Transportation Re-Vision


This week’s Willamette Week makes five recommendations to re-vision Portland. Two of them are transportation-related.

One is a no-brain-er, implementing the BTA’s vision to greatly expand our bicycle boulevard network.

The other would, I’m sure, be more controversial. They suggest congestion pricing for downtown, analogous to what was implemented in London:

A few years ago, London’s roads got so congested there were only two solutions: more streets or fewer drivers. So in February 2003, London’s mayor took the radical step of charging drivers entering the 8-square mile city center eight pounds (more than $14.50 in today’s dollars) during peak times.

Bill Scott, general manager of Portland’s Flexcar operation, says a similar approach in Portland, perhaps just on the highways, would encourage alternative modes of transportation and raise money for different services from road and bridge repair to building more bike boulevards.

“The automobiles would pay the full price for the infrastructure they use,” he says.

The idea would likely be anathema to downtown business owners already fuming about roadblocks that turn shoppers away from downtown toward suburban stores and malls. Their complaints include lack of parking, new higher rates on parking tickets and upcoming bus mall construction.

But supporters of London’s plan say it’s been successful. The number of cars commuting at peak times fell by a third. While some argued that drivers with low incomes would have a tough time affording the surcharge, fewer cars on the road made the buses run faster, saving on the time-cost of public transit.

I can already hear PBA members shouting :-)

Is there a version of this that could work for Portland?


75 responses to “Transportation Re-Vision”

  1. London’s plan is successful because it has viable alternatives to driving in its Underground, commuter rail and bus network. Would it be successful in downtown Portland which will have a dysfunctional bus mall and pokey low capacity light rail?

  2. Would it be successful in downtown Portland which will have a dysfunctional bus mall and pokey low capacity light rail?

    I think its likely it would succeed in reducing traffic in downtown Portland, but I doubt the downtown business district would continue to thrive. Portland is far more auto dependent than London to begin with. London has an Underground because it is a city of an entirely different scale from Portland.

    The other thing to realize, is that transit can easily become simply a shuttle for remote parking lots if you focus on making downtown less accessible with autos rather than making it more accessible with alternatives.

  3. The downtown area in my opinion would not best application of congestion pricing for Oregon. We simply do not have the same transit infrastructure as other cities like London to make this work now. And honestly (please feel free to dispute me), I am of the opinion that Portland does not have a chronic congestion problem like other cities in America, at least not yet.

    I see congestion pricing working in Oregon only in terms of providing the funds for maintenance and upkeep of our highways and roads. If highway proponents want better upkeep of the existing highways then placing tolls up an down I-5 would provide for the funds to help service our depreciating highway system. Such funds could also be used to fund alternative transit. Turning I-5, I-205, and I-84, into a toll road, while unpopular, in the end it will help solve the funding issue and provide for better & ultimately safer roads. Now, the question of where to put all those toll booths can be left up to some innovative transportation planner because I seriously dont know…

  4. I agree. While our transit system is getting better (except, of course, the downtown rail system) we still have a long ways to go. Overall, while inner Portland may be friendly to other modes of transportation, it is an island sorrounded by places where private auto use dominates.

  5. Ross, by making downtown more accessible for alternative modes, don’t you HAVE to make it less accessible by car? After all, there’s only so much space to go around. For example, I see the streetcar get backed up at rush hour because it has to wait for traffic to clear an intersection before it can reach its stop, so if you gave it its own lane where there were extra lanes to give, I’d think it would move faster. Or, to make downtown and elsewhere more bike friendly, you should provide real bike lanes in many more places (and/or bike boulevards), not just a few feet on a few streets that multipurpose as a place where drivers fling open their car doors. But, to do this, you’d have to sacrifice something — either parking or car lanes — wouldn’t you?

  6. Jack –

    You don’t _have_ to make it less accessible by car, but you do have to built a consensus for a big project and commit to spending the money, in this case for a subway.

    A subway can be built in phases, starting with even a single station designed for multiple modes and future growth (see my post here on Portland Transport, How I would untangle the rose quarter for one idea.

    A downtown subway with limited but well-placed stops and multiple entrances/exits would not only dramatically improve travel times in and through the city center, it would complement the existing network of surface transportation we are already building.

    – Bob R.

  7. “One is a no-brain-er, implementing the BTA’s vision to greatly expand our bicycle boulevard network.”

    Half a brain is more like it: I want I want I want – the rhetoric continues when the BTA expects someone other than the direct users to pay for such a network. The BTA continues in failure to develop a suite of direct bicycle user fees, taxes, tolls registrations and/or licenses to pay for their big want plan. Furthermore, the BTA wants to replace infrastructure already in place but used by other modes to accommodate their selfish wish list. This too should not be tolerated. Bicyclists already use the streets at the expense of motorists. It is time bicyclists who receive the most benefit from bicycle infrastructure directly pay for the bicycle infrastructure only they can use and/or share with pedestrians.

    As for congestion pricing for downtown; just build a wall around the central city and require the purchase of a passport everybody would need to enter or exit, no matter what the mode of transport. We could call it an exclusive gated community. Armed guards could be placed at the entrances and exits to make sure nobody passed through that could not afford a passport. Construction to revamp the transit mall could immediately come to a halt, busses would no longer go through downtown and could be far better rerouted to accommodate the rest of the region, and parking once inside the wall would be free paid for with gas taxes while all transit use would require a fare that reflected the true cost of providing service. The best part, downtown subsidies and tax abatements would cease to exist because downtown would have to pay its own way.

  8. Ross, by making downtown more accessible for alternative modes, don’t you HAVE to make it less accessible by car?

    As you point out some things that is true for and my point was not that we should never do those things. But there are a lot of things we can do that have no effect on access by auto or even improve it that also improve access via alternatives.

  9. I see congestion pricing working in Oregon only in terms of providing the funds for maintenance and upkeep of our highways and roads. If highway proponents want better upkeep of the existing highways then placing tolls up an down I-5 would provide for the funds to help service our depreciating highway system. Such funds could also be used to fund alternative transit.

    Congestion pricing sets the price to achieve a desireable level of traffic. The result is to give one group of users who pay the toll better access at the expense of those who choose not to pay the toll. The toll money ought be used to encourage people not to use the freeway. To the extent that is successful, the toll will be lower for those who continue to pay to use the freeway.

    Using the money for maintenance makes public right-of-way into private roads used and paid for by those who can afford them. I don’t think that model really works.

  10. The toll money ought be used to encourage people not to use the freeway.

    The toll money ought be used to encourage people not to use the freeway by paying for alternatives to driving.

  11. Terry,

    Why all the hatred for BTA and bicyclists in general? Why aren’t you just as hateful towards pedestrians? Why aren’t you mandating everyone wear pedometers to keep track of those who are wearing out all of our tax-payer funded sidewalks. You know, some people walk or jog for miles and miles and they are selfishly wearing out the concrete with their $200 running shoes. Damn them!!

    Seriously, bike lanes may never be of use to you, but they are to thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of people in the metro area. My guess is a majority of people don’t mind our transportation dollars going to pay for a few bike lanes. It makes the streets a little bit safer for everybody. Just like sidewalks do. And streetlights. And lane striping. And crosswalks. And traffic signs. These are all safety features.

    [personally directed comment removed]

  12. “The toll money ought be used to encourage people not to use the freeway.”

    Any tolls charged orif tolls are charged to any mode, they should go directly back to providing infrastructure for the mode being charged the toll. (not to other modes)

  13. Any tolls charged orif tolls are charged to any mode, they should go directly back to providing infrastructure for the mode being charged the toll.

    I agree entirely and paying for infrastructure that reduces the number of vehicles on the freeway only benefits the motorists on the freeway. As you have pointed out elsewhere, the people who use transit are going to end up having a longer trip on public transport, walking or biking. They certainly aren’t benefiting from the help they are giving in reducing congestion unless they take a bus that uses the freeway.

