round earth, etc....the usual bunch of baloney from the usual suspects.

“I don't think anyone but the pie-in-the-sky crowd at ODOT in Salem is talking about GPS-enabled tolling. Most transponder schemes utilize an RFID chip in your car, and as you drive under an antenna mast, it reads the ID number from the chip and logs it.”

The use of a transponder on a person’s dashboard is exactly what the various government councils have been talking about on both sides of the river to collect tolls. It is already used on one bridge in Washington.

“One of the main reasons that automobiles are assessed some sort of tax to pay for roads is that automobiles (and trucks) (and automobiles with ridiculous studded tires) damage the roads so that they must frequently be repaired.”

Motor vehicle assessed taxes are also used to pay for constructing new roads and for replacing existing infrastructure like the CRC. Bicyclists need to be assessed taxes for constructing specialized infrastructure (that motorists do not use) including the bicycle infrastructure on the CRC. Furthermore, because TriMet’s two axle busses do the heaviest damage to Portland streets and roads (source; City of Portland Commissioner Sam Adams), transit riders also need to be assessed taxes directly through the farebox to help pay to maintain and repair roadways.

as a bicyclist, I'm willing to pay a reasonable share for the construction and maintenance of the infrastructure which I use.

Bob - could you post a breakdown of the cost of construction of a highway/arterial traffic lane, along with the equivalent cost for a bicycle lane on the same? And then contrast that with whatever the city/county/metro use as maintenance figures? A second gold star for a breakdown of fixed monthly maintenance costs and variable costs.

Terry Parker, Jim Karlock, and others: I'm guessing that the maintenance cost of freeways and roads vastly outweighs construction costs in the medium and long run at very least. I'm also willing to wager than maintenance cost for bicycle infrastructure is a minute fraction of auto infrastructure, even on a per-user-mile basis. If this turns out to be the case, can you at least temper your "bike riders are hippie freeloaders who need to PAY" stance to at least acknowledge that the cost differential between cyclists and motorists?

EngineerScotty wrote: Tolls are also being considered for the Newberg/Dundee bypass; in both cases, the tolls appear to be key parts of the funding for construction. In both cases, there are surface street alternatives, and in the 99W case, there has been the proposal to toll the existing 99W alignment as well--an unpopular idea.

Actually, tolls for the Newberg-Dundee Bypass have all been shut down, multiple studies show that doing this would not even come close to raising sufficient revenue.

It would amount to penalizing most of Yamhill County (specifically McMinnville, since Newberg and Dundee would get an "exemption" from tolls); while Portland area residents headed to the Casinos/Oregon Coast have alternate routes (specifically I-5 to Highway 22, or Highway 47 to McMinnville). Why should McMinnville by itself get penalized - Newberg/Dundee is just as guilty (if not more so) for creating congestion in and north of Newberg; should Tigard implement a "Newberg Resident Toll" for 99W north of Beef Bend Road to help fund improvements to the 99W/Greenburg/Hall intersections?

EngineerScotty also wrote: The technology nowadays exists for a camera mounted at a convenient location, to record and automatically log the license plate of any vehicle passing by. Such systems are not widely deployed, but the technology is there.

This is the system used by London for their core area congestion charge.

Using an RFID system (which most electronic toll systems in the U.S. use, including the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and the various toll roads California), the transponders would simply be located on all freeway offramps (because, again, the freeways themselves wouldn't be tolled), as well as on various major streets throughout Portland.

Such a system would likely be combined with a photo system to capture cars that don't have the RFID tag and photograph their license plates; they would receive a bill in the mail. If they're a "frequent flier" they'll end up getting fined for failing to obtain a transponder; if it's someone who is clearly out-of-area then they'll just get a bill.

