On today’s editorial page, the Oregonian has figured out what the freight community keeps ignoring: shifting SOV drivers to alternate modes is good for freight!
As gas prices hit $3 per gallon, it’s not just individual motorists rethinking their way of getting around the region. Businesses are, too. And as an understanding of the region’s freight economy dawns on more Portlanders, more will awaken to the inefficiency of gratuitous single-occupancy vehicle trips, chewing up road capacity that the economy needs.
That’s what the Netherlands concluded many years ago, driving the country to create a bike-friendly system, taking cars off the roads, freeing precious road capacity for trucks that are vital to the economy. In Portland, some motorists and bicyclists still view each other as adversaries. Last year, when a Portland delegation visited the Netherlands, Dutch officials found that baffling.
Why be at odds? In the Netherlands, people view the transportation system as all working, or maybe we should say rolling, together.
There’s no question Portland needs to do a better job of prioritizing transportation improvements that help to move freight. But it would be wonderful if the city’s new freight plan also helped change our gears, and our minds, in other directions, too.
It should increase our sophistication about how all the region’s transportation modes, glamorous and nitty-gritty, fit together — and enhance each other.
58 responses to “Oregonian “Gets It” on Freight”
Here’s another novel concept. Let the freight industry pay for the interestates since the freight railraods pay for the rails. Then they can subjugate traffic according to their needs.
Either way and whatever solution, SOVs are a problem.
As please as I am with this editorial…afterall moving freight by creating and promotiong transportation options is what I do…I still question the premise that Portland’s future is tied to the Port/freight/transportation vision.
I guess its because I walk along the river every morning and see Terminal 2 sitting empty, because I work with adidasAmerica, a North American HQ that doesn’t ship one shoe, because if I had to choose between Freightliner’s North American HQ and the Truck Plant, it would be easily the former, and because I can count…Portland is not and will never be a major port, i.e. container port, with no disrespect toward wheat and autos. Because of all this and more, I don’t buy “Portland’s future is Freight” story. I think this “freight is our destiny” fantasy is fostered by the Port to cover its own failures (no Lower Columbia River Port Authority with a giant container port at Tongue Point), by those whose vision of the future is full of good forklift jobs, and most dangerously by those who see “freight” as a lever to get more roads built.
Education and innovation is the whole story…Intel did not lose market share due shipping costs out of Portland.
More rail/bike/ped facilities will never shift enough drivers to alternative modes or keep pace with growth in car & truck transportation demands.
That’s why we have the increasing congestion problem and costs.
Unfortunately we are dominated by and stuck with the congestion causers mascarading as congestion relievers and we won’t be getting what we need.
Whether they are SOVs, freight, service vehicles
car pools, buses or any other vehicles they all need more road capacity and options during the commute hours.
All of the effort to force more rail every where and obstruct the adding of more road capacity is doing exactly what has been done over the last 20 years.
The Oregonian seldom gets anything right and certainly missed the chaos in the Netherlands.
Probably because all they did is get the “report” from the delegation and bought it all.
Here’s the rest of the Netherlands story which makes their approach wholly unworkable here in the western USA.
http://www.virtualtourist.com/travel/Europe/Netherlands/Provincie_Noord_Holland/Amsterdam-463377/Warnings_or_Dangers-Amsterdam-Crossing_the_streets_Traffic-BR-3.html
Excerpts
The biggest risk to your health and bodily integrity in Amsterdam are bikes and trams. Amsterdam trams (streetcars)are generally very big and yellow (OK, some are blue & white and others bedecked in ads) and should be easy to avoid. About 10 tourists a years fail this test and end up being shipped to their point of origin in a bag/box.
Watch out for the bikers and the tram! (streetcar) Vehicles in Amsterdam do not stop for pedestrians so you have to watch out when crossing a street. Especially the tram and the bikers have no mercy for a tourist getting in their way.
After going through Europe and places like Rome, I thought I had seen the worst of the worst of street traffic and how dangerous it is to cross the road – NO WAY this has to be the worst. This is how it goes – step off the pavement and watch out for the bikes in the bike lane, then the tram lane, then you get to the cars bit, not so bad, but then on your way over you forget about the trams, and the bikes and then you are finally on the other side of the road!!!! There are so many bikes in this city, just check out the bike parking lot near the train station!! I saw a post card where they are pulling our hundreds of bikes from the canals!
Be extremely careful whilst crossing the roads. Watch out for Trams, they have no mercy and bicycles although the riders do normally ring their bell to let you know your in the way.
Be very careful as you walk around, the locals have a rhythm with their bikes and you can easily find yourself on a bike path instead of the walking path. You are more likely to annoy them than anything, but if you are suddenly startled you may jump out of their way and into the path of a street car… very bad. There are a few deaths a year from tourists not paying attention to the traffic.
Being a pedestrian in Amsterdam is the most dangerous thing for me. You need to have your five senses in continuous action if you don’t want to be run over. When there are no cars, there is a bicycle and when there are no bikes, there’s a tram. That?s absolutely crazy!!!
Amsterdam bikes exist in almost every colour of the rainbow and obey no single traffic regulation. The bike is Amsterdam’s most efficient mode of transport and most of the people on them are in a hurry to get from A to B, myself included. This means that most of us don’t bother to ring our bells before we run you over.