  14. I have removed some overly personal comments in this thread. Please keep in mind that at least on this blog, we discuss ideas, not people.

  15. …my observations is that bicyclists ignore traffic laws on 4th Avenue more frequently than on many other streets. Maybe because the street is down hill. The most common traffic violations start with a bicyclist riding the lane lines squeezing in and out, and zipping past in between cars waiting for a signal to change, then once a head of traffic, blowing through ever red light down the street. It would be safer for everybody if the bicyclists were not there at all.

    And some motorists have been known to speed. Therefore we should ban cars from neighborhood streets.

    Seriously, the law should be enforced equally against all kinds of vehicles.

    But keep in mind that if a bike behaves badly, the only like damage to a car is a dent. On the other hand bad driving can kill a cyclist. So if we slant the advantages in one direction, phyisics has something to do with it.

    [By the same reasoning, a cyclist has extra responsibility in interactions with pedestrians.]

  16. The BTA continues in failure to develop a suite of direct bicycle user fees, taxes, tolls registrations and/or licenses to pay for their big want plan.

    That assumes that all taxes are user fees. In that model we stop being citizens and just become consumers of a set of government services. I’m a citizen, I pay taxes for the maintenance of a common good, not simply for the direct benefits I receive.

    In your model, I should be able to stop paying property taxes for schools as soon as my kids graduate.

    When I cycle instead of driving, I’m keeping the air you breath cleaner, and I’m marginally reducing the need to build more roads (roads that the ‘user fee’ in the gas tax would not come close to funding).

  17. OK, let me rephrase the question and address it to all of the anti-bike, anti-rail, anti-anything-but-automobile posters here. Why are you so vehemently opposed to ANY form of alternate transportation? It’s not because automobiles pay their own way and every other form of transportation has to be subsidized, because that’s 100% false. We ALL know that “users” fees, tolls, gas taxes, etc. come nowhere near paying for the construction and maintenance of our roads (even if some of you refuse to admit that fact). So what’s the REAL reason you’re against any alternative to the car?

  18. Aaron –

    I don’t want to speak for anyone else here and I am an advocate of bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Butr the people I have talked to seem to have several complaints:

    1) They are not used to having bicycles share “their” road space and as the numbers of bicyclists have increased so have the conflicts with motorists. Some of those conflicts are violations, many are not.

    2) Congestion has increased and they believe the solution is more road capacity. Any money spent on bikes, pedestrians and/or transit is seen as taking away money from more auto capacity.

    3) There is a lot or resentment of the changes that have occurred in Portland over the past 30 years. Bicyclists tend to be 20-40 years old and many are members of the “creative class” that is transforming Portland. All those gals and guys in spandex are a visible sign of the new Portland.

    4) BTA and other bike advocacy groups have been very successful advocates of the new transportation paradigm of reducing and managing traffic instead of adding capacity. That has included bikes, but also transit, land use etc. I think some of the “make bicyclists pay” talk is designed to put bicyclists in a narrow defensive mode protecting their turf rather than continuing to advocate that broader vision.

  19. “Why all the hatred for BTA and bicyclists in general?”

    Don’t confuse what I view as arrogant behavior and an attitude problem by bicyclists with what you call “hatred”. Tell me that when a group of motorists are patently waiting for a signal to change to green so they can proceed moving down the street and bicyclist just whizzes past blowing right through the red light that this is not arrogant bicyclist behavior. Tell me the bicyclist did not know exactly what he/she was doing at the time and that is not a bicyclist attitude problem. Tell me that when bicyclists not observing traffic laws brought up in discussion, some bicyclists try to justify their actions or change the subject with a defense that some motorists don’t always follow traffic laws – tell me this is not side stepping the issue or not a bicyclist attitude problem. Tell me when the BTA sits at the table in the Citizen Advisory Process – has nothing good to say about motor vehicles, wants to use motorist paid tax dollars to pay for bicycle infrastructure or take over streets or reduce auto capacity when many city streets are not being maintained and direct taxpaying motorist representation is locked out of the process – tell me this is not arrogant bicyclist behavior. Tell me that when the BTA and bicycle activists go to the legislature to lobby for bicyclists to have exemptions to some traffic laws that this is not arrogant bicyclist behavior. Tell me that when bicyclists refuse to even consider and make up excuse after excuse and attempt to keep anything off the table as to why bicyclists should not be assessed a direct user tax to help pay for bicycle infrastructure that this is not arrogant bicyclist behavior or a bicyclist attitude problem. And furthermore, tell me why many bicyclists refuse to accept all the facts available that demonstrate the benefits created and jobs provided by both the auto and the oil industries, and that everybody should get out of their cars and should ride bicycles, or use transit, or walk because that is what they do, their lifestyle, their concept of livability etc. – tell me this is not a bicyclist arrogant attitude telling others what their choices of quality of life should be and how they should live.

    The gasoline tax is a road user tax paid by motorists. The more a person drives, the more is paid out to use the road. That was how the gas tax was designed – not to pay for bicycle or transit infrastructure. Stating the gas tax as anything but a user tax is not correct. It is an excuse to expand gas tax dollars for uses other than roads. Using gas tax dollars to pay for anything other than roads in my view is a political poaching of the funds.

    Some of the points I continue to make are as follows:

    1. 05% of the trips in Portland are made by bicycle. Bicyclists should accept some direct financial responsibility for the infrastructure they use and be assessed a user tax, toll and/or a registration or license fee to pay for exclusive bicycle infrastructure and pedestrian shared bicycle infrastructure. Sharing the road also means sharing the financial responsibility.

    2. Gas tax dollars should be dedicated to roads and only roads. Motorists should not subsidize other modes of transport or the promotion of other modes of transport.

    3. Bicyclists should follow all traffic laws including stopping at stop signs and red traffic signals by placing a foot on the ground, Not only is this a safer way to ride a bicycle, but it is also better for bicycle public relations policy.

    4. When CACs are established for transportation related projects, and individual modes of transport have direct representation, motorists must also have direct representation at the table.

    5. The addition of bicycle or transit infrastructure should not replace the infrastructure of another mode of transport such as reducing motor vehicle lanes or capacity.

    None of these points are hateful. What I label as hatred/hateful is the totally negative attitude that some bicyclists express towards drivers and motor vehicles. That hatred can also include or is often revealed with an unrelenting one-sided “get people out of their cars” stance.

  20. Terry,

    Last I heard, nobody was forcing you or anyone to give up driving their cars. Bicyclists aren’t “pushing” you to do anything you don’t want to do. It’s not a cult, it’s a culture. There is a difference. They’re simply advocating a safer riding environment so they don’t get killed by “arrogant” drivers.

    You keep claiming that only drivers pay taxes, when you know for a fact that adult bicyclists are also paying taxes. You can’t pick and choose where your individual tax dollars go. If that were the case, I wouldn’t contribute a single dime to this war-mongering Bush administration’s agenda. I would dedicate it for only progressive causes. But that’s another discussion.

    I’m curious how you propose to tax children who use our city’s bike lanes. And people who use the sidewalks.

    You paint this picture of renegade kamikaze bikers running roughshod throught the streets of Portland, while the poor hapless drivers have to endure their onslaught. The fact is there are far more “arrogant” automobile drivers than wreckless bikers. Most bikers know that if they blow through stop signs, that it’s just a matter of time before they become a casualty.

    You keep bringing up this “foot on the ground” rule. Where is that rule stated? I’ve seen many cyclists come to a complete stop with their feet never touching the ground. If you’re stopped, you’re stopped, there’s no “kinda stopped”. Maybe we should impose a rule that says we have to put our cars in “park” while we’re sitting at a stoplight? Makes just as much sense.

    And you can honestly say that AAA and the big oil companies don’t spend millions of dollars advocating automobile usage?! And that noone on the CACs drives a car? How can you possibly say that motorists aren’t represented?

