This is the sixth and final in a series of posts in the first phase of our online RTP policy exercise. Your job is to describe what the outcomes will look like if the RTP succeeds in producing the 2040 objective of Fiscal Stewardship:
Stewardship of the public infrastructure ensures that the needs and expectations of the public are met in an efficient and fiscally sustainable manner.
To remind you of the rules for this exercise:
– An ‘outcome’ must be reduced to a single ‘bullet’, i.e., a one sentence statement. You may follow that with a single short paragraph providing further explanation if you want.
– If you agree with someone else’s outcome, quote it in your comment (my preference is italics for quoting) and say you agree and elaborate (no more than one paragraph) on why if you want.
– No criticism of other people’s proposed outcomes
– If you have questions or comments about the exercise or rules, comment on the exercise overview post, not here please.
Rules for the next step in this exercise tomorrow…
22 responses to “RTP Exercise: Fiscal Stewardship”
– We maximize existing investment by keeping the two bridges that cross the Columbia at Hayden Island, relieving the bottlenecks at that area by adding an arterial bridge somewhere to west of the existing bridges that provide access to the island without using the freeway.
– Roads and other infrastructure receive the regular maintenance that will prolong their life in the most cost-effective manner
Currently our road network is deteriorating because we are spending money on new construction instead of maintenance. As a result, in the future we will have to pay far more to repair the damage done by lack of regular maintenance than it would have cost to maintain roads today. This is true of the state highway network, but it is also true of many local jurisdiction. Some roads that are now paved are being allowed to go back to gravel by simple lack of attention even though no explicit decision has been made not to keep them paved.
Transit fares better reflect the true costs of providing transit covering substantially more than just accounting for 20 percent of the operational costs.
Bicyclists and the bicycle mode of transport are directly taxed so the users of bicycle infrastructure become fiscally responsible for all aspects of associated with constructing and maintaining that bicycle infrastructure.
Explanation; The users of alternative modes of transport become fiscally responsible for providing infrastructure directly associated with the specific alternative mode of transport used.
A “Currently our road network is deteriorating because we are spending money on new construction instead of maintenance”
B and because road funds are being siphoned off to subsidize other alternative modes of transport where the users do not pay their own way. There is an “excessive reliance” on motor vehicle taxes and fees to pay for transportation infrastructure
Make more efficient use of existing roadway capacity by reducing non-essential motor vehicle trips via a significant shift of transportation resources from new capacity adding projects to projects that provide and/or promote transportation options (bike/walk/transit) for those traveling alone in a motor vehicle.
This change in the traditional transportation investment policy, which is bankrupt, will have positive impacts on community health and the environment as well as leaving valuable capacity for essential motor vehicle trips.
Ross Williams – Very good point. To elaborate…
We should not only “state” that maintenance is a priority but somehow find a motive to push for road maintance such as monetary reward or negative fees for roads that are not properly maintained.
…To elaborate, in a privatized company if something isn’t done properly (i.e. infrastructure or value add that isn’t maintained) and subtracts from the bottom line there is a direct and very negative impact to employees, company return, and involved parties. Thus by mere circumstance things get fixed very fast when they have real relevance. Roadway maintenance should be performed in the exact same manner.
outcome – fiscal requirements meet and exceed market based demand for services. i.e. subsidies are siginificantly reduced and operational subsidies dissappear.
outcome – remove fuel taxes and create a usage based fee for roadway usage and create a complimentary funding of roadways that actually reflect usage, market demand, and actual preference without political manipulation.
outcome – legislative/law/regulations change so that the fiscal profits of rail transportation are realized in Oregon instead of the drain it provides now on the fiscal budget. (See: Eugene, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver Corridor Write Up)
rail transportation == passenger rail transportation excluding Light Rail. Thought that needed a bit o’ clarification.
Chris, thank you for acknowledging the need to create more transportation alternatives.
To me there has been a sincere lack of honesty and integrity coming out of our political and planning leadership in addressing transportation problems with real solutions that solve our ever growing transportaiton problems.