There are bikes everywhere, but there aren’t just bicycles in the bike paths, there are also scooters and mopeds and sometimes motorcycles. My friend was hit by a motorcycle while riding her bike and was thrown onto the sidewalk face first, cracking 2 teeth, and bruising her face and body. The woman who hit her left without stopping. We managed to get her plates but were told by the police that they couldn’t help us. Can you believe that??
A few lives here, a few lives there, pretty soon we’re talking real people.
Well, the Oregonian had a reporter as part of the delegation, so I think they would have the facts right.
I got cursed at once or twice for being in the bike lane on foot, but I didn’t see anyone get run down.
And Amsterdam has an incredible focus on pedestrian and bicycle safety with stats that made our Portland colleagues jealous, so I don’t find a lot of credibility in the above.
There’s no surprise that people unused to looking for bikes would freak out. It’s a cultural norm that takes a bit of adjusting to. Sort of like driving in L.A., or walking in New York, or…
The facts — rather than the silly quotations from tourists — show otherwise. If I remember correctly, per-capita traffic deaths in the Netherlands are about one-third of traffic deaths in the U.S.
A few lives here, a few lives there, pretty soon we’re talking real people indeed.
Steve, we’ve all read your unfounded rants before, but come on, this is ridiculous. If you’re gonna make these kinds of accusations at least have some numbers to back it up…
Wow, I’m floored that the Oregonian actually gets it on this issue. That’s amazing.
…but how do we get there from here?
Accusations?
We have worsening and costly traffic congestion because of neglecting the needs of growth while pretending to be planning for them.
“Traffic congestion is bad and getting worse.
It is a nightmare for commuters and it is choking freight mobility.
There is no more clear illustration of our inability to meet growth needs than our failure to address our transportation needs.
Within the transportation arena we are facing utter chaos.”
from Metro head, Mike Burton’s State of the Region Speech, 2000
The site and comments above speak for themselves.
And some of them appear to be people who have been all over Europe for comparison.
Here, there is no way the out of balance disproportionate emphasis and spending on more bike/rail/ped facilities will ever get people out of their cars and trucks and more than it has worked to date.
“””…but how do we get there from here?”””
Relocate to the Netherlands.
Is there any room for you folks to talk about Cascade Station?
Now that Costco Home will be joining Ikea Furniture the count is 2 auto-oriented BIG BOXES to zero ped/bike/transit friendly developments resulting from $200 million in transit oriented public “investment”.
Investment which your champion at the time, Charlie Hales, said would not be allowing ANY BIG BOX development.
Same story all over the region right along with
the high cost and the ineffective numbers served by MAX.
It’s about to get much worse with tearing up downtown for more light rail on a mall, the practical joke Washington County commuter rail and I-205 MAX spewing more massive abuse of Urban renewal for the auto-oriented Clackamas Town Center.
Keep those blinders on and ear plugs in.
Lenny do you know the percentage of freight moved thru Portland in tonnage compared to the other cities they cite? I know we are well down the list, but do how much is specific to Portland and how much goes to other ports on the river, i.e. Longview?
Either way we will still need to get the food and other needs of daily life in since we don’t make much of it here and along the way consideration needs to be given to that which is shipped out. Kinda rough moving all that toiletpaper by bicycle. ;)
Some of what passes thru could be routed elsewhere, say by developing a Salem to Longview by-pass, or something from Ontario down to Bend. Maybe a toll road. I have heard that the Grange has supported the latter for sometime and would take a lot of traffic out of the gorge and the pollution along with it.
And how much truck traffic goes over the I-5 bridge that originates well south and could be routed over the 205 instead?
M.W.
Lenny do you know the percentage of freight moved thru Portland in tonnage compared to the other cities they cite? I know we are well down the list, but do how much is specific to Portland and how much goes to other ports on the river, i.e. Longview?
Either way we will still need to get the food and other needs of daily life in since we don’t make much of it here and along the way consideration needs to be given to that which is shipped out. Kinda rough moving all that toiletpaper by bicycle. ;)
Some of what passes thru could be routed elsewhere, say by developing a Salem to Longview by-pass, or something from Ontario down to Bend. Maybe a toll road. I have heard that the Grange has supported the latter for sometime and would take a lot of traffic out of the gorge and the pollution along with it.
And how much truck traffic goes over the I-5 bridge that originates well south and could be routed over the 205 instead?
M.W.
Intel did not lose market share due shipping costs out of Portland.
The problem isn’t the Oregonian, its at Metro, or rather JPACT, and ODOT. Alternative transportation advocates keep looking to agencies, whose core political support is from road builders. to develop solutions that cost less. The truth is if Trimet wasn’t spending money on huge, capital intensive transit projects it would get no money at all from the regional treasury. Those who support bike and pedestrian alternatives need to figure out how to make them just as expensive. Then there will be an economic base of contractors to support building them.
The Regional Transportation Plan update, just starting, is the next opportunity to start moving from here to there!
The Lower Columbia, including 4 docks in Portland, is the largest wheat exporter on the west coast; may be the largest in the country with New Orleans still recovering. Wheat arrives in unit trains and on barges.