    Perhaps hatred was too strong a word to use, but when someone uses the words “arrogant” and “attitude problem” to describe cyclists (10 times in one paragraph, no less), clearly they just don’t like cyclists. Period. Seems a little irrational to me, but to each his own.

  21. I wish to know how Mr. Parker proposes to hold pedestrians accountable for their share of shared use infrastructure. Surely Mr. Parker does not expect cyclists to subsidize other modes of transport or the promotion of other modes of transport. Specifically Mr. Parker, how will you grant exemptions from shoe registration and licensing for those who will only be using their shoes to work the gas pedal?

  22. JK: There is a few VERY SIMPLE things that can be done to stop downtown congestion in it’s tracks and we would get better government as a benefit: Move all of the city/state agencies out to the areas that they serve as much as possible. Most only waste money on the high costs of density by being located downtown. I’d much rather visit and agency in the local mall where I don’t have to pay for parking and walk blocks.
    The second thing that will stop the increase in congestion is to quit forcing the rest of the city to subsidize downtown through its urban renewal districts. Most of downtown between the river and I405 is in an urban renewal district. Let Homer’s projects pay for their own infrastructure and we would get less people living downtown and less congested streets.

    Ross Williams Says: The toll money ought be used to encourage people not to use the freeway by paying for alternatives to driving.
    JK: The problem with this is that, while bikes save money, transit is actually more expensive than driving when you count the fact that Trimet gets over 80% if its money from taxes, not users. For example adjust the price of a monthly pass by 5 times to get the real cost of $360 . And rail costs even more than bus.

    Chris Smith Says: ….and I’m marginally reducing the need to build more roads (roads that the ‘user fee’ in the gas tax would not come close to funding)
    JK: Right, it also takes weight-mile fees, license fees, parking meter fees etc. Then the user fees DO INDEED pay for all road costs. Ask PDOT – I did. (See below)

    Aaron Hall Says: It’s not because automobiles pay their own way and every other form of transportation has to be subsidized, because that’s 100% false. We ALL know that “users” fees, tolls, gas taxes, etc. come nowhere near paying for the construction and maintenance of our roads (even if some of you refuse to admit that fact).
    JK: You need to stop relying on teh Sierra club and the Victoria Transportation Policy whaterver. They lie. Motor vehicles pay for almost all (OVER 90%) of the roads and highways.

    Why don’t you do what I did. Ask PDOT and Portland’s office of the budget director: they BOTH TOLD ME that user fees pay for ALL of the roads in Portland, except street lighting.

    But, suppose that there was a subsidy to roads: around 90% of the people drive on roads, so, at worst it would be 100% of the people subsidizing something used by 90% of the people. That is pretty close to fair.

    How about bikes: those 90% of the people who drive are expected to supply space out of the roads that THEY paid for. That is a case of 90% of the people paying for something that is used by maybe 2% of the people (bike commuters on major streets, not recreational on side streets). Not very fair.

    Same for mass transit, which is over 80% taxpayer paid.

    Please quit spreading misinformation.

    Ross Williams Bicyclists tend to be 20-40 years old and many are members of the “creative class” that is transforming Portland.
    JK: Please enlighten me to this new creative class. How many jobs have they created? How many new patents have the received. How many copyrights? Or are they the sort that are writing their great novel that they can’t get published?
    I ask because the creative people that I know have patents and copyrights and start businesses that employ people. I even know a couple that design integrated circuits, automobile electronics and audio/video production equipment. But of course Portland is driving most of those out of town.

    Aaron Hall: They’re simply advocating a safer riding environment so they don’t get killed by “arrogant” drivers.
    JK: I’ll believe you are serous about safety when you get head lights and tail lights on all your bikes.
    I’ll believe you are serous about safety when you quit dodging into traffic from side streets without stopping.
    I’ll believe you are serous about safety when I don’t have to panic stop because an unlit bike suddenly appeared. (I almost opened my car door on one last month)
    I’ll believe you are serous about safety when you stop for red lights.

    About lights: With modern technology, there is no reason that bikes cannot have battery operated LED headlights that approach automotive headlights. Same for tail lights. Something that is OBVIOUS a few blocks away. I’d be surprised if these are not available. If not let me know & I might get into the business.

    HeadWes: I wish to know how Mr. Parker proposes to hold pedestrians accountable for their share of shared use infrastructure.
    JK: In residential areas, sidewalks are paid for and maintained by the adjacent land owners, so I suppose that is payment for using any other sidewalk in the city.

    Thanks
    JK

  23. Right, it also takes weight-mile fees, license fees, parking meter fees etc. Then the user fees DO INDEED pay for all road costs. Ask PDOT – I did.

    ODOT has estimated if would take a gas tax increase of $0.34 per gallon to fund the three major projects on the table in our region: Newberg/Dundee Bypass, additional lane on I-205 from I-5 to Oregon City and the Sunrise Corridor.

    Since the current state gas tax is on the order of about $0.24, it’s hard to see how current tax levels are adequate to fund maintenance and desired new roads.

  24. Chris Smith (quoting JK) Right, it also takes weight-mile fees, license fees, parking meter fees etc. Then the user fees DO INDEED pay for all road costs. Ask PDOT – I did.

    Chris Smith ODOT has estimated if would take a gas tax increase of $0.34 per gallon to fund the three major projects on the table in our region: Newberg/Dundee Bypass, additional lane on I-205 from I-5 to Oregon City and the Sunrise Corridor.

    Since the current state gas tax is on the order of about $0.24, it’s hard to see how current tax levels are adequate to fund maintenance and desired new roads.
    JK: The two are not mutually exclusive. I stated the present situation where we have not been adding capacity. You are talking of finally adding road capacity after all these years of inaction. I would expect that to cost more. We can talk about ODOT’s spending efficiency and availability of federal money later.

    Thanks
    JK

  25. The problem with this is that, while bikes save money, transit is actually more expensive than driving when you count the fact that Trimet gets over 80% if its money from taxes, not users. For example adjust the price of a monthly pass by 5 times to get the real cost of $360 . And rail costs even more than bus.

    While TriMet MAY recieve ~80% of its funding from other than fares, much of that DOES NOT go to pay for well-used bus and rail service. Instead, it goes to things like suburban service that is run for the public good & not because it makes financial sense*, LIFT service for the elderly & disabled, planning/administration and projects like the Springwater Corridor bridge over McLaughlin Blvd. Oh, and while rail lines may be expensive to construct they last for decades. Overall, if one uses only lines that really make sense to run (are well-utilized), they pay for a decent portion of their fare.

    Also, I would like to note that while there may be bikers out there who act more recklessly (“arrogantly”) than they shoud, quite possibly breaking the law in doing so, there are also drivers who don’t use care. Just on my way home tonight I saw 3 lawbreakers: 1 red-turn-light runner, 1 weaver and 1 making a prohibited turn. In general, law breaking is spread across ALL modes.

    *Much of what leads to these lines requiring high subsidies is inefficient development and subsidies, such as Washington County’s property tax-funded Major Streets Transportation Investment Plan.

  26. Jim,

    Man, you are all over the place, where to begin….

    Let’s start with you admitting that “user’s fees” DO NOT pay for all of our road construction and maintenance. That’s not “spreading misinformation”, that’s a fact. By your own admission.

    First you said this:
    “Right, it also takes weight-mile fees, license fees, parking meter fees etc. Then the user fees DO INDEED pay for all road costs. Ask PDOT – I did.”
    Then in the very next paragraph you said this:
    “You need to stop relying on teh Sierra club and the Victoria Transportation Policy whaterver. They lie. Motor vehicles pay for almost all (OVER 90%) of the roads and highways.”
    So which is it? And do you even realize that you’re contradicting yourself?

    Let’s assume for argument’s sake that “user’s fees” cover 90% of these costs, as you assert. That’s 10% that all taxpayers are covering. And let’s assume that we’re spending $1 Billion on roads and highways (obviously it’s much more than that, but I’m using round figures), that’s $100 Million that “user’s fees” DO NOT pay for.

