Perspectives on the RTP Update


Last Thursday Metro held a workshop to begin scoping the process for updating the Regional Transportation Plan. A number of Portland Transport contributors participated, and you’ll be reading a number of perspectives on the update over the next few days.

Last Thursday Metro convened 100 leaders and local politicians to kick off the Regional Transportation Plan update process. Metro President David Bragdon and Councilor Burkholder reflected backwards and discussed the coming of a new era of transportation and public works. They talked about finite resources – both financial and natural.

Next they held a facilitated input process. We sat around tables while facilitators prompted us for general themes that would help guide the two-year long planning process; they asked for methods by which Metro could public comment.

I heard two primary themes among participants: ‘bang for the buck’ and ‘outcomes based’. Ironically these are two of the things that transportation engineers do worst. I’ll illustrate by example:

Circle-peg and Square-hole
If I said “boy the freeway is congested” a highway engineering would add a lane; however once built the congestion would not be eased. Many transportation academics believe that you literally cannot build your way out of traffic congestion, it’s a low bang for the buck and lacks desired outcomes.

Square-peg and Square-hole.
If I said “boy the freeway is congested” an economists would add a pricing system where the price increases with congestion and therefore easing congestion. While perhaps politically difficult, from a resourse and result standpoint it achieves the objective while raising resources, a great bang.

As it goes I am encouraged by this trend. I believe that bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and other non-auto investments are the way of the future, a great bang for the limited public buck and clearly moves us towards desired outcomes of improved economy, livability, and efficient transportation systems.

,

11 responses to “Perspectives on the RTP Update”

  1. Now if only Rep. David Wu agreed with the economists instead of the traffic engineers about Hwy 217 and 26. Apparently he is pushing for expansions.

    As a side note… if a software engineer is someone that creates software, then a traffic engineer is someone who creates traffic, right? ;)

  2. I think a realistic approach would recognize that all transit options neeed to be considered.
    When I was a kid horses and buggies ruled, swerving around the 10 foot diameter old growth stumps. But, by gum, now we are well on the way to becoming a major center of sophistication and culture, and we oughta get ourselves prepared, by cracky!

    People are never gonna get out of them dad-burned horseless carriages–they use them to go on all sorts of errands and junkets, even when respectful folks would stay at home. Them cruisers at 2 am rattle my nerves a bit—guess I’ll have ta get used to it. Well, mebbe we sould get a good number to use the iron horse–at least to get to their gainful employment, but the red blooded American always gots to have his own rig…Velocipedes, streetcars, locomotives, roller skates, brand spankin’ new throughfares—s’all good. We’ve got to get ready for next huge wave of Oregon pioneers! Might be a million of ’em.

  3. Square-peg and Square-hole.
    If I said “boy the freeway is congested” an economists would add a pricing system where the price increases with congestion and therefore easing congestion. While perhaps politically difficult, from a resourse and result standpoint it achieves the objective while raising resources, a great bang.

    Which solves the freeway’s problem by shifting the burden to other facilities. Congestion price I5 between downtown Portland and the I5 bridge and the traffic will shift to the “free” facilities, Martin Luther King Boulevard, Denver and Interstate.

    The only place tolling can be used where the traffic burden isn’t shifted onto non-freeway users is where there are no alternatives. You have that with the Columbia Bridges, but for that reason it is politically unacceptable. The impact from tolling the bridges even to maintain the current level of traffic into the near future would devastate housing construction in Clark County.

    In any case, the Portland region’s transportation system’s problem is not primarily how it serves long trips where tolling economics play a role. It is in how poorly it serves communities, neighborhoods and local businesses and residents. The problems are not with financing and engineering, they are with asthetics and operation.

  4. The financially constrained RTP network is $4 billion; the illustrative is $10 billion. Urban freeways make up much of the cost this illustrative network. Building new freeway miles is costly and often times are simply an added lane along existing freeways to ease peak period traffic congestion. The congested window is expanding because more people are moving here, another 1 million expected by 2020.