Portland is one of the larger auto import ports on the west coast; most of these move out of the area on unit trains as well.
Portland is also a big exporter of bulk minerals…potash, soda ash, etc.
Hence our tonnage numbers are pretty good.
Portland is not a significant container port at all, less than a rounding error compared to LA/Long Beach. Even with a deeper channel, post Panamax ships will not be able to make it up the River.
The Port and others mistake what they see in the rearview mirror for the future.
The best transportation investment of late in our economic future is the tram to OHSU, which will facilitate the expansioin of the only research institution in the region.
We need to spend $6 Billion on education…pre-K through post-Doc…not on transportation.
[personally directed comment removed]
I don’t think anyone can make accurate projections about the tram anymore… the whole thing is up in the air. (ahem)
– Bob R.
Lenny –
I am not sure that OHSU’s ambitions are any more realistic than the Port’s. I agree with you on education and would add early childhood development to the list of better investments over road improvements. But it is not at all clear that OHSU is ever going to be a competitive in the bio-med and research arena. When you ask why Portland instead of Boston its hard to see a reason for companies to locate here. And then the tram becomes just a very expensive elevator from the OHSU parking garage.
“Personally directed”?
I was simply disputing what Lenny claimed about the Tram.
He said, “The best transportation investment of late in our economic future is the tram to OHSU, which will facilitate the expansion of the only research institution in the region.”
He obviously has little knowledge of the Tram, OHSU or the research industry making his claim baseless.
I can’t help but conclude Lenny and others desire to confuse issues to propagate
support for bad planners and reckless public investment.
In reality the Tram will go down in Oregon transportation history as one of the most poorly thought out and illegitimate projects ever. It’s primary use is to facilitate while obscuring the far greater public cost of SoWa subsidies for
private high rise development.
This crap shoot is solid evidence of the same continuing dysfunctional planning that spawned the BIG BOX Cascade Station. When the opposite outcome from the intended and planned form results from this process it’s failure on a grand scale.
Steve, let me be clear.
You are welcome to disagree with Lenny’s opinions or conclusions, or challenge anything he presents as data or fact with data or facts of your own.
You are NOT welcome to try to characterize Lenny’s (or anyone else’s) knowledge or motives.
This crap shoot is solid evidence of the same continuing dysfunctional planning
The only planning that went into the Tram was by OHSU. It was never really a transportation decision, it was an incentive to OHSU to expand to North MacAdam instead of out in Hillsboro. That, not its value to the transportation system, was the only issue.
OHSU may not be much compared to Boston’s resources, but its all this region has for a research U.
Portland is a player in a number of industrial clusters due in large part in its ability to attract talent…since we don’t grow our own.
A clean, safe and interesting city, with livable and affordable neighborhoods with good schools is what allows employers to hire good talent from around the world to work here for less money than elsewhere. Transportation and freight movement has very little to do with this.
I have never seen any statistic that shows how we can build our way out of congestion. Metro says even with $14 billion over 20 years (we currently have $4 billion) that we will still have the same levels of congestion.
We must Manage our system! It’s what other transportation markets do. It’s more expensive to call during that day than at night, free weekend mintues.
We must make targeted improvements with high levels of return rather than general expansions that don’t even help move freight…. the real irony.
Lenny thanks for the comments on the Port.
If I recall L.A./Longbeach handles 40% of incoming weastcoast container freight, but has a serious backup problem. Inadequate trucking facilities and poor railroad access and I am wondering if the Port of Portland people were using any of L.A.’s problems to their advantage.
M.W.
Lenny thanks for the comments on the Port.
If I recall L.A./Longbeach handles 40% of incoming weastcoast container freight, but has a serious backup problem. Inadequate trucking facilities and poor railroad access and I am wondering if the Port of Portland people were using any of L.A.’s problems to their advantage.
M.W.
Scott Bricker I have never seen any statistic that shows how we can build our way out of congestion.
JK: We did it for years as Portland grew. I205 was even free flowing for years until our population increase finally overloaded it. It is simple: build road capacity in proportion to need. (Populatiobn increase + per capita driving increase)
Do you think that people will drive to work TWICE EACH MORNING if we built more roads?
Thanks
JK
JK –
What roads would you build to bring us in line with your ideal level of congestion for our current population? Which of these roads are not currently slated to be built, and why?
– Bob R.
Michael –
After listening to the Port’s strategic plan at the city club, I think there only strategy is to hope that LA’s problems force people to use Portland. But Tacoma just opened a new container Port. It has deep water almost all the way in. I just don’t see Portland as ever being a factor. Its market is much more likely to slip than to expand. And the Port has more aspirations than they have any realistic strategic vision.
The same can be said of OHSU. Portland is a nice place to live, but that is not by itself going to grow a biomedical industry. They want to be in an intellectual center. OHSU can’t even attract their own graduates to come back with their current level of programs. Its just not a world class operation and the biomedical industry is looking at locations where there are multiple world class sources of new intellectual ideas.
Jim, I’m not afraid some will commute twice as often, but I am very concerned that some will commute from twice as far away, which has the same effect on VMT.
