The Oregonian transportation reporter, Jim Mayer, posed this question about the Columbia River Crossing project as a comment to another post. I thought it was interesting enough to elevate to its own post.
It will be interesting to look closely at the TDM-only alternative to see how it performs. Is it really possible to achieve as much congestion relief with tolling as with any of the build options? Or if not, is the difference worth $2 billion? Same goes for the arterial-only alternative, which the staff tried again to kill off at the last task force meeting. I would be interested in any expert opinion about the fairness of the study methods used to evaluate these two lower-cost options.
Who’s got an answer for Jim?
12 responses to “Oregonian Reporter Poses Columbia Crossing Question”
To be fair, if any tolling is initiated, it must cover all modes of transport; bicycles, freight, pedestrians and transit users, not just autos.
Personally, I think the most cost effective option is to build a four lane local traffic bridge, with light rail sharing two of the lanes with motor vehicles, connecting Hayden Island with both Oregon and Washington. Then leave the I-5 crossing as is.
If that can not be accommodated, then the current I-5 bridges should be retained for a local connection and Max with a new I-5 “motor vehicle only” bridge constructed.
Terry –
I don’t think your proposal to toll bicycle and pedestrian users will be cost-effective based on the volume of use.
Tolling transit users may not be out of the question. BART in San Francisco uses distance-based fares and riders pay a surcharge for trips that take them through the transbay tube.
However, the BART system uses entry and exit gates, which is the only way to fully enforce such a fare system. This requires paid gate agents at every station.
TriMet uses a barrier free “honor system” with periodic fare inspectors and fines, with rates based on “zones” of travel.
For TriMet to go to a system that involved specific charges for specific route segments, either a 2 person conductor crew would have to be placed on every 2-car train, or fare gates and agents would have to be put in place at every station. Either scenario would add millions in annual operating costs.
A compromise that might work would be to keep the current barrier-free system but add a 4th zone. It wouldn’t affect local short commutes, but would add to the cost of an end-to-end journey. Then, have a team of 4 or 6 full-time fare inspectors who simply get onto every single train coming or going across this bridge, and making sure that everyone on board has the correct zone fare. But you’d have to prove that the incremental increase in collected fares would cover the costs of these inspectors.
Of course, all this grousing about user fees and tolls to cover critical infrastructure may be wasting energy on the wrong fiscal problem.
For the nearly $300-billion we’ve spent on the Iraq war and occupation so far, we could have fully funded 8-12 new gold-plated light rail systems in every state of the union (at a cost of $750mil to $1bil), or 16-24 new gold-plated light rail systems in the top 25 most populous metro areas.
Or if you just can’t stand the idea of funding transit instead of wars and occupations, how about building 300 nice $1bil bridge spans? Or how about just building 100 $1bil bridge spans and fixing up all the rest of the existing bridges we have with money to spare?
– Bob R.
Amen Bob… There is preventative war for ya. It prevents us from doing all the things we should be doing with precious taxpayer $.
In answer to Jim’s questions:
Is it possible to achieve the same congestion relief?
Yes. There is no doubt that at some price level tolls will reduce traffic to levels sufficiently to eliminate the need for a new bridge. The question is whether it can be done at an acceptable level.
Or if not, is the difference worth $2 billion?
It is clear people won’t pay a high enough toll to cover the full cost of a new bridge or even added capacity. So if the “worth it” question is purely economic, then the answer is no. Its not “worth it” to drivers to pay the full cost of the bridge. For the libertarian kibbitzers here, that is true even if you consider the taxes they pay on the gas they use driving across the bridge.
Same goes for the arterial-only alternative, which the staff tried again to kill off at the last task force meeting.
This process is being run by the two Departments of Transportation. I think the view at WashDOT in particular is that they are not in the business of providing local arterial bridges. As WashDOT staff put it during the bi-state task force discussions, “That isn’t what this process is about, if Vancouver and Portland want a local bridge, they should build it themselves.”
I would be interested in any expert opinion about the fairness of the study methods used to evaluate these two lower-cost options.
Because all the packages mix a variety of improvements into them, it is important to figure out what the impact is from each of the various components.
As I read it, and I haven’t followed the current process closely, there are two TDM proposals. One is called “aggressive” and also includes both “congestion pricing” and investment in transit. The other is not “agressive” and does include any pricing strategies such as tolling.
Its not clear to me that the “agressive” package lives up to its name. The transit component seems to be focused on light rail which, while I think it is important, is not necessarily the most cost effective way of getting people out of their cars and off the bridges. But the proof is in the pudding, does it actually eliminate congestion on I-5 and I-205? If it doesn’t, it wasn’t “agressive” enough.
