Tuesday’s Trib features a lead editorial supporting tolling on a replacement Columbia River Crossing bridge. The letters to the editor are all in response to the special issue on transportation.
Tuesday’s Trib features a lead editorial supporting tolling on a replacement Columbia River Crossing bridge. The letters to the editor are all in response to the special issue on transportation.
32 responses to “Trib Editorial Page Given Over to Transportation”
I am incensed about the tolling proposition. They steal our gas taxes to build toy trains and bike paths then claim they are poor and need to toll the roads for new highway construction. This is ridiculous!
It remains logical that users of an expensive bridge should pay a fair use charge for its upkeep and maintenance.
I am OK with tolls as long as the following requirements are met:
*Capacity on the bridge should, at minimum, be doubled to ensure room for 50-100 years of population and traffic growth.
*Tolls go only to pay for the cost of the bridge.
*Tolls are only collected as long as it takes to pay for the bridge. Then they are canceled.
*Tolls are not implemented on anything that is already payed for (like the I-205 bridge).
*All modes of transport that use the bridge should be tolled accordingly (transit, bikes, peds).
*No more rail transit (too expensive & slow).
*No transit solutions that require extensive “re-development” or development subsidies to enhance ridership numbers.
*I-5 should be improved between SR500 and I-84. At minimum, there should be 3 through lanes in each direction, a HOT/HOV lane for buses and additional capacity, and a merging lane between interchanges. There IS room for this in most areas with minimal property condemnation.
Also, I feel that the original interstate bridges hold a certain historical and functional value and should be preserved. I don’t know if that means leaving them where they are, or moving them to a better location but they could aid in creating a local connection between downtown Vancouver and Jansen Beach.
Ethan: I think Greg’s point was that users already pay for road improvements through federal and state gas taxes and licensing fees in Oregon + sales tax on the Washington side.
Greg, like myself and numerous others don’t understand why rail transit/bike/condo farm type “improvements” have a funding priority when the vast majority of people DRIVE. We feel that our government that we pay for should be accommodating our choice to drive…not using our money to try and influence our choice.
The Oregon leadership in the CRC should make clear…No tolls, No MAX, then No Bridge.
Any improvements to Columbia River crossing will benefit the users of ALL modes of transport. Therefore, since all modes of transport will receive benefit, “IF” the decision is made to collect tolls, ALL modes of transport must be charged a toll to pay for the collectively received benefit.
There is no need for placing tolls the I-5 and I-205 corridor bridges in the first place when there are alternatives that have greater benefit toward reducing congestion and emission problems and that is building a new westside alternative interstate arterial corridor along North Portland Street that includes a replacement double deck BNSF RR Bridge that connects to the westside of the Willamette River to the northside of the Columbia River.
Here is where you can charge a toll and get Light Rail into Vancouver at the same time.
Actually motorized vehicles should be happy to pay for transit, bike and ped facilities across the Columbia River as these lead to fewer vehicles on the road/bridge. Indeed, we should start collecting tolls today; the great congestion fear will go up in smoke.
If the object is to move as many people as possible at the least cost and with the least destruction to communities on both sides, then transit, bike and rideshare are the ticket; they meet all of these criteria; more lanes do not. Now if we want to make Clark county developers rich, that’s another story…
With earmarks soon out of season and with the big DOT’s maxed out with maintenance, tolls on motorized vehicles are the only way anything can be built. If bridge users don’t want to pay, they must not really want a new bridge; in that case let’s not build anything, just remove some on ramps, lower speed limits, and oh, build a lightrail bridge with bikelanes.
I wonder why they haven’t thought up a new freeway equivalent to 205 but on the west side connecting Washington to Clark Counties? Another direct route from Wilsonville to Vancouver would really help congestion and allow people to get from Clark to Washington county without having to pass through the morass of Portland. They will need to do something due to the massive subdivisions about to take place under Measure 37 and the future elimination of the urban growth boundary.