    FYI, I don’t belong to the Sierra Club or Victoria and I don’t need to rely on them to get factual information. They certainly don’t “lie”, and by all accounts, they appear to be factually correct whenever they do make policy decisions. It’s interesting that you assume that everyone who supports alternate transportation belongs to the same clubs. In fact, a broad spectrum of the population realizes that there’s great value in providing options (including automobiles) for people to get around. I personally rarely ride a bicycle, but I take pride in knowing that Portland goes out of its way to make cycling a viable option for people who wish to ride. Same with mass transit. Also, when I do ride my bike, it’s good to know that there are bike lanes available that can make the ride safer.

    You, on the other hand, seem to have a visceral reaction to cyclists, similar to Terry (see my comments to Terry above). You seem to think that safety is of no concern to any of them because you see a few of them breaking the law. Do you also lump all drivers together like that? Your generalizations don’t help your argument.

    You make a point of separating recreational cyclists from commuting cyclists, but you don’t make the same distinctions for drivers. Recreational cyclists, or cyclists running errands, do not stay on the “side streets” any more than recreational drivers do. And I don’t have exact figures, but I can guarantee you that more than 2% of the population rides bicycles. I’m sure the dreaded BTA has more precise numbers, but I would bet that it’s more like 50%, especially here in Portland.

    Regarding the creative class, if you don’t know about them, there’s a very good book on the subject by Richard Florida. But that’s a whole other discussion.

    I do want to thank you, though. I got a real chuckle when you suggested to Chris that he “ask PDOT”. I don’t know him, but my guess is Chris is more in touch with PDOT, ODOT and the FTA than all of us put together. It’s kind of like asking a fish to swim. Hilarious. Thanks again.

  27. Aaron Hall Says: Let’s start with you admitting that “user’s fees” DO NOT pay for all of our road construction and maintenance. That’s not “spreading misinformation”, that’s a fact. By your own admission.

    First you said this:
    “Right, it also takes weight-mile fees, license fees, parking meter fees etc. Then the user fees DO INDEED pay for all road costs. Ask PDOT – I did.”
    Then in the very next paragraph you said this:
    “You need to stop relying on teh Sierra club and the Victoria Transportation Policy whaterver. They lie. Motor vehicles pay for almost all (OVER 90%) of the roads and highways.”
    So which is it? And do you even realize that you’re contradicting yourself?
    JK: “Pay for all” is not mutually exclusive with “over 90%”. OK, I get it, you have trouble with the real world. In the real world, there are various ways to measure things that give differing results. If I had said absolutely, positively, I would have been assuming that the data given to me was precise. Real world data seldom is. Let me try agin to say it in a way that you can understand:

    I asked both PDOT and Bureau of Budget people. They both told me that motor vehicle user fees pay all of the road costs in Portland (perhaps a little amount for street lighting). Is that clear enough for you? Try it, bet you get the same answer.

    If you look at national data, the usual answer is around 90%. Some states have non-user fees/taxes that go to roads.

    The reality is that, unlike transit and bike users, the overwhelmingly majority of road costs are paid by motor vehicle users.

    Aaron Hall Says: Let’s assume for argument’s sake that “user’s fees” cover 90% of these costs, as you assert. That’s 10% that all taxpayers are covering. And let’s assume that we’re spending $1 Billion on roads and highways (obviously it’s much more than that, but I’m using round figures), that’s $100 Million that “user’s fees” DO NOT pay for.
    JK: It’s the percentages that count, not the absolute amounts. BTW, its around $200 million every year that non transit users are forced to pay for your transit.

    Aaron Hall Says: I personally rarely ride a bicycle, but I take pride in knowing that Portland goes out of its way to make cycling a viable option for people who wish to ride. Same with mass transit. Also, when I do ride my bike, it’s good to know that there are bike lanes available that can make the ride safer.
    JK: Would you, by any chance, be interested in paying your full cost of these transportation modes, like motor vehicle drives do?

    Aaron Hall Says: I’m sure the dreaded BTA has more precise numbers, but I would bet that it’s more like 50%, especially here in Portland.
    JK: Last time my buddies checked the BTA’s claim, the BTA was found to be greatly exxagerating the number of bike commutters.

    Aaron Hall Says: Regarding the creative class, if you don’t know about them, there’s a very good book on the subject by Richard Florida. But that’s a whole other discussion.
    JK: My question was: do you know a real creative person when you see one? How many of your buddies employ people, create wealth, have patents or copyrights?

    Aaron Hall Says: I don’t know him, but my guess is Chris is more in touch with PDOT, ODOT and the FTA than all of us put together.
    JK: Then I’m sure that he will ask the same question that I did and get the same answer.
    Thanks
    JK

  28. I asked both PDOT and Bureau of Budget people. They both told me that motor vehicle user fees pay all of the road costs in Portland (perhaps a little amount for street lighting). Is that clear enough for you? Try it, bet you get the same answer.

    That’s demonstrably not true. I can think of a number of examples (the most obvious being in South Waterfront) where TIF and LID dollars contributed significantly to street construction.

    I don’t know him, but my guess is Chris is more in touch with PDOT, ODOT and the FTA than all of us put together.

    Sorry to disappoint, but I don’t know anyone at FTA :-)

  29. Chris Smith Says: (quoting JK) I asked both PDOT and Bureau of Budget people. They both told me that motor vehicle user fees pay all of the road costs in Portland (perhaps a little amount for street lighting). Is that clear enough for you? Try it, bet you get the same answer.

    That’s demonstrably not true. I can think of a number of examples (the most obvious being in South Waterfront) where TIF and LID dollars contributed significantly to street construction.
    JK: Actually Chris, that IS TRUE – I’m not lying to you. I did ask and I did get that answer.
    That you disagree with their answer is another matter: We weren’t considering the SoWhat /Pearl et al developer welfare projects. Normally new roads, in neighborhoods, are paid for by the developer and turned over the local jurisdiction when completed. (That is why Portland has some unpaved residential streets – the developers never paved them and the city won’t pay for it.) These exceptions are due to the mad rush to force density down our throats at any cost. (Hopefully the FBI will uncover additional reasons.) So stick the phrase “excepting, politically connected, developer smart growth give-aways,” before my original statement.

    Of course in the BS artists at the PDC they would claim that is not really taxpayer money, it is magic tax increment money and thus not a taxpayer expense.

    BTW has anyone looked the public’s cost of those estimated 5000 high end condos in the SoWhat? Take the estimated $200+ million UR “investment”, double it for financing charges and you get around $100,000 per housing unit. Will probably be around $200,000 per unit after cost over runs. Really smart growth!

    Thanks
    JK

  30. Aaron, in my experience, there is a very important rule to online blogging and message forums:

    Don’t feed the trolls.

    Oftentimes when you read caustic comments, they are merely written by people who sit so far out in right or left field that they are basically an affront to any workable dialogue. Therefore, they should just be ignored.

    If, however, you can engage in a meaningful dialogue with someone – then by all means, have at it.

  31. Thanks for that advice Justin.
    Now this troll wants to know are the buses in London government run or are the private companies?

  32. Justin,

    Thanks for that. I’m new to this blogging thing, but I’m beginning to realize that it IS like talking to a brick wall. They will throw numbers around like they’re gospel, then admit that the numbers are easily manipulated depending on which group you talk to, failing of course to see the irony. Arguing numbers is futile. I’m just thankful that Portland is light years ahead of other American cities when it comes to proactive, progressive transportation planning. In spite of the trolls. I’ll start making a list of those to be ignored :-)

  33. Aaron

    “Last I heard, nobody was forcing you or anyone to give up driving their cars. Bicyclists aren’t “pushing” you to do anything you don’t want to do.”

    What bicyclists continue to push for is to increase the costs of driving with increased fuel taxes, congestion pricing etc. That will force some low income people out of their cars. Furthermore, Metro and the City of Portland continue to waste transportation dollars on get people out of their cars campaigns. So are you saying I will never hear those words from bicyclists again?