Bob R. wrote: It makes total sense to use a device which costs more than most of the actual bikes themselves?

https://www.thetollroads.com/customer/enroll.do?cmd=goto

SCHEDULE OF ADMINISTRATIVE FEES
Per transponder deposit (check and cash customers) $30.00
Per transponder deposit (electronic check and credit card customers) waived
Cost of transponder if damaged, lost, or stolen: $30.00

http://www.bayareafastrak.org/static/about/terms.shtml

If a Toll Tag is lost or stolen, please call the FasTrak® Customer Service Center immediately by telephone at (877) 229-8655. You remain liable for all tolls charged to your Toll Tag until you have notified the Customer Service Center that your Toll Tag has been lost or stolen. In addition, you will be charged $20 for each Toll Tag entrusted to your possession that has been stolen unless an official police report is provided.

http://wsdot.wa.gov/GoodToGo/formsaccountfees

Below is information about fees that may apply to your Good To Go! account.
Transponders and other products
Windshield mounted transponders: $12
License plate mounted transponders: $30
Motorcycle transponders: $30
Transponder shields, only for carpooling on SR 167: $3.50

So, the most expensive transponder is $30 in Washington and Southern California, with the Bay Area a little less expensive.

How many bikes can you buy for $30? I guess a used one at Goodwill, maybe. I can tell you my bike certainly didn't cost $30.

Here's a video for Al M... his ultimate career goal.

And since Baby James Taylor is playin' in town tonight, how can I not include this?

Yerry Parker wrote: Furthermore, because TriMet’s two axle busses do the heaviest damage to Portland streets and roads (source; City of Portland Commissioner Sam Adams), transit riders also need to be assessed taxes directly through the farebox to help pay to maintain and repair roadways.

Garbage from Sam Adams.

If this is true, then should all busses be banned from City streets because they are so bad and evil, and Portlanders would be better off driving single-occupant vehicles?

Even if, every TriMet bus rider had to pay their share of the ODOT weight-mile tax that would be assessed to TriMet, it would barely register as a nickel increase on top of the TriMet fare (determined by multiplying the weight-mile tax for a 40,000 pound vehicle by TriMet's estimate of miles driven by TriMet busses per year, then divided by the number of bus boarding rides.)

I'm happy to pay that extra nickel, as long as it is dedicated towards improving the streets that busses travel on. Knowing TriMet, though, the nickel would be raided for MAX, and Sam Adams would still complain because he isn't getting the nickel for one of his pet projects like another Streetcar line.

Erik -

Terry has mentioned this before elsewhere and attributed it to Sam Adams, but I've yet to see a reference to a direct source or exactly what specific figures Sam used (if any) regarding the damage caused by buses, so I wouldn't get too enraged at Sam just yet.

I've heard Sam say it as well. I've also heard it from a PDOT maintenance supervisor, (although he also said that garbage trucks were actually what caused him the biggest headache, because they don't stick to the main streets like the buses do.)

The problem is that damage done by a vehicle is proportional to the weight per axle to the 4th power, so a 2 axle bus at 10 tons does 10,000 times as much damage to the pavement as a 2 axle 1 ton car. Now, Terry does leave out the fact that vehicle damage to pavement isn't actually the biggest deal for most streets, (with the possible exception of things like the bus mall,) that storm water management costs (which are payed for by our sewer bills, not the gas tax,) far exceed the cost of repaving streets that have actually been worn out by vehicles, (as opposed to other things, like plain old weather,) and so replacing buses with private cars would actually cost the city more money on street maintenance, (assuming you widened the streets so that people would have room to drive and places to park,) but yes the fact is true that the buses do do a lot of damage...

Most of the problem is caused where the vehicles stop and start, (another part of the problem with garbage trucks, they stop every 50 feet,) so the bus stops wear out the fastest, and there is a rather easy solution for that: Put a concrete pad at the bus stop on frequent service routes, (what is called a "bus pad.") It lasts almost forever, and then you don't have to repave that section of the street any sooner than you'd have to repave the rest of the street.

A followup: I did a Google Search for all references to Sam Adams and this 22,000X damage figure. All introductions of this into threads on the entire Internet (to be fair, I only checked the first 80 primary references) were statements from Terry, mostly back in January.

As I stated in several responses back then, I'd love to hear more about the original context. After all, it's passenger-miles that count for this kind of damage analysis, and that's a missing component from the discussion. (For example, if a bus delivers 22,000X or more passenger-miles of service compared to that one automobile, then the damage factor is only a minor point.)

There are no media accounts, blog entries, or otherwise where Sam Adams is recorded making this statement, so at this time it is impossible to know the context.

Interested persons can repeat the Google search themselves:

Google: "sam adams" buses damage 22,000

In an effort to not rehash the whole argument here, you can see my responses to Terry (and JK's defense of Terry) in this CommissionerSam.com thread from January, 2008.