“””” but I am very concerned that some will commute from twice as far away,””””””
That’s already happening because of people having to move further away to buy a home for their family.
The soaring price of housing caused by the UGB/planning retarded land supply and endless fee increases are forcing families to move out further and commute longer if they want a decent house in a family oriented
neighborhood.
I’ve tracked and watched this in action as I purchased rental homes in nice neighborhoods.
Starting in Sherwood, then Newberg and recently McMinnville. People I talked to are now venturing clear out to McMinville to afford a nice house even though they still commute to Portland for their job.
An alternate way to look at housing prices is that the closer-in neighborhoods and burbs are more expensive because people value the less-auto-dependent lifestyle.
Chris Smith Jim, I’m not afraid some will commute twice as often, but I am very concerned that some will commute from twice as far away, which has the same effect on VMT.
JK: Why not let people decide for themselves what tradeoff they want between where they live and possibly more VMT? This is, allegedly, a free country.
Having the possibility of a longer commuting distance increases choices, isn’t that good? A longer commute may allow lower cost housing, being in a better school district or getting a better job, all leading to a higher standard of living? Isn’t this all good? Shouldn’t we look at both sides of any tradeoff? (In this case VMT vs standard of living.)
Thanks
JK
Jim, absolutely people should have choice. I just don’t want longer commutes subsidized with my taxes in the form of more freeway lane-miles. I know you’re going to respond with criticism of subsidies for rail – be my guest. We’re both trying to use public policy to shape the region the way we think is best. But your vision is no more free-market than mine is.
I205 was even free flowing for years until our population increase finally overloaded it
Years in this case being less than 10 years. I-205 wasn’t complete when I left Portland in 1980 and it was fully congested when I returned in 1990. It wasn’t just population growth, it was new development in areas that would not have been developed without the freeway.
Having the possibility of a longer commuting distance increases choice
There is nothing preventing people from commuting as far as they are willing to drive. What freeways do is transfer the time costs from the people who live further away to those who live close. That makes the long commute more desirable at the expense of making the short commute less desirable. That’s what ramp meters are for, to make sure that people who live close in don’t get in the way of the people who got on the freeway further out.
Does “limited access” sound like it increases choices? The truth is that “limited access” creates congestion. It adds traffic to adjacent streets and it channels that traffic to choke points that lead to the freeway. Again, all for the benefit of the people who got on the freeway further away.
There is no such thing as a neutral choice when it comes to transportation funding. Those who commute long distances portray that commute as their “choice” while demanding that we invest in facilities to make their choice more desirable. People are only caught in the congestion of their own making by choice. No one is making them do it.
The truth is that “limited road and freeway capacity” creates congestion. It adds traffic to adjacent streets and it channels that traffic to choke points that lead to the limited freeway options.
I-205 became heavily utilized in ten years because it was late in arriving.
Since then the region has fallen further behind
in accommodating growth because people who dominate transportation policy making wrongly decided rail and bike facilities were equal to providing added road capacity in accommodating our growth.
They have been sorely wrong and refuse to admit the logical need for capacity increases to accommodate growth.
Substituting wishful thinking that bike and rail will be enough in place of needed additional road surface for more vehicles is just that, wishful thinking.
Chris your “alternate way to look at housing prices is that the closer-in neighborhoods and burbs are more expensive because people value the less-auto-dependent lifestyle” is more wishful thinking with little application to the greater populous.
Obviously some people chose to live in urban walkable city center neighborhoods as they do everywhere else but to be insisting that so much growth in the region has to follow this form fails to accommodate reality.
Declining school enrollment in Portland is proof.
At every turn the proponents of high density, transit oriented development and rail must ignore the many components which do not fit and the outcomes that don’t match the visioning.
All the while pretending that our planning is accommodating growth when it flat out isn’t.
It isn’t working, it’s not affordable and it’s not sustainable.
Look at the TriMet fare increases and runaway spending. Do you think this is sustainable?
All these new light rail cars add more lines on the way will demand even more fare increases and
millions more in Urban Renewal skimming of property taxes which is already decimating basic services budgets.
So where do you all think we are going with all of this.
The rail & bike mode facilities you continue to tout costs too much and simply do NOT serve a large enough SHARE of our growing transportation needs. Not now, not next year and will not in 10 20 or 30 years.
The recipe you support promises to worsen congestion, the cost of it’s impacts, and inflates the cost of remedies by delaying them indefinitely.
Look for more fare increases and TriMet demanding additional revenue in the near future as their fiscal structure is nearly the worst house of cards around. They have an unfolding pension deficit burden, soaring operational costs, unaffordable projects starting and not so much as a wild notion as to how to pay for it all.
Swell.
Chris Smith Says: I just don’t want longer commutes subsidized with my taxes in the form of more freeway lane-miles.
JK: Last I heard, freeway lane-miles are over 90% paid for by users through user fees. Do you have different data?
Conversely transit is subsidized over 80% (in Portland) by the general public while its market share is under 10%. This is where the real subsidy is.