    “You keep claiming that only drivers pay taxes, when you know for a fact that adult bicyclists are also paying taxes.”

    Motorists pay license and registration fees on their cars, a surcharge on those fees for bridges and gas taxes for fuel consumed all to use the road. Motorists also pay parking fees in areas like downtown Portland, a portion of which directly subsidizes the Portland Streetcar. Bicyclists bay none of these user fees to use the roads. When bicyclists who have cars (and not all do) drive their cars the taxes paid are the user taxes to drive their cars on the roads not ride their bikes on the road, but still have exclusive infrastructure motorists can not use. Yes bicyclists pay taxes, but not transportation taxes. Basically bicyslists when biking use the roads for free. However bicyclists also use exclusive bike lanes and other bicycle infrastructure for free. Bike lanes and other bicycle infrastructure needs to be paid for by the bicyclists that use them and NOT paid for by taxing other modes of transport and taxpayers that do not bike.

    “I’m curious how you propose to tax children who use our city’s bike lanes. And people who use the sidewalks.”

    If a bicycle tax is charged at the point of purchase, the parents would pay. My preference would be that bicyclists be licensed starting at $50.00 per year for those 18 and over with the schools teaching bicycle safety and issuing free certificates to children. JK has already covered the sidewalk issue.

    “You paint this picture of renegade kamikaze bikers running roughshod through the streets of Portland, while the poor hapless drivers have to endure their onslaught.”

    You only need to go out and observe them yourself.

    “You keep bringing up this “foot on the ground” rule. Where is that rule stated?”

    I believe bicyclists have been cited related to this issued. I also believe state law defines a complete for bicyclists as a foot on the ground.

    “I’ve seen many cyclists come to a complete stop with their feet never touching the ground. If you’re stopped, you’re stopped, there’s no “kinda stopped.”

    Are you talking about that little balancing act dance some bicyclists do to avoid putting their feet on the ground? The bicycle is usually rocking back and fourth, not stopped.

    “And you can honestly say that AAA and the big oil companies don’t spend millions of dollars advocating automobile usage?”

    Membership dues and not taxpayers pay for what AAA does. Why should bicyclists care what big oil spends their profits on? Bicyclists aren’t paying for it.

    “And that none on the CACs drives a car? How can you possibly say that motorists aren’t represented?”

    And everybody on the CACs use the sidewalks, many use transit or bike. So why the double standard/ Why have slots for pedestrian advocates, bicyclists and transit advocates on the CACs when they are already represented? I can answer it in one word; censorship!

    “Perhaps hatred was too strong a word to use, but when someone uses the words “arrogant” and “attitude problem” to describe cyclists (10 times in one paragraph, no less), clearly they just don’t like cyclists.”

    I asked individual questions so you could respond to each item individually. Since you did not, I can only presume it is easier to side step the questions than answer them truthfully. What I don’t like is a large amount of bicyclist behavior and demonstrated hatefulness towards motor vehicles. On the behavior part, number one not observing traffic laws, specifically when bicyclists know exactly what they are doing is wrong. It is not like bicyclists do not see that stop sign or red light before riding through it. Furthermore, when cornered on an issue, bicyclists fight back by calling names or identifying people hateful of them. If you really want to define hateful, just look at the bicycle attack on motor vehicles. Themes like congestion pricing, raise taxes on motor vehicles, slowing traffic down when the posted speed is already a reasonable one, get people out of their cars, remarks against SUVs, car free streets, etc. all demonstrate bicyclists contempt and hatred for motor vehicles.

    Finally, I too have gone directly to the City for answers. I spoke with the City of Portland Office of Budget and Finance. This is my understanding and a partial re-post of it of how the PDOT budget was explained to me:

    27 % GTR–Gas Tax Taxes on fuel paid by motorists
    10 % GTR-Parking Revenue Parking fees paid by motorists
    7 % Beginning Fund Balance Balance forward from last year
    3 % General Fund-Street lighting All property owners pay for streetlights
    4 % Dedicated Revenues Dollars to PDOT from other City bureaus such as for when the street after it is torn up for sewer work.
    03 % System Development Charges Money charged property owners and developers where transportation improvements are required associated with new construction and development. Mostly used in newly developed or redeveloped areas. Example a new big box retail outlet or an when undeveloped parcel of land is developed, these charges would apply.
    7 % Assessments on Property Mostly used for sidewalks, when a property owner is assessed a charge for specific types of improvements or sidewalk repair made adjacent to the property
    owned. This could also be a local improvement district such as how the brick sidewalks were paid for when the first Max line went downtown.
    10 % Interagencies Similar to dedicated revenues, from other mostly City bureaus.
    10 % Contracts Money for when PDOT does work for other entities such as PSU or Metro. It should also be noted the Metro transportation funds come from Federal Transportation dollars that come from taxes on fuel paid by motorists.
    8 % PDC Tax Increment Funding only Used in Urban Renewal Districts
    12 % Grants From State and Federal transportation dollars that come from taxes on fuel paid by motorists.

    To break down the budget as to where the money initially comes from would be as follows:

    49 % MOTORIST Paid
    10 % Contracts – Mostly from MOTORIST paid taxes
    14 % From other City bureaus (related to the work those bureaus are doing such as repairing a street after sewer work )
    3 % From developers for new various mode infrastructure
    7 % From property owners for sidewalk or other improvements adjacent to the properties charged
    8 % PDC Urban Renewal Funds used for various mode infrastructure (including the Tram)
    3.% General Fund dollars for street lighting
    7 % Balance forward form various sources including MOTORISTS

    Added all up, motorists pay about 60 to 65 percent of the total price tag of PDOT’s multi-modal budget (PDOT’s budget covers more than just roads and motor vehicle infrastructure). Developers and Property owners only pay for improvements related specifically to the property owner or developer charged. Property taxes (that go into the General Fund) only pay for street lighting and sidewalks. Bicyclists are not shown to directly contribute any dollars to PDOT’s budget.

    Therefore the following conclusions can be drawn:

    Bicyclists through property taxes help to pay for street lighting. Motorists are the group that pays for streets and roads in addition to subsidizing other modes of transport.

    Motorists could not subsidize other modes of transport if they did not pay their own way.
    General property taxes do not pay for streets and roads, only street lighting and sidewalks.

    The only other funding PDOT will receive in this cycle is a one time 1 million dollar payment form the general fund to replace aging traffic signals.

    What the BTA, The Sierra Club and the Victoria publish is for a self serving interests. Even Sam’s office holds back or will not produce relevant information that is counter to his bicycle goals. JK is correct in his assessments of who pays for transportation infrastructure, and it is not the bicyclists or transit users.

  34. Terry, while I’m sure we could argue about details, I think your assessment of the fraction of PDOT’s budget that comes from taxes and fees paid by motorists is generally correct.

    But I would also note that according to a PDOT estimate, PDOT will only spend about $3.5M over the next 4 years on bicycle programs and infrastructure (compared to 14 times that amount on freight).

    I would continue to maintain the benefits from having 5% of trips on bikes far exceed those costs.

    I would further suggest that it’s a matter of perspective what should be charged to the costs of driving. For example, my personal view is that much of the cost of the Iraq war should be accounted for as taxes (or more accurately debt) to maintain the current amount of driving that we do.

  35. 5% of commuter trips by bike would be a definite
    help as far as congestion (I read now it’s only
    about 3%). However, I would not expect the % to
    go beyond this, as many people are leary of riding
    because of safety reasons.

  36. What bicyclists continue to push for is to increase the costs of driving with increased fuel taxes, congestion pricing etc.

    You claim it is “bicyclists” who “push” for those things, but I suspect almost ever one of the people proposing them is a motorist with a much smaller percentage actually ever using a bike for transportation. Most of the items you listed are aimed at reducing the congestion they suffer from as motorists. Congestion pricing, for instance, has zero effect on bicyclists as bicyclists. You seem to be attributing every difference on public policy to the mode of travel someone chooses to use.