MRB -

I'm afraid I can't earn any Gold Stars from you today. :-) I remember that a thread somewhere on CommissionerSam.com discussed PDOT's share of the equation, but I can't find it at this moment.

If you want an anecdotal example of dedicated bike infrastructure and subsequent maintenance costs, check out the paved trail from Portland to Sellwood which is part of the Springwater Corridor. It opened 4 or 5 years ago, and we biked it just a few weeks ago and it's basically in pristine condition. Even the yellow paint looked especially sharp, but perhaps the lines were repainted recently. The pavement itself was smooth and exhibited no potholes or substantial cracks that I could see.

"The use of a transponder on a person’s dashboard is exactly what the various government councils have been talking about on both sides of the river to collect tolls. It is already used on one bridge in Washington."

Yes, it will use a transponder.

No, it will not use GPS.

Transponder ≠ GPS. RFID tags are incredibly inexpensive, and purpose-built for exactly this type of application. Using GPS for knowing when something passes a fixed point of infrastructure is like using a nuke to take out a rifleman behind some sandbags - it's massively out of scale.

“Terry has mentioned this before elsewhere and attributed it to Sam Adams, but I've yet to see a reference to a direct source or exactly what specific figures Sam used (if any) regarding the damage caused by buses”

Sam brought this up at just about every one of his neighborhood meetings on street maintenance fees and I later confirmed it with Roland who was then his transportation advisor. Garbage from Sam Adams? There is an awful lot of that takes place and an over abundance of social engineering hot air too, but I think this time he correct about the busses doing damage to the roads – the reason being there is so much weight on just two axles as compared to trucks that have a greater number of axles.

Furthermore, to respond to Erik, what I am suggesting is that an extra nickel or dime be added to each TriMet fare that would go towards maintaining and repairing the streets the busses run on thereby in an equitable way making transit passengers in addition to motorists who already pay gas taxes responsible for the streets and roads they use.

Terry, I didn't say it was garbage, I said it needs more context. It's sort of like saying "School A produces 5X as many dropouts as School B" -- that sounds scary but doesn't mean anything until you know how many students enroll at both schools. It could be that School A has 5X as many students, and therefore the same dropout _rate_.

There needs to be a basis for comparison, and in the case of transit buses that's passengers. Once that's established, we can talk about the validity of the original statement, the cost of pavement damage, and how to pay for it.

Terry is actually sort of right for once: PDOT completed a report (not made public to my knowledge) regarding the life of pavement on streets that have buses on them; it is considerably shorter than streets that do not have buses on them. Not 22,000 times less, but it is a very significant difference.

Of course one doesn't need a report to know this. Just look at NW 3rd and NW 4th: completely rebuilt just a few years ago, they are going to need rebuilt again just as soon as TriMet is done with their little diversion.

Well, if they want to start taxing shopping bags, who knows, transponders may not be that far behind in Portlandia!

Land of the weirdo's!

And lets not have anymore global warming debates!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buOg7Wpe-aw

Yes, if you're going to toll at a specific fixed point, RFID tags are cheap and easy to implement. (And, although I don't know if anyone does this, there's no reason they can't be semi-anonymous if implemented properly.)

When I brought up GPS, I was referring to the proposal offered by Erik of tolling all vehicles on all roads with an array of transponder antennas strategically placed in zones around Portland (including mobile units). Whether you're using true GPS by-mile tolling (like ODOT is researching), or you simply record where people pass using large numbers transponders/antennas, privacy becomes a serious concern. We can already triangulate position in urban areas using RF devices such as WiFi routers (see the pre-GPS iPhone) -- it is not a stretch to be able to pinpoint and map the activities of citizens on a massive scale once you have transponders and antennas everywhere -- no GPS needed.

Bob,

I had posted a comment with regards to the cost of the transponders, with specific links to the Tacoma Narrows, Golden Gate Highway District and Southern California Toll Roads information.

I see you haven't released the post to the forum for general consumption; but in general, the cost of the transponders is about $30.

Terry Parker wrote: what I am suggesting is that an extra nickel or dime be added to each TriMet fare that would go towards maintaining and repairing the streets the busses run on thereby in an equitable way making transit passengers in addition to motorists who already pay gas taxes responsible for the streets and roads they use

If TriMet busses paid ODOT weight-mile taxes, it would amount to an extra nickel.