For the sake of argument, lets pretend that all transportation was 100% paid for by taxes that all pay. Then roads would be paid for by everybody and used by 90% (in cars) not too unfair-only 10% pay for something that they don’t directly use. Conversely, transit would also be paid for by everybody, but used by under 10% of the people. Not very fair to the other 90% that do not use transit (or seldom use it).
Some argue that taking those few people out of cars decreases congestion, but in fact many of those do not have cars and the presence of buses congest streets, so the balance is not clear.
Why not just require ALL users to pay their full costs in the form of user fees and fares?
Thanks
JK
Ross Williams:
Years in this case being less than 10 years. I-205 wasn’t complete when I left Portland in 1980 and it was fully congested when I returned in 1990. It wasn’t just population growth, it was new development in areas that would not have been developed without the freeway.
JK: Are you suggesting that this development was outside of the 2040 plan and thus illegal, or was it poorly planned, in the 2040 plan, and thus caused congestion? Where would you have these people live? Perhaps in TODs that cost an extra $36,000 per unit due to the density?
Ross Williams: What freeways do is transfer the time costs from the people who live further away to those who live close.
JK: Then please explain why I5 is so congested around the bridge when most trips either originate or terminate within a mile of two of the bridge?
Ross Williams: It adds traffic to adjacent streets …
JK: Freeways take traffic off of adjacent arterials which in turn take traffic off of lesser roads. Portland parking lots passing as freeways are less effective at this.
Ross Williams: There is no such thing as a neutral choice when it comes to transportation funding. Those who commute long distances portray that commute as their “choice” while demanding that we invest in facilities to make their choice more desirable. People are only caught in the congestion of their own making by choice. No one is making them do it.
JK: DO you have an alternative that costs less? How do you feel about having ALL transportation system users pay ALL of their own costs through user fees and fares?
Thanks
JK
Are you suggesting that this development was outside of the 2040 plan
Of course it was. The 2040 plan didn’t exist in 1980 – it was adopted in the mid-90’s. There was an enormous amount of new development that occurred before and after that in unincorporated Clackamas County because of I-205.
Then please explain why I5 is so congested around the bridge when most trips either originate or terminate within a mile of two of the bridge?
As I understand it, a large numbers of trips “originate” or “terminate” the portion of the trip on I5 at SR 14 and SR500. That has become a mythology that the final destination or origin of the trip is within the bridge influence area.
The congestion on I-5 is created by that fact. There are seven limited access freeway lanes that converge at the bridge which has three. What did the Washington Department of Transportation expect was going to happen? They invested in moving the congestion to that point and now its really badly congested.
Freeways take traffic off of adjacent arterials which in turn take traffic off of lesser roads.
There aren’t many trips that start or end on a freeway. So yes the traffic comes off of adjacent arterials – which as a result are congested by the traffic trying to get on the freeway – and it gets off on arterials which are congested by traffic getting off the freeway.
How do you feel about having ALL transportation system users pay ALL of their own costs through user fees and fares?
I have yet to see a practical suggestion for coming close to that. The fact is you have to create public right of way for transportation systems to work. They are by nature monopolies. I can’t have two competing transportation companies build facilities from my home to every place I want to go. It works only in libertarian utopias described in fiction.
conversely transit is subsidized over 80% (in Portland) by the general public
No, it isn’t. Transit is largely paid for by a tax on employers, not the general public.
JK Said: “For the sake of argument, lets pretend that all transportation was 100% paid for by taxes that all pay. Then roads would be paid for by everybody and used by 90% (in cars) not too unfair-only 10% pay for something that they don’t directly use. Conversely, transit would also be paid for by everybody, but used by under 10% of the people. Not very fair to the other 90% that do not use transit (or seldom use it).”
Jim, taking your argument a little further back…
What happened before we had our highways and the government started building them? Less than 10% of the people used rapid speed highways because they weren’t available. Was it fair to all those who didn’t drive when the government invested in the biggest public works project in the history of the world (our highway system)? They use the system now because it is available, after major public investment over 50 years.
Likewise only 10% use rapid transit because it isn’t available. When it is, a lot more people will use it.
And I would be very glad to have all users pay all their own costs. If this were the case we would have many more transit riders!
Then please explain why I5 is so congested around the bridge when most trips either originate or terminate within a mile of two of the bridge?
I5 is congested because there is no local access across the river, and for the reasons Ross described.
I5 is congested because there is no local access across the river
And to reinforce that, one of the problems with creating a local alternative is that there is so much pent up demand for it that whatever local streets on the Vancouver side of the river that connect to the bridge get swamped with traffic.
Isaac Says:
Jim, taking your argument a little further back…
What happened before we had our highways and the government started building them? Less than 10% of the people used rapid speed highways because they weren’t available. Was it fair to all those who didn’t drive when the government invested in the biggest public works project in the history of the world (our highway system)?
JK: We have different facts sets:
1. Roads are mandated in the constitution (“postal roads”) These early roads evolved into the modern highway.
2. The first freeway was in the late 30’s not the federal projects of the 50’s
3. The federal highway system was FULLY paid for from user fees. What is the problem with that? User paid.
Isaac Says:
Likewise only 10% use rapid transit because it isn’t available. When it is, a lot more people will use it.