The example that you brought is the north/south interstate corridors and how limiting it is and what this reality means to all of the citizens of this region and nation as a whole.
With the limited north/south corridors we end up moving traffic into city streets and neighborhoods.
Just for once the leaders should take off their rose colored glasses and take a real look at north Portland’s Industrial area’s including Rivergate.
We need to invest into some real origination and destination studies to protect jobs and the lives of the stakeholders of this area.
Currently all of the arterial and main interstate corridors and rail capabilities are clogged and at the worse levels of congestion and this is having a very adverse effect on everyone.
To get people and freight in and out of this area of north Portland from Kelly Point on the west and I-5 east and Columbia River on the north and the Willamette on the south is critical to everyone in Portland and the region as a whole.
We need freight corridors that eliminate the need for trucks and people getting trusted into the I-5 corridor or driving through side streets and into Town Centers like St. Johns where they should not be.
If I understand Chris, is that we need alternatives to the I-5 and I-205 corridors that force most interstate incidents of travel on to the I-5 Interstate Bridges and the I-205 Glenn Jackson Bridge and I agree.
PDOT’s Director of Maintenance made a excellent presentation to our PSU transportation class last night. To me it is interesting how everyone would like to blame someone for major shortfalls funding for city roads and highway maintenance.
He pointed out how serious the shortfalls in funding are and that there are few solutions at hand.
One important point came out of this presentation to me and that was without infrastructure growth which is result of a healthy economy it would be a hell of a lot worse.
So for everyone do not kill the chicken that lay’s the golden egg and by that I mean unreasonable levels of congestion that result in a total lack of freight mobility, kills businesses, kill business investment and job creation which is where we get the majority of the funds to pay for basic maintenance.
Other sources of funding (like PDC/UR Districts, LID’s, Private Developers, ODOT, and Tri-Met) make SDC fees and gas tax revenues look minor in the big picture.
– Roads and other transportation infrastructure have NO maintenance backlog.
Explanation: Every road, bridge, tunnel, or path should be kept fully maintained year to year. We should expend no money on adding to infrastructure until we can fully maintain what we already have. We can achieve these goals through increased efficiency in maintenance (such as competitive bidding for road projects instead of leaving it all up to state or city workers, or through the use of more durable materials), and through increased taxes, tolls or other fees to close the rest of the gap.
– Bring all bridges up to the best contemporary seismic standards
Explanation: It’ll be a lot more expensive to rebuild a bridge trashed by an earthquake than to strengthen it beforehand so it doesn’t fall down when “The Big One” hits.
– We maximize existing investment by keeping the two bridges that cross the Columbia at Hayden Island, relieving the bottlenecks at that area by adding an arterial bridge somewhere to west of the existing bridges that provide access to the island without using the freeway.
I agree with this although the location and design of an arterial bridge needs to be carefully chosen to avoid encouraging heavy use for long distance commuter trips. In addition to connecting Hayden Island, it should also connect Rivergate and the Columbia Corridor to Clark County. I also think this should be developed as part of a larger plan to connect the local street grids in Vancouver and Portland much as the Willamette bridges connect the east and west sides of Portland.
I am glad that people are beginning to see the potential of a multi-modal corridor to the west of I-5 that provides real opportunities to liberate people and vehicles from the singlar choice of the I-5 corridor and the Interstate Bridge.
Most people are looking at the existing Portland Street/BNSF corridor that intersects with most all of the major east/west north Portland arterials.
This corridor has the potential of relieving the most traffic and use of the I-5 corridor. This is important because significant traffic also uses inter-city streets and town centers like St. Johns and the Historic St. Johns Bridge.
“This corridor has the potential of relieving the most traffic and use of the I-5 corridor. This is important because significant traffic also uses inter-city streets and town centers like St. Johns and the Historic St. Johns Bridge.”
I would like to see an analysis of how many southbound trucks from Vancouver turn off somewhere north of downtown Portland vs. the number continuing south on I-5. For the trucks that: 1. travel west on Columbia Bv. 2. need to get to Hwy 30 3. are going to Swan Island 4. are going to NW Portland–this would be a favorable alternative. It could also be another route for traffic going west on Hwy 26, especially those stopping in NW Portland.