If bicyclists and transit users are unwilling to pay the costs for the infrastructure needed for bicycles and transit respectively to cross the Columbia, then the bicycle and transit components must be removed from the overall crossing project. The fact is that every bike path and bike lane in place today should have a toll on it to stop bicyclists from freeloading and poaching the costs from others. If the object of improving the Columbia Crossing is to move the most people by the quickest means possible, while taking into consideration the majority of bridge users have diverse and multiple destinations some distance from both sides of the shores of the river; then the inclusion of any bicycle infrastructure in the Columbia Crossing project is a waste of transportation dollars, does not meet the criteria, should be eliminated, and can be done by simply removing the bicycle access ramps and not allowing non-motorized vehicles on any part of the crossing. If tolling does take place, to eliminate any further discrimination against motorists, and as a matter of equity and fairness – the users of ALL modes of transport must be charged a toll to pay for the collectively received benefit.
I like the idea of a bicycle toll but it would probably be circumvented by the bicyclists. The bicyclists feel traffic laws apply to them. Take, for instance, how they just blow through stop signs and red lights with impunity. What they really need is a bicycle registration and license scheme just like autos and motorcycles have. There should also be some sort of clearly marked registration plats on their bikes, too, so violators can be reported to the police. They also need their own roads and streets so they don’t interfere with normal traffic. If they want their own pet projects they need to pay for them. I think they should also outlaw riding bikes on the sidewalks. I can’t tell you how many times I have almost gotten mowed over by a bicycle while walking on the sidewalk at night. Sometimes they are even going the wrong way on the sidewalk!
I like the idea of a bicycle toll but it would probably be circumvented by the bicyclists.
If there were such a toll, how could it possibly be circumvented by bicyclists? Do you think they would just blow through toll booths like some automobiles do?
Terry has frequently proposed bicycle tolls, but has failed to provide evidence that the costs of collecting the tolls would not eat up all the revenue generated.
The bicyclists feel traffic laws apply to them.
I’m glad you feel that way. (Although I suspect you meant to say “do not apply”.) I find it fascinating when someone is able to read the minds of an entire group (The Bicyclists) and determine that the entire group feels the same way.
Take, for instance, how they just blow through stop signs and red lights with impunity.
When on my bike, I obey all traffic laws to the same extent I do when I’m driving. But maybe I’m not one of “The Bicyclists”. Can you read my mind and tell me how I feel?
In all seriousness, some localities have laws that allow bicyclists to move through stop signs after having sufficiently slowed and determined that the intersection is clear. This makes sense, as riding a bike gives you far greater perception of events around you than (both visually and audibly) than being in a car.
I do understand your frustration, as I have occasionally had to slam on my brakes to avoid hitting an errant bicyclist. They do exist. However, I far more frequently have to slam on my brakes and/or swerve to avoid an errant driver. I’m generally OK with what other people want to do, so long as I don’t have to take evasive action!
With regard to flagrant disregard for the law, I seem to remember a popular song back in the 80’s with a chorus of “I can’t drive 55”, and frequent calls to raise the speed limit based on the “85th percentile” of the speeds people were actually driving. This movement was eventually quite successful. Perhaps we should consider bringing Oregon’s bicycle laws in sync with the way most cyclists would prefer to bike?
What they really need is a bicycle registration and license scheme just like autos and motorcycles have.
Perhaps all vehicles of all types should be licensed based on data such as vehicle weight, number of pedestrian fatalities per vehicle weight class, etc? I’d be all for it. I suspect, however, that bikes would turn out to be a money-loser for such a program, being that they weigh very little and cause very little harm relative to large vehicles, and that therefore it would cost taxpayers less to simply not register bikes.
There should also be some sort of clearly marked registration plats on their bikes, too, so violators can be reported to the police.
This would be fine except that even today you can report aggressive drivers, but if a cop doesn’t find them later and witness the same behavior, no action is taken.