JK:
Ok, so it is fast. Will fast include pickup at your doorstep and drop off within a few feet of you destination? Or do we spend an hour walking, waiting, transferring, and walking in order to use the fast transit. Will it be free of drug dealers, wierdos and screaming kids? Will it include music, conversation, snacks and temperature of our choosing. Our cars are/do.
Isaac Says:
And I would be very glad to have all users pay all their own costs. If this were the case we would have many more transit riders!
JK:
Glad we agree that TriMet riders should pay around $8.00 one zone or $9.75, all zones per ride (current fares only cover 20% of the actual cost, neglecting construction of MAX, so these are low ball amounts) and car drivers should continue paying what they now pay – the approximate full cost of their road usage. (before we get into foreign oil and the like, remember that transit uses foreign oil too. Buses at about same rate as modern cars). Sixteen to twenty dollars round trip for transit sure makes driving look cheap when both systems have to pay their full cost. Even at the AAA inflated $.50 per mile that would be 32-40 mile round trips. Gresham to Beaverton??? Portland to Hillsboro???
Thanks
JK
Ross Williams Transit is largely paid for by a tax on employers, not the general public.
JK: Good try!
Employers that pay the tax are not the public sector, therefor they are members of the public.
In any case around 80% of the expense of your mass transit ride is paid by others.
Thanks
JK
Employers that pay the tax are not the public sector, therefor they are members of the public.
So are the people who pay any other tax, including the gas tax. What is your point?
In any case around 80% of the expense of your mass transit ride is paid by others.
Other than who? Are you saying employers don’t benefit from the transit system? Let me assure you that is not the case.
Moreover at 8:00 am on a weekday most of the expense of the trip for anyone on a freeway is being paid by others, including the folks sitting on transit or riding their bike. Not to mention the freight industry that both pays its taxes and pays again with the congestion the commuters create.
Ross Williams: So are the people who pay any other tax, including the gas tax. What is your point?
JK: The point is that transit costs are paid mostly by NON TRANSIT USERS while road costs are paid mostly BY ROAD USERS.
[Personally directed comment removed – Jim, we don’t impugn the motives of commenters.]
Thanks
JK
The point is that transit costs are paid mostly by NON TRANSIT USERS while road costs are paid mostly BY ROAD USERS.
Both are paid by taxpayers. We all benefit from roads and we all benefit from transit. These are public services which we collectively pay for. You can’t carefully parse out benefits or costs to each individual.
For instance, employers, who pay most transit taxes in Oregon, are in fact transit users. Many depend on transit to attract employees and locate adjacent to transit. Many pay the cost of their non-transit using employees parking.
You lump all “road users” together. But, in fact, many transit users pay more for roads than some “road users” do. And many “road users” make far more use of roads than what they pay for. Its a case of “what’s mine is mine, what’s yours is ours.”
Let’s all get together and push for an expressway from Oak Grove over the Willamette through Lake Oswego to 217!
I image a a nice double decker aligned over the existing RR tracks past the Hunt Club, with a big LA type interchange at 43 in downtown LO.
How can they not go for it? Such quick and convenient access into and out of LO.
Something tells me this won’t fly down there. Who would want this monster imposed on their town just so residents of n. Clackamas can get to jobs in Kruse Wood 10 minutes faster?
I want the monsters we have removed.
Ross Williams (quoting JK)The point is that transit costs are paid mostly by NON TRANSIT USERS while road costs are paid mostly BY ROAD USERS.
Ross Williams Both are paid by taxpayers.
JK: So airport ticket taxes, but like road user fees, they are ONLY PAID BY USERS of that particular service. Don’t drive and you (mostly) don’t pay for roads – that is a USER FEE. You pay for transit whether or not you use it – that is a TAX. That is the difference.
Thanks
JK
(who receives no income form city planning, city policy, city projects or smart growth)
Lenny Anderson: Let’s all get together and push for an expressway from Oak Grove over the Willamette through Lake Oswego to 217!
JK: Sounds good if you avoid going through heavily populated areas like LO.
Lenny Anderson: I want the monsters we have removed.
JK: And how would we get around?
Thanks
JK
Lenny says,”Let’s all get together and push for an expressway from Oak Grove over the Willamette through Lake Oswego to 217!”
“Who would want this monster imposed on their town just so residents of n. Clackamas can get to jobs in Kruse Wood 10 minutes faster?
I want the monsters we have”
I hope this is not a “glittering generality.”
So how does one get from Mt. Scott, Sunnyside Corridor, Milwaukie, Clackamas TC, Johnson City or Happy Valley to Washington County destinations now? Answer: By lengthy detours over either the I-205 at Oregon City or the Sellwood Bridge. There is thirteen miles of Willamette River with no crossing, at all, in a region of rapidly growing population. What would be wrong with cutting out several miles of each leg of these journeys? We’re for reducing VMT aren’t we?
So how does one make it painless for the fine residents of Lake Oswego and the East Bank? 1. No new highways but only use existing throughfares. 2. No Marquam Bridge replica. In these days artful bridges have come back. It would be very easy to build a two lane concrete bridge in the 1930’s art deco style. Historic streetlighting could be added and benches at the top. Genereous walkways to encourage leisurely strolls. 4. A tunnel to take westbound traffic under central LO, emerging at the County Club Rd. Junction. This about .8 miles.