    49 % MOTORIST Paid

    What’s wrong with this conclusion?:

    Motorists pay for less than half the cost of the PDOT budget and account for something like 85% of the trips on its facilities.

  37. Terry,

    [Personally directed comment removed]

    I obviously don’t share that view, and no amount of common sense will change your mind, so we’ll agree to disagree and I’ll let you and Jim Karlock alone to commiserate on that one. Ciao.

  38. Chris Smith Says: For example, my personal view is that much of the cost of the Iraq war should be accounted for as taxes (or more accurately debt) to maintain the current amount of driving that we do.
    JK: Change the word “driving” to “driving plus transit” and you would be accurate: Don’t forget that transit also uses imported oil and at about the same rate as new cars per passenger mile.

    I know light rail uses less energy per passenger mile, but is unaffordable for wide scale use. Even its operating cost is much higher than bus, per passenger mile. And its life cycle energy cost may be up there with buses and cars.

    Thanks
    JK

  39. Chris Smith Says: I have heard both the 5% and 3% numbers. I think the 5% may be a central city number compared to a city-wide number.
    JK: Portland-Vancouver market area’s bike share of travel to work is 0.8% (which is well above rail’s 0.5%.). See Exhibit 4.11 means of travel to work: 2000. U.S. Census at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/jtw/jtw4.htm#tra

    Thanks
    JK

  40. Ross Williams:
    49 % MOTORIST Paid

    What’s wrong with this conclusion?:

    Motorists pay for less than half the cost of the PDOT budget
    JK: Now look at that alleged non-motorist money:
    10 % Contracts – Mostly from MOTORIST paid taxes
    14 % From other City bureaus (related to the work those bureaus are doing such as repairing a street after sewer work )
    3 % From developers for new various mode infrastructure
    7 % From property owners for sidewalk or other improvements adjacent to the properties charged
    8 % PDC Urban Renewal Funds used for various mode infrastructure (including the Tram)
    3.% General Fund dollars for street lighting
    7 % Balance forward form various sources including MOTORISTS

    Please quit distorting data, it makes you look like the STPP, the VTPA or the Sierra club.

    PS: 49% is around 250% more than transit users pay of their costs. And don’t forget that whatever motorist subsidies that may exist is received by around 90% of the population that drive. On the other hand under 10% of the people benefit from transit subsidies.

    Thanks
    JK

  41. I would like to apologize if this “fans the flames”; however, I would like to point out one other local transportation subsidy: the “Big Pipe”. It has been said that at least 40 percent of stormwater pollution comes from roads, yet I believe that sewer users are paying for most, if not all, of the big pipe.

    Also, JK, you said that I do hope that we will be relieved of ALL stormwater fees if we prevent ALL runoff from leaving our property (which, I think, may be perfectly fair). Would you (& others) be for a motorist-paid pollution fee?

  42. Chris,

    OK, here we go. I realize I’m new here, but maybe you can explain something to me.
    Quote from Terry Parker:
    “I can only presume it is easier to side step the questions than answer them truthfully”
    Quote from Jim Karlock:
    “OK, I get it, you have trouble with the real world”

    So Chris, it appears that it’s OK for people to question my veracity or my grasp on reality, but it’s not OK for me to point out when someone has an obvious bias against cyclists?

    I’ve read “The Rules”, so I realize you’re trying to maintain civil discourse on this site. I admit I can be somewhat passionate at times, so I don’t mind if you strike some of my more pointed remarks. I’ll try to self-edit myself in the future. However, when you do edit comments from us, please do so consistently for everyone. Thanks.

  43. Ross,

    ”49 % MOTORIST Paid”

    Actually, as I posted, it is between 49% & 59%. Some of the 10% contracts come from motorist paid dollars.

    “Motorists pay for less than half the cost of the PDOT budget and account for something like 85% of the trips on its facilities.”

    First you have to remember PDOT is multi-modal bureau and spends money on bicycle infrastructure, transit, transit related development, streetcars, esplanades, sidewalks, trails, etc. none of which the users contribute dollars into PDOT’s budget except possibly Tri-Met that may be contribute in part to the 10% for contracts, but that would only be for transit related projects. Developers, property owners and urban renewal contribute a total of 18%, however to a large extent, a lot of that money does not support motor vehicle usage. The 3% developers contribute can go to infrastructure like sidewalks transit alternatives, bike infrastructure and possibly street improvements or traffic signals required as a pretext to the development. The 7% from property owners maintains sidewalks and pays for local improvement districts (LIDS). The 8% from urban renewal can be include things like I-Max, the streetcar, the tram, sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, bubble curbs (that hinder motorists), and in areas like SoWA and The Pearl, a small fraction goes to new streets where streets did not exist. The 14% from other city bureaus is infrastructure repair work that would not have been needed if that bureau had not caused the need for repair.

    So all in all, if just over half of PDOTs budget funding comes from motorists and handles 85% of the trips, and then after excluding the 14% from other city bureaus, that leaves approximately 30% of PDOT’s budget to subsidize the remaining the 15% of trips that are not made by motorists. Therefore, dollar for dollar, PDOT gets the most mileage, less spent per trip and more trips accommodated by spending money on roads.

  44. However, when you do edit comments from us, please do so consistently for everyone.

    Aaron, fair enough. I tend to be a little more lenient toward people I disagree with, to avoid accusations of bias, but I will try to keep closer to the center line.

    Thanks.

  45. Some have argued in other threads for a privatization of roads and other transport systems. For me this thread is the real clincher on the subject. We wouldn’t even be having this conversation if the government weren’t involved in building roads, highways, light rail, bike lanes, etc. It would be a non-issue.

    Let people vote with their wallets on which mode of transport they want, and I’d be willing to go all in that it’s not the auto crowd that ends up on top.

    If you’re at all curious how this would work, check out this excerpt from an audio book with some pretty wild ideas on the subject (it takes a while for the author to get into discussing private roads):
    http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/rothbard/foranewliberty/11.mp3

    From Pres. James Madison on his veto of an 1817 bill to build a network of canals and roads:
    “I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments…”

  46. How about opening the mass transit market to private competition. There is no reason for Trimet to have a monopoly, nor is there any reason for a taxi cartel. Then get the city out of the street repair business. Set up a seperate taxing district to do street maintenance, or create a non-profit agency to handle street maintenance. Then at least the priorities will be well defined and not confused with the PDC’s. or whatever the latest legacy project is.
    M.W.

  47. Isaac –

    You will notice Madison was not talking about public versus private roads but federal versus state. I think there is a good case for abolishing the federal gas tax and letting states build and maintain local roads. But if you have ever seen the results of this kind of division of labor you might have second thoughts.

    I remember driving a California highway from the Central Valley to Ventura in the 70’s. Apparently the road was maintained by the respective counties. But it wound through the mountains and back and forth over county lines. They had signs when you went into the next county, but you didn’t need them. The road would be well-maintained smooth pavement with shoulders for a quarter mile and then when you entered the other county it would turn into a pot-holed deteriorating pavement. A mile later it would switch back to smooth pavement when the road wound again into the other county.

    As for opening the mass transit market to private competition. Its not clear that there are any benefits to be had from competition except higher prices and worse service. No one has come up with a workable solution for real competition where there are multiple choices between destinations.

    The Cascade Policy Institute, that “libertarian” bunch, proposed the government license monopolies on bus stops as a way to create “competition”. Of course what that means is that the compete for the monopoly, the customers are stuck with whatever companies “own” their bus stops. I am not sure how that helps anything.

    The reality is that transportation is, by its nature, a public service. You can invent ways to make it private, but unless you are a libertarian ideologue there is really nothing to be gained. We have created a network of public right-of-way to serve property adjacent to it. Some of that right-of-way has been degraded by heavy use unrelated to that original purpose – mostly by auto trips traversing neighborhoods. The debate here is largely about what, if anything, should be done to limit the damage.

