Metro has completed a new growth forecast of population and employment, looking at various configurations of the Columbia River Crossing.
While their modeling confirms that a bridge with no tolls would increase housing growth in the northern parts of Clark County (growth at the edge of the region – aka sprawl), the combination of Light Rail and a toll of $2 each way (at rush hour) is apparently sufficient to keep housing growth comparable to the no-build scenario.
In my mind, this emphasizes the importance of agreeing now on a governance structure that will manage the bridge, and its tolls, to ensure that if the bridge is built it is managed to the goals that all the sponsors endorse as part of the project approval.
11 responses to “Metro Analysis Shows Tolls and LRT Curb CRC Sprawl”
Doesn’t an honest asssessment require the detrimental effects?
We know that LRT will curb bus service and prompt many millions to be diverted from government services to subsidize LRT oriented development.
LRT will bring aboit all of the detriment voiced by the public at TriMet’s board meeting.
Tolls would not be needed if the LRT component of the CRC is dropped.
The sprawl issue cast as troublesome is derived from a series of speculative presumptions to arrive at a predetermined objective.
Given that our own Metro region is no example of any prefferable alternative to “sprawl” Clark County will likley reject Metro’s model.
There are too many real examples of their product to look at up against the rosy colored concepts Metro still peddles.
Metro’s infill, high density subdivisions, The Round, Sowa, Cascade Station, Rockwood, and even the Rose quarter are not prefferable to thye boogieman sprawl.
And there is no indication of job creation being limited to Portland for those future SW WA residents.
I suspect WA will tell Metro thanks but no thanks. Despite whatever fresh multicolored power point reports and presentations Metro produces.
Similar to MLR the CRC is riddled with fatal flaws.
Primarily centered around the enormous cost of the LRT/Metro agenda.
I think David Bragdon makes the key point:
“It’s important for the public to remember that this growth forecast depends on several assumptions, including substantial investment in other parts of the region’s transportation network, including the Oregon 217 corridor in Washington County, the Sunrise Corridor in Clackamas County, expansion of the MAX system to Milwaukie and land use and transportation improvements between Portland and Tigard.”
There is a adage, garbage-in, garbage-out. I am not going to say Metro has produced garbage, but it is important to consider whether the inputs are realistic.
One question is can/will the region afford to build all that other infrastructure if it builds the CRC? Without those other investments and traffic management programs, the results will be very different.
The modeling for expansion of I5 at Delta Park showed a DECREASE in traffic on the Fremont Bridge and at the Rose Quarter. The explanation for that was they included all the other projects in the RTP in the build model but not in the no-build. The decrease in traffic resulted from the other investments, not the changes at Delta Park. Of course, not all those other investments were actually made. So we will probably not see less traffic on the Fremont Bridge and at the Rose Quarter.
I assume the same process was used here. The comparison is between the full regional transportation plan, including the CRC, and a ‘no-build” that assumes there is no other investment.
Another other question is whether they have included the additional “transportation demand-management” targets beyond tolling in the CRC build option. If the model includes un-defined actions that will reduce traffic by 5%, you need to define what those actions are, and determine whether they are politically acceptable, before you have a real plan.
There are also questions about how you measure impacts. The number of new houses built is one issue, but an earlier Metro study showed that there was a shift in property values from Oregon to Washington with any new capacity. In other words, houses in Oregon will be worth relatively less (ie less expensive) and houses in Washington will be worth relatively more ( i.e. more expensive). In other words, does the model simply reflect that higher prices in Clark County will hold down the market for new development.
Chris,
Oh myyy! I just looked briefly at the METRO report. One should isolate the implications of the CRC project for growth—AND–the question of how well the CRC project fits in with overall regional growth. And that includes the dynamics within Portland given its position as somewhere in the middle of the I-5 system.
I would have to put it into a Venn diagram which I don’t know how to do online :)
IMO, the CRC is just reinventing the wheel.