Central Lake Oswego already has a number of major thoroughfares that converge into it. I count five: #1&2. No. and So. on Hwy 43 #3. McVey Ave/Stafford Rd. #4. A Ave/Country Club Rd. #5. Terwiliger Extension. There is no trouble getting to Hwy 217 from LO at present: just take A Ave to Country Club,left a short distance on Boones Fy. and then west on Kruse Way. This is a good way to get to Washington Square, Tigard, and Tualatin-Sherwood Rd. Who said anything about a big expressway?
The Stafford Rd. route is a fine way to get to Tualatin, I-205, West Linn, plus the new developments along Stafford. Terwiliger Extension takes you up to Mountain Park, Capitol Hwy, Lewis and Clark, PCC. etc.
I would propose connecting Oak Grove Bv. with Foothills Drive with my two lane aesthetic Art Deco creation. Some people have proposed a retructured bridge–a multimodal in the present rail crossing–but this route is almost three times as long and poorly served by arterials. I could see a Streetcar in that route. I would bet a poll of North Clackamas Co. residents and East Washington Co. residents would overwhelming support this. When one has to fight rush hour traffic, perhaps a half hour could be shaved off–per one way trip.
There you are. That’s as pain free as I can conceive. If you are talking about Monsters the mammoth rebuild of the I-5 bridge with the adjoining arterial bridge is more in that category. Developing the acknowledged Western Arterial would both solve a longstanding problem problem and eliminate expensive reconstruction of the eminently useable I-5.
What would be wrong with cutting out several miles of each leg of these journeys?
Nothing, except there aren’t very many of them. Very few people who live on the east side of Clackamas county choose to work in Hillsboro. Of course, that would change once you put the bridge in. In any case it ought to go through Dunthorpe, much lower density and fewer disruptions of homes.
Ross,
I don’t see any need for a “disruption of homes” as I envision a crossing. And who said anything about”East side of Clackamas Co.and “Hillsboro?” That is very ill-informed and doesn’t deserve to be on this discussion. And to suggest that people are suddenly going to commute 75 miles. Outlandish. Further you say “There aren’t many” trips. Take a look at METRO’s Travel Shed maps for the south Metro area; mine are labeled Fig. 9 and 10.
The streets are already there, and do not need any widening, except shoulders. More traffic? Yes, but in this life nothing is certain, anyway… On the west-side a tunnel would get rid of a lot of it and HWY 43 would absorb the rest. Busier? Yes.Intolerable, no…and why should I really care about Lake Oswego’s traffic?…Should they veto an improvement that benefits ten times as as many people? They basically intend to get what benefits them alone..
The cars will be going somewhere, unless someone can come up with a mass transit idea that could compete with what should be a half-hour trip. I could see some mass transit from Milwaukie to LO–and also from the SW on the old RR. But who would drive ten miles and then take a trolley for the final three? Let’s be real.
For those of you who complain about how TriMet gets a large portion of their revenue from a payroll tax, please consider where that subsidy goes: to provide service to areas where it does not make financial sense to provide it because of inefficient, subsidised development patterns and to provide LIFT service to people who would otherwise be homebound. Those packed rush-hour buses must be recovering a decent amount of their costs.
Moreover, auto use isn’t exactly unsubsidised, either. We’re putting a billion dollars into the sewer system, yet road runoff is the biggest use of it and road users are paying for none of it.
Jason McHuff: …because of inefficient, subsidised development patterns
JK: You got that wrong. In this region, the subsidized development is close in high density: The pearl (~$150 million); The Round (???Million); The SoWhat ($250 million, projected); Orinco; TODs; High density core multi-unit.
(A 1999 PDC projection shows the SoWhat is projected to take over $30 million from each of: the City of Portland, Multnomah County and the Portland Schools over its life.)
Those “sprawling” developments pay their own way: The developers pay for and install the water, sewer and roads. The a subsidies are mostly to build things that people don’t want, like TODs, as evidenced by them being uneconomical without a subsidy. If they make economic sense, a subsidy is not needed.
Jason McHuff: Those packed rush-hour buses must be recovering a decent amount of their costs.
JK: They do. But the average passenger load is around 10 if I read the Federal Data right (divide annual passenger miles by annual vehicle revenue miles).
Jason McHuff: Moreover, auto use isn’t exactly unsubsidised, either. We’re putting a billion dollars into the sewer system, yet road runoff is the biggest use of it and road users are paying for none of it.
JK: And if we all gave up our cars and used transit, are you saying that we would not need streets?
How come pre-auto cities have streets. Even PAVED streets with RUNOFF?
Thanks
JK
Jason McHuff argued: “Moreover, auto use isn’t exactly unsubsidised, either. We’re putting a billion dollars into the sewer system, yet road runoff is the biggest use of it and road users are paying for none of it.”
Jim Karlock replied: “And if we all gave up our cars and used transit, are you saying that we would not need streets? How come pre-auto cities have streets. Even PAVED streets with RUNOFF?”