They also need their own roads and streets so they don’t interfere with normal traffic. If they want their own pet projects they need to pay for them.
The roads are, by law, open to all users (I thought you were in favor of strict adherence to the law?). If automobile drivers want the laws changed to kick bicycles off the roads, then the automobile users can pay to provide alternate facilities.
I think they should also outlaw riding bikes on the sidewalks.
That would just put a bunch more bikes directly in the roadway, where you just stated you don’t want them to be. I’m beginning to psychically sense how you “feel”.
I can’t tell you how many times I have almost gotten mowed over by a bicycle while walking on the sidewalk at night.
I can’t tell you how many times I have almost gotten mowed over by a car while walking on a sidewalk at night. Personally, I’m more concerned about the cars than the bikes.
Sometimes they are even going the wrong way on the sidewalk!
Since you brought up the issue of the law, I went and looked in the city’s “Portland By Cycle: A Guide to Your Ride” manual, and the state’s “Oregon Bicyclist Manual 2006”. The city guide does not address the issue of what is the “right way” or “wrong way” on the sidewalk. The state manual does say that bicyclists should “try” to ride in the same direction as traffic while using the sidewalk, but it does not state that such behavior is mandatory. If the law is clear here, perhaps bicyclists can be forgiven because the official publications do not state this.
– Bob R.
Hi Bob,
Thanks for the response :) Don’t get me wrong, I am not anti-bicycle or totally “pro-auto”. I think people should have choices in their transportation options instead of government bureaucrats making decisions for them.
I am always considerate, too, of keeping the bike lanes open. I have seen many times several cars crowding the bike lane to make a right hand turn and then a bicyclist riding up from behind them has to wait behind the cars. I do believe the drivers should be accountable as well to the bicyclists! My idea for the “bicycle registration” would be so fees could be collected and pay for the bicycle projects instead of tolls. Having toll booths for bicycles would itself cost a lot of money and people could potentially bypass them easily (i.e. just pick up their bike and throw it over the booth). I should also be more careful about making sweeping generalizations. A better statement would have been “some bicyclists” instead of “THE bicyclists”. I also understand that SOME localities have laws which allow bicyclists to go through traffic lights and stop signs. Maybe Portland should have stricter standards since there are more bicycles on the road than other places.
Thanks for hearing me out :-)
–GREG–
Greg –
Thank you for your reply. I am glad that you approach this in a more complex way than I interpreted from your initial comments.
– Bob R.
Regarding the streetcar letter, federal dollars often used to purchase new transit vehicles have “Buy America” requirements–Siemens builds trains in Sacramento and New Flyer builds buses in Minnesota. And then there’s the work on locally-built streetcars.
As for taxing bicyclists, they could be required to have license plates and pay a tax to get one. However, before we do that we need to charge motorists their full costs first (e.g. Big Pipe, Major Streets Transportation Investment Plan, “free” parking).
I wouldn’t have a problem with having bicycles licensed and the money goes to maintenance and expansion of bike routes through out Oregon. But I would say that the licensing of vehicles be based on effects (people powered vehicles require less space for use thus less earth is paved over; emission of less greenhouse gases and no pollution), gasoline/diesel vehicles that use more energy and pollute more would be required to pay the highest licensing fees (thus my diesel VW that runs on bio-diesel would be tested and I could be paying less for my license then some one who wishes to drive a Hummer and needs Bush Wars to keep the beast on the road).
Fair is fair in our capitalist society.
Ray
However, before we do that we need to charge motorists their full costs first (e.g. Big Pipe, Major Streets Transportation Investment Plan, “free” parking).
What does Big Pipe, a SEWER project, have to do with transportation?
The Big Dig is over 3,000 miles away.
And never mind the fact that MSTIP 1-4 were overwhelmingly approved by voters. If I recall correctly, the last several TriMet ballot measures didn’t do so well, and TriMet still manages to build its projects by sucking capital dollars from bus service, then cutting bus service.