On the other hand, it might be “aggressive” enough to convince the task force that they aren’t willing to go that route. If there isn’t a transit system designed to attract riders the tolls are going to have be extremely onerous. Regardless of how high and for how long the congestion pricing is in effect one key issue to look at is whether they providing adequate alternatives for people.
None of the players involved have much interest in low cost solutions. Trimet wants a light rail project to Vancouver, the DOT’s want to employ their highway engineers, there are any number of politicians who want credit for a nice large federal project for the region. The project that best meets all those needs is the one most likely to survive the process. I don’t see where tolling the existing capacity does that.
In response to Terry:
To be fair, if any tolling is initiated, it must cover all modes of transport; bicycles, freight, pedestrians and transit users, not just autos.
I don’t understand this. How do bicyclists and pedestrians benefit from reducing auto congestion? The tolls should be used to create alternatives for people who choose not to drive and leave the road space available for those that still do drive.
Its pretty straight-forward, people are paying a toll to get other people off the road and out of their way. That toll ought to go to create alternatives that encourage those other people to continue to stay off the highway during peak congestion periods. It shouldn’t be spent to further benefit the people who are already getting the benefit of the uncongested road.
In response to Ross Williams,
If bridge tolls are charged, they should be a user toll to use and help pay for the bridge only. Tolls should not be used to subsidize another mode of transport. Bicyclists for example, should also be directly taxed to pay for the other bicycle infrastructure they use too. Bicyclists and pedestrians using the bridge receive benefit from the river crossing, require a separated pathway and infrastructure, and therefore also should pay a toll if any other bridge users are charged.
The bottom line is that motorists should not be subsidizing other modes of transport.
If bridge tolls are charged, they should be a user toll to use and help pay for the bridge only.
1) The existing bridge was already paid for.
2) Why would you spend the toll money on a new bridge when you could reduce congestion for the people who are paying the toll at a much lower cost by spending the money on getting people to use alternatives?
3) You can’t set the toll high enough to build a new bridge, there won’t be enough people willing to pay it. Any new bridge is going to require a huge subsidy, in addition to the tolls.
Tolls should not be used to subsidize another mode of transport.
What is wrong with using tolls to induce people to not create congestion, thus benefiting the person paying the toll?
Bicyclists and pedestrians using the bridge receive benefit from the river crossing, require a separated pathway and infrastructure, and therefore also should pay a toll if any other bridge users are charged.
The reality is that they simply won’t use the bridge, they will drive their cars instead. Resulting in more congestion for all those drivers. How does that benefit anyone?
Have you heard the expression “not cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.”
Something I take for granted, but may not be clear. The amount of the toll is not based on how much it costs to construct the infrastructure. The purpose of congestion pricing tolls is to reduce traffic so that you eliminate congestion. That is how the price gets set, at what price do enough drivers stop using the bridge so that the congestion disappears?
Terry says: “The bottom line is that motorists should not be subsidizing other modes of transport.”
It’s funny that people keep trotting out this tired canard… Let’s face facts Terry, finally and once and for all, the autmobile is the most subsidized thingy that has ever been invented by modern man. [Personally directed remark removed]
Now if it were bus rapid transit across the
bridge, the driver could just collect the
additional fares for the toll.
Just one more example of the impracticality of MAX. BRT would be so much more elegant for
Portland.
Nick –
If the transit mode going across the bridge carries any significant number of passengers, then it is not practical to have the driver collect the fares as it slows down boarding and therefore slows down the entire line. A two-car max train can board 8 passengers (via 4 double-wide doors) in the same time that it takes 1 passenger to board a standard bus and pay an on-board fare.
“Bus Rapid Transit” implementations use the same kind of fare collection as MAX – pay stations at each stop, and the driver does not collect fares as there are multiple boarding doors.
Eugene is building a true Bus Rapid Transit system with large sections of dedicated ROW and specialized vehicles. After it has been operational for awhile, we should have a good idea of how BRT systems can function in Oregon and how they compare to standard bus, streetcar, and LRT.
– Bob R.
(Correction to my above post: A two car MAX train can board 16 passengers (via 4 double-wide doors per car) in the same time it takes 1 passenger to board a standard bus and pay an on-board fare.)
– Bob R.
I know I’m off the subject a bit, but someone mentioned the car being heavily subsidized. I’ve seen some numbers thrown around by different groups. Are there any unbiased (I can dream, can’t I?) estimates of the total auto subsidy?