    The problem here is not bikes or even who pays for which infrastructure. We all pay for it. The real issue is that some motorists believe they have a genuine entitlement to use that network of roads and other users are interlopers who aren’t paying their share. The “who pays” discussion is really a discussion of “who’s entitled” to use the roads.

  48. Yes, I realize that he was talking about federal vs. state. There’s a lot of federal highway money in this state. A little off topic, true…

    I think the reason that we haven’t seen any good solutions brought forward is because there’s no reward for a person to lead the way, since the government is subsidizing everything. The first highways, or turnpikes, were built with private funds, as were the streetcars. Why is this an impossibility now? Look at the railroads. If we were to have just started building them, they would be government built and operated, and not making a profit.

    I say any new development should pay for its share of services, be it sewer, road, light rail… or the proposed Damascus highw… um, boulevard. This is how it was done, quite successfully without tax dollars.

    I wouldn’t give any credit to the Cascade group. Just because they came up with a ridiculous scheme doesn’t mean that somebody looking to make a profit won’t do better.

    I don’t think it’s too important to make sure that there’s competition within the same mode for every trip, but to allow the possibility of transit competing (on a level playing field) with cars or bikes, would make for much better service for everybody, drivers included.

  49. The first highways, or turnpikes, were built with private funds, as were the streetcars.

    I think you will find that the key to success was a monopoly, whether government monopoly or a natural monopoly.

    Just because they came up with a ridiculous scheme doesn’t mean that somebody looking to make a profit won’t do better.

    You can say the scheme was ridiculous, but it was an attempt to make their ideology meet with reality. The problem is that without some sort of monopoly private business can’t make it work.

    Look at the railroads. If we were to have just started building them, they would be government built and operated, and not making a profit.

    The railroads were built with huge land grants from government. They built the railroads to serve their property. You could probably do the same thing with roads someplace but I am not sure how that solves urban transportation problems.

    I don’t think it’s too important to make sure that there’s competition within the same mode for every trip, but to allow the possibility of transit competing (on a level playing field) with cars or bikes, would make for much better service for everybody, drivers included.

    I agree. But I think you will get a lot of argument about what constitutes “a level playing field.” There are inherent differences between modes that make “level” a non-standard. Suppose we required autos to limit their emissions to the same “level” as bikes and pedestrians. The only autos would be electric and then only if you didn’t account for the emissions to produce the electricity.

    Even within modes there are endless arguments about what is fair. Truckers and the AAA are involved in a constant battle over weight-mile. The question of who should pay for the extra motor capacity needed at rush hour. You aren’t going to end those arguments by privatization.

    The fact is that transportation uses the commons, not just private property. Competition doesn’t eliminate the need for public decisions although it may change the nature of the decisions.

  50. I believe the busses – as are the trains – in London are all contracted to private companies.

  51. “The first highways, or turnpikes, were built with private funds, as were the streetcars.”

    And all modes of transport including people walking paid tolls on the first private toll roads. Early streetcar fares covered all the costs including advertising, plus the private companies made a profit.

  52. Terry –

    Do you have a source for that? My understanding was that most street cars were part of larger development schemes where the street car supported new development on lands owned by the streetcar owner much the same way railroads were built. In other words, they weren’t making their money on the fares.

  53. I tried to post something on this earlier, but it didn’t like then so let me try again.

    First off there is no reason for there not to be an open market in transportation in Portland, or any other place for that matter. Curitiba, Brazil has what is probably the best transit system in the world and most of it is private. You can find out more from “Mass Transit” magazine May/June 1997 issue. It is available at the Portland Public Library.
    Here in the U.S. the government began to outlaw private transit services about 1915 when owners of private cars began to offer their services to people and thus cut into the revenues of the streetcar companies. In another welfare program for the well to do, the little guys were forced out of business. By 1925 almost every city in America had run the small operator out of business.
    The idea that the Cascade Institute was promoting I believe is known as “Curb Right” from a book titled the same and published by that “rightwing” organization Brooking Institute Press.
    The idea of a natural monopoly does not hold water. I could argue that the Safeway on Broadway near 13th has a monopoly and it does. In that part of town, but people can get to other stores. If the transportation market was open people could get other transportation services. And today it is not really a monopoly because people can use their own vehicles to get around. Who looses is another story. Transit in Portland has been used to help developers and the people left without for the most part are the elderly and primarily women in this category, working mothers, and inner city poor. And that is true right here in Portland.

    Secondly the city should consider creating a street maintenance district that specifically uses tax dollars for street maintenance so that no dollars intended for street maintenance get shifted to someone’s legacy project. Portland should also consider billing tax exempt organization on a monthly basis for street repairs and upkeep. There is no reason some home owner should pay while many of the tax exempt groups get off. They get billed for phone service, gas and I am sure the city bills them for water. Then why not for road upkeep?

    Personally I’d like to see a non-profit organization created to do road work and get politics out of it.
    That’s just a start.
    M.W.

  54. Curitiba, Brazil has what is probably the best transit system in the world and most of it is private.

    That is somewhat true, but they started with much lower auto ownership, much higher transit useage and they made a significant public investment in public bus facilities that the “private” bus companies use. Apparently the buses operate with up to 270 passengers on 54 seat atriculated buses over relatively short routes. While I think Curitiba has a great bus rapid transit system, I doubt it demonstrates much about how realistic it is in the United States in general or Portland in particular.

    I could argue that the Safeway on Broadway near 13th has a monopoly

    But you would be wrong. There are at least two grocery stores (Whole Foods and Fred Meyer) relatively close and several small groceries within easy walking distance.

    if the transportation market was open people could get other transportation services.

    The argument that you can have competition with regulated monopolies on curb rights is fine. But we should be clear that we are talking about a highly regulated government program, not a competitive free market. Can people walk a few blocks to get to their choice of service? Sure, but why is that desireable? It appears likely people will get worse service at a higher price than the other way around.

    The question isn’t whether you can create a competive market, its why would you want to if the likely result is worse service at a higher price? The answer, of course, is ideological.

    Personally I’d like to see a non-profit organization created to do road work and get politics out of it.

    You obviously have never worked with non-profit organizations. Who exactly would decide which roads got fixed first?

  55. And all modes of transport including people walking paid tolls on the first private toll roads. Early streetcar fares covered all the costs including advertising, plus the private companies made a profit

    I would like to see this make a comeback.

    It appears likely people will get worse service at a higher price than the other way around.

    Ross, how do you figure that? Will a company trying to make a buck do a worse job at serving the public than an organization that doesn’t need to?

  56. Ross,

    “My understanding was that most street cars were part of larger development schemes where the street car supported new development on lands owned by the streetcar owner much the same way railroads were built.”

    Both are true. A lot of California was developed that way. In Portland however, I believe the more of the streetcar car companies just served the new developments, but did not own the land. As an example, the real estate developers that laid out the Rose City Park Addition held the streetcar franchise for Sandy Boulevard, but Portland Railway Light & Power Company built and operated the line starting in 1907, presumably to make a profit. In 1936, a new fleet of electric trolley busses began appearing on the streets of Portland and replacing the streetcars on streets like Sandy. Trolley bus operations in Portland were discontinued and replaced by gasoline powered busses in 1958. Ownership by then was the hands of the Portland Traction Company, also in business to make a profit on transport.

    On the other hand, those same developers, Hartman & Thompson, to open up a new tract of land, incorporated the Portland & Troutdale Electric Company in 1911 that connected at 82nd Avenue and Sandy, and ran alongside Sandy Road to about 122nd Avenue in Parkrose. The service started in 1912 and ended in 1928.

    A good reference is John Labbe’s book Fares Please.

  57. I wrote “I could argue that the Safeway on Broadway near 13th has a monopoly”

    and Ross wrote: “But you would be wrong. There are at least two grocery stores (Whole Foods and Fred Meyer) relatively close and several small groceries within easy walking distance.”