Jim –
It is true that civilization has had paved streets for quite some time now, although storm sewers to handle runoff were adopted somewhat more recently on a widespread basis. (By “recent”, meaning in the last 100+ years).
However, with widespread auto use and lower density, wide arterials and freeways, there is a far greater use of paved surfaces per capita than in past generations.
Furthermore, automobile waste (primarily in the form of oil and lubricating fluids, synthetic rubber residue, etc.) is more difficult to treat and remove from the waste stream than animal and human waste.
Now, I’m not arguing we go back to the horse and buggy days. I am just pointing out that a significant portion of stormwater runoff is related to widespread auto use and low density development patterns.
On a side note, planners and engineers working on the Transit Mall project are looking at alternatives for the extended South Mall which involve permeable surfaces in the sidewalks and planting strips designed to absorb and process runoff from the sidewalks, so that minimal water enters the sewer system in the first place.
– Bob R.
. And to suggest that people are suddenly going to commute 75 miles. Outlandish
Not really – that is a little over an hour commute for people on an uncongested freeway. People do make those commutes where such things exist – primarily in rural areas.
But I meant the east side of Clackamas county as in Milwaukee or Gladstone, as opposed to the west side which includes Wilsonville and Lake Oswego. Not east as in Government Camp or even Mollala.
I was responding to the suggestion that a new bridge would reduce trips by several miles. I think you are misreading the maps you refer to if you think they show that it would, but I can’t find them on the Metro site.
More traffic? Yes … Busier? Yes.Intolerable, no…and why should I really care about Lake Oswego’s traffic?…Should they veto an improvement that benefits ten times as as many people?
The cars will be going somewhere… But who would drive ten miles and then take a trolley for the final three? Let’s be real.
I’m sorry – I pulled out all the comment that don’t relate to my response. I think you have raised some very basic issues:
1) Should we not care about the volume of traffic through neighborhoods and communities – at least other than our own.
2) Is the quality of the places we create less important than how long it takes someone to travel through them?
3) Is traffic inevitable?
I think the answers to all three questions is no. In fact, the quality of the communities we create is far more important than how long it takes people to commute through them. I think traffic is a result of people’s choices. And we encourage and discourage those choices by the investments we make, whether we do so consciously or not.
For instance, the question of whether there should be a Newberg-Dundee bypass is entirely a question of what is needed to make Newberg and Dundee better places to live, work, shop, start a business etc. How long it takes someone in McMinville to get to Tigard or for someone to get from Portland to Lincoln City are not very important at all.
And the same thing applies to a new bridge across the Willamette. Does it make better places for people to live, or does it just encourage people to create more traffic?
Bob R. Now, I’m not arguing we go back to the horse and buggy days. I am just pointing out that a significant portion of stormwater runoff is related to widespread auto use and low density development patterns.
JK: Perhaps you didn’t notice the lack of stormwater runoff in the very low density areas of, say, 2 acre and up. Mostly don’t’ need sewers either. High density is the cause of the problem.
Ross Williamns:
1) Should we not care about the volume of traffic through neighborhoods and communities – at least other than our own.
2) Is the quality of the places we create less important than how long it takes someone to travel through them?
3) Is traffic inevitable?
I think the answers to all three questions is no.
JK: Try these answers:
1. Yes, that is why we need to build sufficient road capacity away from the neighborhoods, preferably before development occurs.
2. The quality of MY neighborhood is more important than YOUR time to travel through it. Conversely the quality of YOUR neighborhood is less important than my time to travel through it. This is one of the facts that Portland’s planners have been using to reduce everybody’s mobility. The correct answer is to build road capacity on the main streets and freeways to draw traffic off of lesser streets. Get Banfield free flowing and traffic will come off of Sandy, Halsey, Stark etc. In turn those streets will work better and draw traffic out of the neighborhoods. Modern city planners hate cars too much to actually do something that works for everyone if it helps cars.
3. Yes. See 1 & 2 for how to minimize problems.
PS: If you think auto pollution is bad, try walking in and breathing what comes out of the back end of a horse. The car was a welcome relief, whether you were walking on rain (and you know what else) soaked streets or breathing horse flavored road dust (think TB).
Ross Williamns: And the same thing applies to a new bridge across the Willamette. Does it make better places for people to live, or does it just encourage people to create more traffic?
JK: It increases choices, something that transit advocates support. It also improves people’s standard of living by allowing you to take a job further away at higher pay. What is wrong with people having a higher standard of living?
Thanks
JK
(who receives no income form city planning, city policy, city projects or smart growth)
Jim –
I think you got it you just don’t want to get it.
“it also improves people’s standard of living by allowing you to take a job further away at higher pay.”
“build road capacity on the main streets and freeways to draw traffic off of lesser streets.”
The problem is that the first is true, free flowing highways create opportunities that cause people to drive more. So adding freeway capacity doesn’t draw people off less streets or reduce congestion, it just adds longer trips and more traffic to the freeways.
As you point out, there are benefits to that. But less congestion or less traffic on neighborhood streets aren’t among them.
High density is the cause of the problem.
Of course it is. Runoff would not be a problem if we all lived on two acre lots. And you can do that all over America, but good luck finding any work. The reason we have cities is that density is far more efficient.