LRT will bring aboit all of the detriment voiced by the public
Try getting between Washington and Oregon by transit. During peak periods (and sometimes others) it requires sitting in the same traffic that everyone else has to. During off-peak times, it requires going to Delta Park, transferring, getting on I-5, getting off I-5 at Jantzen Beach and making a double loop around the island to serve the mall, getting back on I-5 and, when you finally reach downtown Vancouver, possibly transferring because only one of the bus routes crosses the river to the MAX station.
In addition, biking and walking is no fun, either.
Try getting between Washington and Oregon by transit. During peak periods (and sometimes others) it requires sitting in the same traffic that everyone else has to. During off-peak times, it requires going to Delta Park, transferring, getting on I-5, getting off I-5 at Jantzen Beach and making a double loop around the island to serve the mall, getting back on I-5 and, when you finally reach downtown Vancouver, possibly transferring because only one of the bus routes crosses the river to the MAX station.
And when you can’t get around by the above means, you find some other way that you can. It works for me. But I agree improving the mass transit connection between OR-WA would be a good thing…it’s just finding the right formula. One that meets our needs (present and projected) and is affordable. One that doesn’t open up a Pandora’s Box because it was not the right choice. You know—when you purchase something with add ons or options you look for the right combination that you want. And you would much prefer to get it right the first time……Don’t you?
The modeling for expansion of I5 at Delta Park showed a DECREASE in traffic on the Fremont Bridge and at the Rose Quarter. The explanation for that was they included all the other projects in the RTP in the build model but not in the no-build.
I’m curious to see this documented somewhere for southbound traffic. The documentation I saw was for all phases of the Delta Park project to be completed, but no mention of everything unrelated to it. The current project is just phase one that will eventually replace the ramps at Columbia completely, as well as rebuild Denver north of Interstate.
The expectation as I read it was that the improved Columbia interchange would help I-5 NB overall (at least, up to the Jantzen Beach area) and Southbound would remove a bottleneck leftover from when Interstate and MLK were able to handle enough of the traffic to allow I-5 to drop to two lanes.
I haven’t heard of an EIS that allows you to plan for unfunded unrelated potential projects to impact the project, but maybe they found a loophole.
“I haven’t heard of an EIS that allows you to plan for unfunded unrelated potential projects to impact the project, but maybe they found a loophole.”
They didn’t. The projects they used in the modeling were all identified as funded in the Regional Transportation Plan. I am not sure where the Delta Park modeling from earlier this decade is found online, or even whether it is, or I would include a link.
“Try getting between Washington and Oregon by transit.”
That angle comes no where near offsetting the broad detriment from extending light rail.
You can’t simply dismiss the many challenges TriMet and transit users are facing now with the cost of LRT.
I shouldn’t have to go through all of the shortcomings and severe problems all over again.
But we can certainly know that C-Tran and Vancouver would suffer the same detriments if MAX and all it brings is allowed to cross the river.
I predict the CRC will never get built because of the insistence Light Rail be included.
I also estimate the real cost of LRT portion of the CRC would mirror MLR at or near $2 billion.
the CRC will never get built because of the insistence Light Rail be included
And there’s people that say the same thing about the huge highway side of it, too.
And there’s people that say the same thing about the huge highway side of it, too.
So, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
JS: Of course, not all those other investments were actually made. So we will probably not see less traffic on the Fremont Bridge and at the Rose Quarter…The projects they used in the modeling were all identified as funded in the Regional Transportation Plan.
You just described every transportation project in the region. AS an example, let’s look at the streetcar loop project. When they modeled that, the McLoughlin/I-5 connector was in the RTP. That project itself showed a 30% decrease in traffic on Grand Ave. Of course it has since been removed from the RTP, and as a result traffic on Grand is now predicted to increase substantially. Did that cause our illustrious mayor to re-think the wisdom of the streetcar loop? Of course not – leaving that big steaming pile of federal money on the table would be irresponsible leadership.
Look at the track configuration at Grand and Broadway – that’s going to be a nightmare the day the line opens.