    Ross maybe I should have said “on that corner”.
    The point I was trying to make and did so poorly is that there is no such thing as a natural monopoly.

    There are a number of ways to approach these problems and Portland is stuck in a rut and does not want to get out. What was it Einstein said about the definition of insanity? Something about repeating the same thing and expecting different results. Well that’s Portland.

    The value of an open market is what is important here. If something doesn’t work then you get to try something else and as I’ve said repeatedly is those who are doing without are the elderly, working mothers and inner city poor and they will continue to do without as long as we do not make major changes.
    But I guess openess does not have a place in Portland.
    M.W.

  58. The point I was trying to make and did so poorly is that there is no such thing as a natural monopoly.

    I have one street and one sidewalk in front of my house. Are you saying that isn’t a monopoly or that it isn’t natural? There is only one highway to Joseph Oregon, are you suggesting that isn’t a monopoly? The notion that we are going to create truly competitive transportation systems is mostly an ideological fantasy.

    Something about repeating the same thing and expecting different results. Well that’s Portland.

    Actually that is most other places in the country that continue to build freeways to relieve congestion and get more congestion instead.

    The value of an open market is what is important here.

    No, it isn’t. The value is in having a transportation system that provides access to services, employment and recreation without destroying other important community attributes. The claim that an open market will help get us there seems to be mostly a statement of ideological faith. That doesn’t mean there aren’t places where competition and the market can improve the transportation system. But someone needs to make the case for specific solutions, not repeat an ideological mantra about the market.

    But I guess openess does not have a place in Portland.

    I suppose that is true of most conservative communities – which pretty much defines anywhere in the United States. Portland seems to be more open to change and new ideas than most places. But you can be so open-minded your brains fall out.

  59. Will a company trying to make a buck do a worse job at serving the public than an organization that doesn’t need to?

    Yes, sometimes that is exactly how it works.

  60. M.W. …as I’ve said repeatedly is those who are doing without are the elderly, working mothers and inner city poor and they will continue to do without as long as we do not make major changes.
    JK: They don’t matter to trimet – building a multi-billion toy train layout to attract yuppies out of their BMWs is more important.

    Thanks
    JK

  61. Ross Williams Something about repeating the same thing and expecting different results. Well that’s Portland.

    Actually that is most other places in the country that continue to build freeways to relieve congestion and get more congestion instead.
    JK: Portland got the county’s worst increase in traffic congestion by not building road capacity. Houston built freeways and was among the least congested – just like common sense suggests – do you think that people will drive to work TWICE EACH MORNING if we add freeway capacity? The reality is that we have a multi-year build up of demand for road capacity that is un-met. Added freeway capacity will pull cars of arterials, which in turn will draw cars out of our neighborhoods. Is that bad?

    Ross Williams Will a company trying to make a buck do a worse job at serving the public than an organization that doesn’t need to?

    Yes, sometimes that is exactly how it works
    JK: Of course trimet does best financially when it doesn’t have to run trains and buses. Because providing service is a financial drain while their money comes from non-users (the general public). Their motive is not necessarily to best serve its customers. Instead it is building expensive toy trains and cutting service because of their cost.

    Thanks
    JK

  62. Terry Parker: In 1936, a new fleet of electric trolley busses began appearing on the streets of Portland and replacing the streetcars on streets like Sandy. Trolley bus operations in Portland were discontinued and replaced by gasoline powered busses in 1958. Ownership by then was the hands of the Portland Traction Company, also in business to make a profit on transport.
    JK: WHAT!!!
    You mean to tell me that GM didn’t buy our streetcar company and convert it to buses per the Roger Rabbit school of transit history?

    See: http://www.lava.net/cslater/TQold.HTM

    Thanks
    JK

  63. do you think that people will drive to work TWICE EACH MORNING if we add freeway capacity?

    No, they will just live twice as far away. They will drive twice as far to go to a particular store. Why do you think we have big box superstores? Because they can attract customers from large area.

  64. Ross,

    One correction to my previous post: Rose City Transit took over bus operations in Portland from Portland Traction Company in 1956, approximately two years before trolley bus operations were discontinued.

  65. “JK: Of course trimet does best financially when it doesn’t have to run trains and buses. Because providing service is a financial drain while their money comes from non-users (the general public). Their motive is not necessarily to best serve its customers. Instead it is building expensive toy trains and cutting service because of their cost.”

    To be fair, Trimet has increased service on many
    bus lines (frequent service) since I came to Portland
    over 5 years ago.

    However, I feel that there would be much less
    opposition to alternative modes (e.g. transit)
    if we had a well designed flexible bus rapid
    transit system that really served the community
    well instead of the dysfunctional, rigid MAX.

  66. Ross Williams do you think that people will drive to work TWICE EACH MORNING if we add freeway capacity?

    Ross Williams No, they will just live twice as far away.
    JK: What is wrong with people living where they want to live? Are you against freedom?

    Should we all live in highly efficient little condos like jail cells. That seems to be where Portland’s planners are headed: live in little cells, no un-needed travel – just like jail.

    Ross Williams They will drive twice as far to go to a particular store. Why do you think we have big box superstores? Because they can attract customers from large area.
    JK: The real reason is that superstores are more efficient. They have a wider selection of merchandise at a lower cost. Having lower costs is the same as getting a pay raise – it raises people’s standard of living. It leaves more money for a vacation, medical care or whatever. It can raise people out of poverty if they are close to the line. Lower cost clothes can put more food on the table. Are you against a higher standard of living too?

    Thanks
    JK

  67. M.W. wrote: “Personally I’d like to see a non-profit organization created to do road work and get politics out of it.”

    Ross Williams wrote: “You obviously have never worked with non-profit organizations. Who exactly would decide which roads got fixed first?”

    Ross you may wish to check this out, but Canada’s Air Traffic control agency was made a non profit a few years back and so far they have had excellent results.

    And that street you live on you may think of as a natural monopoly, but you can move real quick if you want to. I hope no one if threatening you with a gun and keeping you there.
    M.W.

  68. Ross you may wish to check this out, but Canada’s Air Traffic control agency was made a non profit a few years back and so far they have had excellent results.

    What do air traffic control and roadwork have in common?

    And that street you live on you may think of as a natural monopoly, but you can move real quick if you want to

    By that standard, there are no government monopolies either, you can always move to a different country.

    This is all very playful, but its not really part of any serious discussion of meeting our transportation needs.

  69. he real reason is that superstores are more efficient. They have a wider selection of merchandise at a lower cost.

    Which is possible because they can handle a lot of customers from a very wide market at a single site because of the transportation system.

    What is wrong with people living where they want to live? Are you against freedom?

    No, but we should be clear we are all paying for the transportaion infrastructure that allows them the “freedom” to live further away, and that infrastructure will not reduce congestion or improve freight operations.

  70. “The real reason is that superstores are more efficient. They have a wider selection of merchandise at a lower cost.”

    “Which is possible because they can handle a lot of customers from a very wide market at a single site because of the transportation system.”

    This sounds like one stop shopping and fits perfectly with Metro’s “Drive Less Save More” campaign.

  71. Ross in your last post you make a couple of comments about what I have written. May I suggest that you take a look at what was written prior to that. Maybe that will clear it up for you. And since this is getting us nowhere I have real work to do.
    Bye.
    M.W.

  72. May I suggest that you take a look at what was written prior to that. Maybe that will clear it up for you.

    Was your comment about streets not being a monopoly because people could move supposed to be a serious comment on transportation systems? Because I didn’t take it that way. If it was, my analogy to moving to a different country was exactly on the point.

    Your response on air traffic control in Canada had nothing to do with the question of whether transferring responsibility for road work to a non-profit would take the politics out of the decisions. And, from the stories in google, it doesn’t appear to have taken the politics out of air traffic control management in Canada either.

    I am perfectly willing to respond to serious comments and suggestions, but if you want to play fanciful, ideological games I hope you do have some real work to do.