My discussion with a WDOT representative suggested that only a 15% reduction in I-5 traffic would be realized with a Western arterial Route. But there is a big difference between 15% less cars and 15% less trucks. A truck needs twice as much highway space, roughly, as a car. ( I know the following distances are not much greater at highway speeds–but let us look at an average.) Not that only trucks would use this route.
Nassett’s group hasn’t called for a route to Swan Island from the BNSF corridor, but this must account for a certain portion of the traffic in question. If the Western Arterial continued on across the Willamette, perhaps a spur could take off to Swan Island. I understand this is a contentious issue, with either U of P or BNSF owning the land in question. Nassett’s plan calls for two bridges over the Columbia and one over the Willamette to Hwy. 30. I would add a fourth over the Willamette, south of Linnton. A lot of bridges—but this could also be a major commuter route since U of P is on the way.
Still too much congestion on “the 5?” Could triple trailers and long double trailers, going through on I-5, be required to use I-205?
I think there needs to be a distinction between a new western freeway connecting Highway 30 and Clark County and a new local arterial bridge connecting Vancouver and Portland. They are not the same thing.
There is virtually no O&D data on freight movement in the I-5 corridor…I don’t believe it is significant enough to warrent any major investment, nor do I believe freight movement is in crisis or is particulary critical to economic growth. Intel did not loose market share due to travel times to PDX.
Freight moving from Seattle to points south in California makes a lot of us of I-90 and US 97; I-205 provides a local bypass. Until freight dispatchers are operating 24/7, why worry; our roadways are mostly empty at 2am.
“I think there needs to be a distinction between a new western freeway connecting Highway 30 and Clark County and a new local arterial bridge connecting Vancouver and Portland. They are not the same thing.”
I think this is a valid concern. Yet, what would be the use of merely a “local bridge” (i.e. west Vancouver to Hayden Island) if one is trying to reduce the load on the I-5 corridor? I guess we are working from different assumptions; that I-5 can be salvaged with little change or that it can’t.
Please consider another factor–besides traffic and freight movement. That is, the densifying of certain areas within the Metropolitan region. Riverfront property is escalating very, very fast. There is a natural corridor between Portland and Vancouver–and the western Arterial is in this proximity.
Now, we have drifted off the original intention in this thread….
Yet, what would be the use of merely a “local bridge” (i.e. west Vancouver to Hayden Island) if one is trying to reduce the load on the I-5 corridor?
If you are talking about the I5 bridge crossing, a great deal of the commuter traffic is people from Clark County trying to get to jobs in the Columbia Corridor. I don’t remember the percentages – half, a quarter – are these essentially local trips forced onto the freeway bridge.
The Western Arterial is really a western freeway proposal with grade separated crossings and it is not a “natural corridor” at all. It will very quickly put a huge new amount of commuter traffic from Clark County onto Highway 30 going into Northwest Portland and clogging up the Northwest Industrial area.
Let no-one forget the real problem is the I-5 corridor and it is at LOS “F” conditions right-now of over 7-hours per day. We must reduce this level of congestion that is killing the stakeholders (People and Businesses) of the I-5 corridor.
Whatever this new corridor is, it will be to the west and probably aligned with Portland Street and the BNSF tracks and it will be a multi-modal with the addition of heavy rail and light rail.
If it has freight specific lanes for trucks and they implement TDM methods for all truck traffic in the I-5 corridor this should be able to reduce 50%+ of the trucks out of the I-5 corridor and all of the trucks that want to stay in the I-5 corridor pay-big-time.
LOS “F” conditions
And let no one forget that any highway even approaching capacity is LOS “F”. Nor that adding capacity will not reduce congestion on I5 but it will increase congestion whereever people get on or off the freeway.
If they are going to create freight specific lanes they need to put them on I5 which serves the central eastside and Swan Island industrial areas, not in a different corridor someplace to the west.