    More people are driving more often for a variety of trip types and lengths. People are driving to places they need to get to, school or work, and others are driving for discretionary trips. Many of both trips types use the freeways for a variety of distances. I live in inner Portland use the freeway to get both downtown and to Delta Park, neither of which I have to use the freeway.

    Congestion pricing can shift trip choices in a variety of way, including how you travel — if you report to work at 8am you can still carpool to save money — and when you travel — if I am going to Home Depot I will do it when it’s free or cheap, when the road capacity is not in high demand.

    People are going to drive. The mistake that I see is dumping $6 billion more dollars into a freeway system that will fail without price control measures. It is possible to toll all major roads to clamp down on traffic diversion. Either way, as the increment cost of using a vehicle goes people may choose to do business and pleasure more locally from an money and time standpoint.

  5. Scott –

    Obviously, I agree. We don’t need to invest $6 billion into more freeways that won’t solve the problem.

    The fact is congestion is a perfect market – people pay the price of congestion in exact proportion to their contribution to it. So called “price control measures” just allow some people to pay money to have others assume the burden of the congestion they create. Whether that “burden” is sitting in congestion, taking an alternative route, car-pooling, trip-shifting, using transit or riding a bike.

    There may be some good reasons for price control measures, but they are not automatically better than the natural market of congestion.

    As I pointed out, putting price control measures in effect on I5 would shift trips to Denver, Interstate and MLK. This shifts the burden of congestion to people who live in those communities.

    They have no choice in the matter. They can’t force people to take the bus, ride a bike, carpool or pay tolls instead of congesting their local streets. Of course they can change their own behavior and avoid all but the health effects from the pollution. But we ought to recognize that what has happened is that the price of the congestion created by that trip from Vancouver has been transferred from the people making that trip to people in the local communities it goes through.

    There are places where proper pricing will do what congestion can’t, get people out of their cars at the most congested times. But it is not a general all purpose solution – its only going to work in rare cases.

    Its not not clear in practical terms that price controls are more than a stopgap measure used to justify additional investment in freeways. Witness the I5 bridge. Proper price controls there would eliminate the need for a new bridge entirely. But unless something has changed recently, that solution is not even getting serious consideration. Its not clear that price controls are anything more than another way to pay for more freeways.

  6. “The impact from tolling the bridges even to maintain the current level of traffic into the near future would devastate housing construction in Clark County.”

    Oh, poor babies! That means they can’t destroy the beautiful landscape of Washington County and sprawl all over the place? Awww… so sad. Too bad! It’ll happen sooner or later, anyway. Either that or I predict I-5 will collapse from neglected maintenance & repairs in 30 years.

  7. Justin –

    You may not think its so bad, but the powers that be in Clark County do. And Oregon needs the clout of Washington’s congressional delegation to get money for transportation projects. So the I5 bridge has risen to the top of the list.

    Its pretty clear there are more pressing needs in Oregon – starting with the Sellwood Bridge and the extension of light rail to Milwaukie as the big ticket items. Followed by the Damascus Greenway if we are serious about doing that UGB expansion right.

  8. So how does the state of Washington end up kowtowing to a small-time town down in the corner of the state, hundreds of miles from the major cities of Olympia, Tacoma, and Seattle – all of which are much larger than the ‘Couv? Very odd, in my opinion…

    With Seattle ready to blow between 1-5 billion on a new waterfront tunnel or viaduct, you’d think they’d want to get their money focused on something that matters.

  9. So how does the state of Washington end up kowtowing to a small-time town down in the corner of the state, hundreds of miles from the major cities of Olympia, Tacoma, and Seattle – all of which are much larger than the ‘Couv? Very odd, in my opinion…

    It doesn’t. But US Senators try to deliver for all parts of the state. And Clark County is growing in population and therefore growing in political clout.

Leave a Reply to Ron Swaren Cancel reply

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