New State Transportation Funding Strategy?


An interesting piece in the Daily Journal of Commerce yesterday (“State leaders draw roadmap for transportation reform”) contains musings from Rex Burkholder and Senate Transportation Chair Rick Metsger among others.

Statewide, “we spend a lot of money on transportation each year, and we don’t really evaluate it in any way more than how many cars go through an intersection,” Rex Burkholder, a councilor with the regional government Metro, said.

With limited dollars available to manage the system, many question the state’s current plan to invest billions in projects that offer just one payback – a few minutes saved on the morning commute.

Instead, a new system of incremental targeted investments would, for the most part, replace massive road projects. Over the next 20 years or more, Metro expects the existing statewide system to expand no more than 5 percent.

There is also talk of local road fees as a potential funding mechanism.

Interesting…


22 responses to “New State Transportation Funding Strategy?”

  1. “The traditional way of developing a list of projects is to look at where systems are failing, where streets are in ill repair, where there’s traffic growth … and there isn’t always a filter in that discussion about what that investment would mean in terms of jobs and freight mobility,” Bernie Bottomly, a lobbyist for the Portland Business Alliance, said. “ODOT could decide to do that on their own, but to date they haven’t.”

    Bernie gets it, the question is whether the guys that pay him do.

  2. It’s good to see that some folks are thinking big-picture, but “congestion relief” doesn’t sound like the sort of terminology that describes Smart Growth, TOD, bicycle lanes and better transit.

    There’s an interesting article in the February 2007 issue of _Urban Land_, called “Looking Back to Plan the Future.” OK, it’s actually not that interesting of an article, except for the come-on quote at the beginning:

    “Casting aside the failed experiment of suburbia in the United States, planners are looking back to age-old principles for guidance in planning a future with modern challenges.”

    It was written by a planner from…. Dallas, Texas.

    And it got me to thinking: A lot of what needs to be happening in the next, say, 20 years is a re-building of our suburban areas. We do need smarter suburbs. We need to make it easier for people to walk or ride their bikes for local trips in their neighborhood, as well as to get to the local transit stop. Even if we can’t get street connectivity in most places in the suburbs for *cars*, we should be thinking more about retrofitting suburbs to provide through-connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists. Even if this means using a little bit of eminent domain here or there, it would be worthwhile if the end product were a really good suburban grid of bicycle/pedestrian paths that connected every street in every neighborhood with every neighborhood center and important destination, just like you would get in, say, Portland’s eastside with its regular street grid. Except that the grid would mainly apply to bike/ped, and cars would be stuck with the 1950s-style suburban street system that already exists.

    The difference would be that there would, in theory, be fewer cars and more bicycles & pedestrians on the suburban bike/ped network.

  3. some people like living on isolated, car friendly, suburban, dead-end streets.

    Actually, I am going to guess most people like that kind of living. Why change it?

  4. How is a dead end street “car friendly”? People don’t want to live on “car friendly” streets, they want to drive on “car friendly” streets where other people live.

    A lot of what needs to be happening in the next, say, 20 years is a re-building of our suburban areas.

    I think that is exactly right. But there really aren’t very many successful models for rehabilitating car dependent suburbs. Its going to take substantial investments, which means less money for projects in the central core.

    The starting point is to look at Rockwood.

  5. Anthony-

    This is a very good question, and I’m glad that you asked. Even though the quote calls suburbia in general a “failure,” I think there are a lot of people who rather like it.

    My great-aunt, for example. Lives on a cul-de-sac out in Hillsboro.

    But you know what? At the end of the cul-de-sac is the entrance to a bike/ped path. This path connects with other paths. They lead all throughout her subdivision, and connect her with other, important destinations like… the community swimming pool, and other cul-de-sacs. Oh, and her niece, who lives on another cul-de-sac that would be about 8 blocks away driving, but is only about 300 feet on the path.

    What I’m talking about is to expand this type of path system, which is often found within many suburban developments, such that the paths connect up with one another to form an actual, use-able ped/bike path “grid” that not only connects within each neighborhood, but connects to other important destinations such as the neighborhood commercial center and transit stop.

    Would this decrease how much people liked living on their quiet, dead-end streets?

    No.

    Would it make them any less quiet or dead-endy?

    No, unless you happen to be riding a bicycle (pretty quiet, all things considered) or walking (also a rather quiet activity).

    But, could you then ride your bike or walk from your quiet, dead-end street to the local transit stop, video store (ooh, how 20th century), grocery store or pub?

    Yes.

    Without needing to drive your car.

    Your nice car can then sit in its nice garage and save its nice $3.50/gallon gas for a more important trip.

    Does this represent a fundamental change to “that kind of living”? I don’t think so. Just a minor enhancement, maybe the addition of something that should have been there all along, that’s all.

  6. Garlynn —

    I think I agree with your point for the most part.

    The only problem I see in such a design is its offering people who don’t belong in that neighborhood more access points and a reason to “cut through.”