I would have NO objection to it, provided that TriMet is required to actually pay the weight-mile taxes to ODOT and subject itself to an audit to demonstrate that the monies were not being raided for other purposes, which TriMet is so wonderful about doing.

And then, an audit to show that the money was then being spent on bus related roadway damage (as well as the installation of "bus pads" that Matthew discussed.

I see you haven't released the post to the forum for general consumption

I found your comment in the junk folder, not the regular pending comment queue. Sorry, we don't get auto-notifications and don't usually check that folder because there are dozens of junk messages an hour. It has now been published.

Bob: Thank you.

Bob R. Says: Under laboratory conditions you can introduce CO2 to a closed system and indeed watch temperatures rise, so your oversimplification of what little is left about the global warming "debate" doesn't even work.

Here's a radical concept ... The science on this is well-established and backed by experimentation and measurement, not just models.
JK: OK, so show us the peer-reviewed paper that shows that CO2 can cause dangerous global warming from today’s CO2 levels. Absent that, you don’t even have the first step in building a case.

Bob R. Says: But you've been told that before.
JK: Yep, you keep giving us the same ol arm waving “trust me” BS time after time. Show me the abovementioned paper.

Bob R. Says: The correlation between asthma and freeways is way stronger than the one between foot size and mathematical skills (I couldn't even find a study, serious or otherwise, got a link?),
JK: Yeah, first grader’s generally have smaller feet and less math skills than 8th graders. Very good correlation - absolutely no cause and effect between feet and math skills. But that would be proof of growing big feet causes better math by your standards of proof.

Bob R. Says: whereas investigations into asthma, living locations and air quality abound.
JK: See above.

Bob R. Says: Before this thread degenerates further off-topic into another global warming debate, I'll defer any further conversation on the issue of CO2 delays in historic warming periods to the following great articles:

Bob R. Says: * RealClimate: What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming? (realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/ & realclimate.org/index.php?p=13)

This is just a rehash of RealClimate’s trying to come up with a reason to cling to their disproven CO2 theory. I am surprised you fell for it. Let me explain it to you:
realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 :
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data. (Bold added)
JK: Lets take a look at this:
First, he admits that “ CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming”. OK, good.
Second he says that “The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2”

Did you notice the term “could have” that means he is speculating. He has no proof. His is trying to tell you not to look at the man behind the curtain.

What he did not want to admit is this: Whatever caused the initial warming could simply have continued.

Bob R. Says: * RealClimate: The lag between temperature and CO2
JK: Here is the only non-speculative thing in that article: “Several recent papers have indeed established that there is lag of CO2 behind temperature. “ The rest is just trying to cover up some embarrassing facts.

Bob R. Says: * New Scientist: Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming
JK: This is just a science newspaper. It has no evidence. (It actually used to be credible and its former editor considers the whole global warming concern to be wrong.)

Bob R. Says: * Grist: "CO2 doesn't lead, it lags"
JK: This is merely a re-hash of the above realcilmate pages.

All you have provided is links to unsubstantiated claims. Surely you are smart enough to recognize this fact.

So, Bob, the bottom line is still: show us the peer-reviewed paper that shows that CO2 can cause dangerous global warming from today’s CO2 levels. Absent that, you don’t even have the first step in building a case to change the world and hurt millions of people.

Thanks
JK

Like I said, JK, there's no need for this to become another pointless global warming debate. I've linked to references I consider useful for the topic, readers can make up their own minds. And I'm still waiting for any references to a study correlating foot size with mathematical skill.

TERRY PARKER MAKES THE OREGONIAN!

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1217048156300160.xml&coll=7&thispage=3

A follow-up about RFID-based tolling schemes -- recent articles report that hackers have completely compromised the (apparently very) unsecure Fastrak toll system used in California. Anyone with the right off-the-shelf equipment can now clone and reprogram transponders.

Another follow-up: Students at MIT have apparently figured out how to hack the "CharlieCard" used in Boston to generate free rides. They have been stopped temporarily from presenting their research due to a lawsuit filed by the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority.

(And to top that off, another group of researchers may have found a way to remotely tamper with at least one type of pacemaker, potentially resulting device shutdown/failure and even death.)