What does Big Pipe, a SEWER project, have to do with transportation?
Because stormwater runoff, from big parking lots and paved streets for cars (many of which would admittedly be paved anyway, but some would be narrower and some left permeable), is the reason why we have to take on a sewer project of this scale, and all sewer ratepayers, regardless of how much they drive, are paying quite a bit for it.
The Big Dig is over 3,000 miles away.
That’s probably why nobody mentioned it.
– Bob R.
The necessity of the big pipe is attributed to the massive up-zoning of properties without upgrading the sewer systems to accommodate them. The city neglects the roads in the same fashion but excuse it by projecting an unreasonable increase in mass transit use. Maybe the city thinks at least half of the new condo dwellers will go to the bathroom on the MAX? Who knows?
Other cities have much more lane-miles of road and much larger parking lots and don’t seem to have the same sewer overflow problems that we do. Blaming SEWER backups on the roads seems a bit overboard.
Anthony,
Actually, that is not quite right. Google “sewer overflow” for a minute and you will see that this is an issue facing many communities, both urban and rural across the country. The good news is that Portland is a city that is actually doing something about it.
“Blaming SEWER backups on the roads seems a bit overboard.”
Well, it might until you realize that it is a CSO, not a pure sewer system. Permeable pavements are a hot topic among people wanting to solve this problem…guess why? Because impermeable surfaces play a big role in CSO overflows.
Regarding the Big Pipe and roads, see a post on Commissioner Sam’s blog where is says that 40% of storm-water pollution of runoff is from roads. And from doing some work in parking lots, I can say that vehicle runoff is not clean.
The idea is that if we traveled more efficiently (by bike, bus or better car use) road runoff wouldn’t such a bad thing.
Not to be a prude but…
Lenny Anderson Says:
The Oregon leadership in the CRC should make clear…No tolls, No MAX, then No Bridge.
Yeah, pretty much.
Terry Parker Says:
Taxes are NEVER a fair way to theif from the public and provide services. A zillion economists, philosophers, and politicians have pointed this out to what appears to be no avail. Complaining about the use of taxes isnt’ going to do anything. Finding a way to limit Government spending, power, and control while finding a way for real businesses to replace Government services is the task at hand. Unfortunately the Government rearely gives up control of anything once it has taken hold. Point being, you aren’t gonna convince a soul on this blog that making bicyclists pay their fair share of a little asphault and some paint is gonna fly, hell, I just don’t want to pay taxes for roads I don’t use – under my estimations (which are pretty damn accurate) I’m still paying for myself, and at minimum .8 of a person to drive cars still… and all I ever do is go to the track and “maybe” drive about 20 miles a month at best!! But I digress…
What they really need is a bicycle registration and license scheme just like autos and motorcycles have.
I’m not trying to be mean or overly critical, but that is purely INSANE!?!?!?!!!! You can’t have kids riding bicycles to school registering their bikes and blagh blagh blagh. That is just… no no no no. More Government regulation, interference, and operational pervue of a mode of transit is NOT a good idea. For bicycles that is just a no no. If anything bicycles are not worth the effort of regulating, or at this stage in the industry it would HURT and not HELP bicycle sales, employment, and ridership. I’m pro people paying their way but bicycles aren’t a big enough cut of roadway usage to even be on the map. The primary concern is where the other 99% of us travel, car, bus, light rail, and streetcar respectively. These vehicles are the REAL costs of this. If everyone rode bicycles we’d all pay about 50 bucks a year for a completely different road surface with about 1/8th the road surface needed for 10x the capacity we have now.
Really, bicycles need not be part of the conversation of “cost incurments” even when the city manages to blunder away multiple millions somehow, it’s still an extreme minority cost.
Terry has frequently proposed bicycle tolls, but has failed to provide evidence that the costs of collecting the tolls would not eat up all the revenue generated.