    I live on a pretty secluded cul-de-sac that had practically no property crime. A path was cut between two homes at the end of the street connecting that connected busy Division Street. Since then, a previously unknown tweaker element has been using our street to cut through the neighborhood to get to the convenience store.. and almost all of the residents on my street have had one or more thefts or car break-ins. The path is frequently trashed and vandalized and most of the residents are scared to walk down it at night. We have since named it “amphetamine alley.”

    I think that everyone on the street would agree they would rather walk the extra 5 blocks or drive.

  7. Would it make them any less quiet or dead-endy?

    No, unless you happen to be riding a bicycle (pretty quiet, all things considered) or walking (also a rather quiet activity).

    I think you underestimate what you are up against. To quote a resident faced with a proposed sidewalk “Who wants strangers walking in front of your house?”

  8. Anthony Says:

    some people like living on isolated, car friendly, suburban, dead-end streets.

    Actually, I am going to guess most people like that kind of living. Why change it?

    Brett responds:
    Because they expect other people to pay for their preferences through overt and hidden subsidies — extending roads, sewers, electricity, pollution from their cars, etc etc. Live as far out as you want, but don’t make those of us who sacrifice space in order to live in smaller, more centrally located places where we can walk, bike and use efficient, less polluting public transport to pay for your self indulgence.

  9. If home prices are any indicator, people are looking for places in traditional neighborhoods, with a grid system, sidewalks, a bus not too far away, shopping within walking/biking distance, a good school. Seems a no-brainer to replicate that model in new developments and in the redevelopment of suburbs that lack these amenities.

  10. Lenny – good point. Remember, East Portland was once the “suburbs.” But, it developed around streetcars, not autos, and thus has a much better street network which works better for ALL modes, unlike post WWII “car-only” development. A growing city isn’t a bad thing – but new additions must continue the grid street system and mixed-use, multi-modal development of older neighborhoods.

  11. We have since named it “amphetamine alley.”

    It would also help if we fixed our other, non-transportation problems. But that’s for a different blog. Besides that, a goal should be to get more people using it–more “eyes on the street”.

  12. The problem in Portland is that political forces continue to stand behind old and obsolete mindsets that include: 1. An emphasis on to and from downtown Portland travel rather than focusing on equally connecting all communities and destinations. 2. Placing the majority of new project eggs in the alternative transport mode basket and reducing motor vehicle capacity rather than accepting the necessity to increase motor vehicle capacity. 3. Over subsidizing alternative modes of transport rather than charging transit fares that better reflect the costs of providing the service and directly taxing bicyclists to pay for bicycle infrastructure.

  13. Anthony says:

    I live on a pretty secluded cul-de-sac that had practically no property crime. A path was cut between two homes at the end of the street connecting that connected busy Division Street. Since then, a previously unknown tweaker element has been using our street to cut through the neighborhood to get to the convenience store.. and almost all of the residents on my street have had one or more thefts or car break-ins. The path is frequently trashed and vandalized and most of the residents are scared to walk down it at night. We have since named it “amphetamine alley.”

    No offense, but in my conversations with suburbanites I find this theme a lot: they don’t like cities because they’re scared of crime, and they want to live someplace where nobody goes except the people who live there. That’s what they like about an environment that I personally find isolating to the point of suffocation. They don’t think the benefits of a public life are worth the risks.

    The road systems in cul-de-sac suburbs are optimized for driving from homes to the freeway, but make it very difficult to get from one part of the suburb to another. Of course only cheap gas can make this workable, and of course cheap gas is on the way out. But in order to really reform the suburbs, we have to get the people there more interested in meeting their neighbors, exploring their own areas, and coming together as communities to solve their problems.

    For instance, a new system of bike paths could enable neighbors to meet and greet each other en route to a new set of local stores & parks … but only if they feel like using them. Otherwise, it’s going to be a threat to them, because they’ll percieve it as a conduit that delivers strangers to their doorstep.

    If you could just get the residents of two adjoining cul-de-sacs to know each other & depend on each other, a de-facto pedestrian path would spring up between them in no time. But if you go in there with a bunch of city planning concepts and a master plan, expect some fear and some ignorance.

    Suburb Repair is going to be one of the big American problems for the next 50 years, i think.

  14. Since then, a previously unknown tweaker element has been using our street to cut through the neighborhood to get to the convenience store.

    I suspect that “tweaker element” existed before the pedestrian path. Its just now using the shortcut created for the public, which includes the “tweakers”.

    But I don’t think the concern that lightly used pedestrian paths can become places where drugs and other problems can occur out of site is entirely unreasonable. This is why, in general, putting the street through makes more sense than a pedestrian only path.

    There are a lot of people in the suburbs who are concerned about their communities. The problem is much the same chicken and egg question you have once streets are unsafe. The streets are unsafe in part because nobody uses them and no one uses them because they are unsafe.

    Where there are no pedestrian facilities, there are not many pedestrians. But it is tough to force costly investments in pedestrian facilities when no one uses them.