Per my above statement would be more destructive than cost effective or useful. Road tolls and realy cost reflections of road usage (such as a 50 cent per mile charge to users) would be MUCH more useful to congestion, environmental issues, road overuse, road maintenance, more intelligent consumer usage, more intelligent vehicle mode choice (even if public transit better reflected actual costs, in comparison with a 50 cents a mile charge it would still be competitive)… and the list would go on.
“I can’t drive 55”
This is another whole rant I could go on, we have multiple billion dollar interstates with thousands of miles of straight roadway with cars that can technically be operated safely in excess of a hundred miles being limited by arbritrary and petty laws to about 55-75mph. 85mph in some places. …and don’t give me that speed kills statistical crap. 98% of all accidents happen because of inattention, NOT SPEED.
But I digress. That is another battle altogether.
Regarding the streetcar letter, federal dollars often used to purchase new transit vehicles have “Buy America” requirements–Siemens builds trains in Sacramento and New Flyer builds buses in Minnesota. And then there’s the work on locally-built streetcars.
As for taxing bicyclists, they could be required to have license plates and pay a tax to get one. However, before we do that we need to charge motorists their full costs first (e.g. Big Pipe, Major Streets Transportation Investment Plan, “free” parking).
Jason McHuff… thank you for stating what I keep uttering. True costs should be reflected period. Except bicycles, because at this point of complete obfuscation of costs that currently are put on the populace by our Government controlled passenger transportation industry are a non-issue. There are MUCH BIGGER problems to deal with such as reflecting the costs of the truly expensive modes of transit – i.e. cars, rails, n such.
Maybe the city thinks at least half of the new condo dwellers will go to the bathroom on the MAX?
Uggghhh don’t mention that. I’ve seen that occur 3 times now. Twice I removed the offender by force myself. As usual, not a cop or transit police officer in site. Just little ole me and my refusal to see or allow such a desecration of such nature. Piss in nature, crap in a park, but dammit don’t use the MAX (or a bus or the Streetcar). Still makes me scream, fare inspectors, true costs, and kick the rats that ruin these things. I’d not want to even think of what Trimet Personel have to pick up on the trains n busses sometimes.
98% of all accidents happen because of inattention, NOT SPEED.
I don’t think that is true. But even if it was, I think we should engineer our autos and roads for real people, not theoretical ones. People are going to be inattentive at times. Speed has a lot to do with the consequences of that inattention. A vehicle going 25 mph can safely accommodate a lot more inattention than one going 55, much less 100+. There is a reason we have 50,000 auto fatalities every year. If we got speeds down to 15 mph there would be virtually none.
Most of the roads, streets and parking lots within the City of Portland were in place in place long before there was a need for a solution such as the big pipe to control water runoff. It should also be noted that bicycles, transit busses and freight carriers also use the same streets and roads as automobiles. It is new development, increased density and building from sidewalk to sidewalk with no permeable areas that has created the need for the big pipe. Therefore instead of the City Council handing out tax abatements for high density development like candy, instead of charging current sewer ratepayers storm water run off fees and for the big pipe that is yet another subsidy to high density, and instead of suggesting motorists pay for the big pipe when bicycles, transit, pedestrians, and freight carriers also use and benefit from good streets and roads, it should be the developers of high density that are charged pay the costs for the big pipe.
In my earlier commentary, I wrote about the “I can’t drive 55” movement.
Adron replied: “This is another whole rant I could go on, we have multiple billion dollar interstates with thousands of miles of straight roadway with cars that can technically be operated safely in excess of a hundred miles being limited by arbritrary and petty laws to about 55-75mph. 85mph in some places.”
Adron, just so we’re clear, I brought up that particular refrain to illustrate a point: Bicyclists are regularly derided for coasting through stop signs, running red lights, etc. Often, this is a serious problem, but in many circumstances it is not a problem at all due to the different nature of riding a bicycle.
My point was that there is a degree of hypocrisy at play when the automobile-centric who push for faster speed limits and blame high incidents of speeding on having the speed limit set improperly simultaneously criticize bicyclists as lawbreakers.
– Bob R.
it should be the developers of high density that are charged pay the costs for the big pipe
On the contrary, high density multi-story living units generate the least combined sewer & runoff PER CAPITA, due to less lawn watering per resident and less impermeable surface per resident, indoor parking, etc. The roof area of a multi-story building is the same as that for a single-story building, and many of the newer towers process all stormwater runoff on-site for toilet flushing, landscape watering, etc. All of these sewer ratepayers pay the same base fee (but less usage fees, because they use less) as everyone else.
Furthermore, all new construction features low-flow toilets, which can use 4X to 5X less water per flush than older toilets. (And, finally, manufacturers have gotten good at making these toilets work right.) A new set of 4 rowhouses can produce just as little sewage as an older single-family home.
Finally (and a bit late, in my opinion), the city has a stormwater management discount. So, if your property does indeed have lots of permeable areas and/or lawn, and your roof gutters don’t drain directly into the storm sewer, you can obtain a rate discount.
– Bob R.
As for tolling bicycles to pay for any new infrastructure on the Columbia Crossing, any bicycle infrastructure included in the project must be financially self-sustainable paid for the bicyclist users. I would however like to see a breakdown on the actual numbers of bicyclists that use the current I-5 Columbia River Bridges, and the cost breakdown for what any new bicycle infrastructure will cost per bicyclist user with any new bridge. In calculating this breakdown, the costs for bicycle infrastructure should include more than just adding to the deck width and include some of the overall bridge support costs. I would also like to see the same breakdown for any proposed pedestrian infrastructure and ammenities.
It is highly likely that it would be far less costly to entirely eliminate all pedestrian and bike infrastructure from the bridge project, and require pedestrians and bicyclists to use transit to cross the river – in so doing, pay a fare that also includes a bridge toll.
“Most of the roads, streets and parking lots within the City of Portland were in place in place long before there was a need for a solution such as the big pipe to control water runoff. It should also be noted that bicycles, transit busses and freight carriers also use the same streets and roads as automobiles. It is new development, increased density and building from sidewalk to sidewalk with no permeable areas that has created the need for the big pipe.”
Actually, that’s flat out not true. Take a look at this graph: http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=31030
In addition, this is an interesting look at the history of sewage/water handling in Portland: http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?a=ebjgc&c=dbadb
The point being that while it might make a nice soundbite, you can’t really blame it on density. You can “blame”it on improved responsibility- such that the Willamette, for all of it’s problems, is cleaner than it ever was in the “good old days.”
The biggest reason for the need for the Big Pipe projects (at least on the east side) was the change over of all of suburban Multnomah County during 1980’s from septic tanks to sewer lines (DEQ requirement to not pollute ground water going forward).
Thus the inclusion of East County into the sewer trunk system added the material that the current PDX system wasn’t designed for. Big Pipe was the logical next step.
Ray
A The point being that while it might make a nice sound bite, you can’t really blame it on density.
B It is more than a sound bite, it is logistics – More people in high density development concentrated in a compact space with minimal permeable land areas adds more poop and rain water runoff going down the drain, thereby creating the need for increased sewer capacity – aka the Big Pipe. The Bureau of Environmental Services would like us to think otherwise with their propaganda so ratepayers can be charged as yet another subsidy to big development.
Terry,
Did you both read the history and look at the chart? Are you suggesting that the figures for sewer overflow are propaganda? Are you suggesting that the fact that the river was full of sewer waste in the in the past is a hoax? Did those school kids in the 1930’s who protested the state of the river do so in a massive propaganda move? If so, what is your evidence to the contrary? If not, what do you really have to say?
Someone told me that the Willamette used to be so polluted back in the 60’s and 70’s that it would sometimes catch on fire!? Is this true?