    I think the starting point in the suburbs is to create transit since that creates a need for pedestrian facilities. Then build the pedestrian network around creating connections to transit, starting with the suburban office parks. But that means dropping some of the shuttles that drop people off at the door.

  15. “I think the starting point in the suburbs is to create transit since that creates a need for pedestrian facilities. Then build the pedestrian network around creating connections to transit, starting with the suburban office parks. But that means dropping some of the shuttles that drop people off at the door.”

    Ross, I agree with this. But the problem with trying to improve transit in the suburbs is the lack of a grid street network. For the most part, buses sit in the same suburban congestion that cars do. I think that in order to create the transit service needed in the ‘burbs, we need to, to the extent possible, install a better system of roads to make that happen. I’m talking about a neighborhood street grid, like N/NE/SE Portland’s, NOT a bunch of 6-lane arterials. Transit won’t work very well with out it.

  16. I think that in order to create the transit service needed in the ‘burbs, we need to, to the extent possible, install a better system of roads to make that happen.

    I agree and I think a lot of the transportation planners in the suburbs agree. But when I look at what is actually on the ground, that task is daunting. You also have to face the reality there are a lot of streams that are hidden under those streets in Portland. I don’t think you can or should do that again in Washington or Clackamas County.

  17. Re: Paths vs. streets

    It’s certainly a lot easier to retrofit an existing neighborhood to add paths than to add streets, that’s all I’ve got to say. A path can go between two houses. A street, unless it’s just a very small alley, would generally mean removing one of the houses, right?

    Would a very small alley be preferably to a bicycle/pedestrian path, I wonder?

    Also, the “tweaker element” probably reflects a bit on the character of the neighborhood. I don’t hear too much from my great-aunt or her niece about tweakers using the paths next to their houses. I also don’t hear from my friends in Ladd’s Addition about tweakers using the extensive alleyway system in that neighborhood.

    Thoughts?

  18. I also don’t hear from my friends in Ladd’s Addition about tweakers using the extensive alleyway system in that neighborhood.

    The alleys in Ladd’s get a fair amount of auto traffic from people trying to get to their garages, but no a lot of walking traffic from people trying to get through the neighborhood.

    It’s certainly a lot easier to retrofit an existing neighborhood to add paths than to add streets

    I think that is correct. And I think adding paths is a good idea. But there is resistance when you try to do it. There are also a number of places in Washington County where cul-de-sacs essentially end at berms that separate them from an arterial. The streets could be connected without taking out any houses.

  19. It’s certainly a lot easier to retrofit an existing neighborhood to add paths than to add streets

    I think that is correct. And I think adding paths is a good idea. But there is resistance when you try to do it. There are also a number of places in Washington County where cul-de-sacs essentially end at berms that separate them from an arterial. The streets could be connected without taking out any houses.

    Well, that’s a good point. Where possible, a full street solution would be preferable, from the perspective of improving the grid. Maybe leaving some of the berm intact as a speed hump would be a good compromise solution…

    But what about the question of new alleys vs. new bike/ped paths? What would be preferable?

    Alleys:
    – Alleys would increase the number of eyes on the street by allowing cars, and presumably more people would drive, walk or bike through the connection than would just bike or walk.
    – Alleys could have speed bumps and would be necessarily narrow to keep speeds down
    – Alleys would have to have a method for allowing vehicles and bikes/pedestrians to safely pass one another while traveling in opposite directions.
    – Because vehicle motor noise is generally louder than bicycle/pedestrian noise, alleys could bring increased noise to a specific location

    Pedestrian/Bicycle Paths:
    – Could fit into a somewhat narrower space than ever alleys, because bicycles and pedestrians can pass one another while traveling in opposite directions with very little ROW requirements
    – Produce generally less noise
    – Have fewer eyes on the street, potentially, due to a lack of autos

    I think design is very important here — proper design (lighting, landscaping, presence or absence of street furniture like benches and trash cans, meanders, pavement type, grading, speed control devices, viewshed and views to/from neighbors, etc) can make or break the effectiveness of each new connection. If neighbors are fully involved in the design of each new connection (via a charette setting, perhaps), they could make their own path/alley/street decisions, and make other critical decisions that they would then feel a sense of ownership over.

  20. Hey Greg –

    Speaking of trams, it’s good to know that Tram ridership is initially double what was expected, plus the percentage of OHSU riders is significantly higher than expected, which means (if the trend continues) that after the initial 3-year operating agreement is over, the city’s share of operating costs will be greatly reduced.

    – Bob R.

  21. Hi Bob,

    That great. That’s assuming that the trend continues. What about the second part of my post regarding the endless studies that go into a lot of these transportation planning projects. Take the Newberg Bypass, for instance. I heard they’ve spent over $10M on merely STUDYING it! Where’s all that money going to? Foreign entities? How much money did they sink into studying the Cascade Station TOD only to instead give it away almost free to Ikea and next Wal-Mart?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *