15 responses to “One Way to Silence Opposition to Private Toll Roads”
A thought:
Do privately operated toll roads put the risk of peak oil’s consequences on private corporations? When we all decide that driving really is a bad idea, are they left holding the bag (redundant highways)? Maybe we should only allow the government to operate road systems so that the losses are spread among the taxpayers rather than the shareholders.
Do privately operated toll roads put the risk of peak oil’s consequences on private corporations?
I don’t think that is likely. I would assume they believe they will be willing to raise the toll on remaining traffic if use of autos declines. They don’t seem to be buying toll roads where there are realistic alternatives for people to use. Thus the demand that 99W be tolled along with any Newberg-Dundee bypass.
Why should the taxpayers be burdened with a damnable loss vs. shareholders?
The reason shareholders become wealthy is BECAUSE they shoulder risk in return for growth. The create GROWTH, real growth, not the psuedo growth the Government does through redistribution of wealth via taxes.
The reason shareholders become wealthy is BECAUSE they shoulder risk in return for growth.
I suppose in theory, but in reality people often get rich by transferring the risk to others while retaining the benefits of success for themselves. In fact, isn’t that the purpose of corporations, to limit the risk to shareholders?
The problem with roads, and most other transportation infrastructure, is that the benefits are often widely shared. So you would expect the risk to have to be widely shared as well.
The Newberg-Dundee Bypass
1) Politically speaking, the Macquarie Group is quickly fading from the scene.
2) Tolling both roads (the bypass and 99W) is out of the picture.
3) Tolling just the bypass is out of the picture.
4) Bonding for the bypass (without tolls) is out of the picture.
5) 11 million vehicles per day at $2.00 each would take about 60 years (if ever) to pay off the project. Whichever method (tolling or bonding) of financing is not practical. The rest of the state would not support a $500-600 million project that serves for a 5 minute ride.
6) It is time to recognize that this bypass in its present form, will not happen.
7) The only remaining alternative is to place five lanes (now three) through Dundee at $40 million.
The five lane through Dundee should be done regardless of the bypass being built. I can’t believe there are 2/3 lane sections on 99W in the first place.
6) It is time to recognize that this bypass in its present form, will not happen.
7) The only remaining alternative is to place five lanes (now three) through Dundee at $40 million.
I don’t think that is the only remaining alternative. The bypass was put out there as the best alternative. But as I recall, there were others. If you take the bypass off the table, the communities need to go back and take a serious look at how they can improve traffic conditions in both Dundee and Newberg.
I am not sure adding lanes in Dundee will do that. The congestion on 99W is not limited to the stretch through Dundee. If you are trying to pour more into a bottle that is already full, the “bottleneck” isn’t the problem no matter how narrow.
Anthony,
I agree completely, and now is the time to do the five lanes. There is relatively nothing in the way when compared to the bypass. The organized consensus of ODOT, the Mayors, the City Councils and County Commissioners need to now take a fresh look at the situation.
Ross,
I agree with your thoughts, also. Naturally, a regional bypass that would connect 99W just south of Dundee would be the preferred option. This would help solve the situation you refer in Tigard/Sherwood/Tualatin. It is only 11 miles from 99W to I-5 at that point. It seems, however, that that option runs into the same problems as the Newberg-Dundee Bypass, lack of funds.
That is why I conclude that the only realistic improvement possible, would be the 5 lanes through Dundee. This could be accomplished as either one five lane cross section, or a split one way section separated by a city block.
This discussion has been going on for about 50 years now with zero results. At the same time, 99W through Dundee has been allowed to fester and deteriorate. The last price tag for the “bypass” has been put at almost $600 million.
An additional comment. You are correct about the Newberg-Dundee Bypass not solving the problem. There are 39 traffic lights after leaving the bypass (heading toward Portland), before a vehicle gets to I-5. The bypass only solves the local problem and does nothing for the regional situation. The regional situation is of primary concern. This regional problem could be significantly addressed by diverting traffic completely away from 99W (Tigard/Tualatin/Sherwood/Newberg/Dundee) and connecting south of Dundee.
This regional problem could be significantly addressed by diverting traffic completely away from 99W (Tigard/Tualatin/Sherwood/Newberg/Dundee) and connecting south of Dundee.
As I understand it, that won’t solve the “regional problem” either. Large amounts of the traffic on 99W through Newberg and Dundee never reach I-5. Its going to destinations in Tigard or up 217 to Washington Square, Beaverton, etc.
Oregon’s land use calls place priority on protecting farm and forest land and maintaining compact urban areas. The development patterns in Yamhill county are in conflict with those priorities. That problem will not be solved with new transportation investments.
You are correct, it wouldn’t solve the problem. Especially in comparison to the cost. Perhaps the 5 lanes through Dundee is the only solution, albeit a temporary one. The “wine train” certainly won’t help.
Ross: This is about transportation, not land use. What some may think works in Portland does not work in other areas. People move to Yamhill county because they do not want to live in “compact cities.”
15 responses to “One Way to Silence Opposition to Private Toll Roads”
A thought:
Do privately operated toll roads put the risk of peak oil’s consequences on private corporations? When we all decide that driving really is a bad idea, are they left holding the bag (redundant highways)? Maybe we should only allow the government to operate road systems so that the losses are spread among the taxpayers rather than the shareholders.
Do privately operated toll roads put the risk of peak oil’s consequences on private corporations?
I don’t think that is likely. I would assume they believe they will be willing to raise the toll on remaining traffic if use of autos declines. They don’t seem to be buying toll roads where there are realistic alternatives for people to use. Thus the demand that 99W be tolled along with any Newberg-Dundee bypass.
Why should the taxpayers be burdened with a damnable loss vs. shareholders?
The reason shareholders become wealthy is BECAUSE they shoulder risk in return for growth. The create GROWTH, real growth, not the psuedo growth the Government does through redistribution of wealth via taxes.
The reason shareholders become wealthy is BECAUSE they shoulder risk in return for growth.
I suppose in theory, but in reality people often get rich by transferring the risk to others while retaining the benefits of success for themselves. In fact, isn’t that the purpose of corporations, to limit the risk to shareholders?
The problem with roads, and most other transportation infrastructure, is that the benefits are often widely shared. So you would expect the risk to have to be widely shared as well.
The Newberg-Dundee Bypass
1) Politically speaking, the Macquarie Group is quickly fading from the scene.
2) Tolling both roads (the bypass and 99W) is out of the picture.
3) Tolling just the bypass is out of the picture.
4) Bonding for the bypass (without tolls) is out of the picture.
5) 11 million vehicles per day at $2.00 each would take about 60 years (if ever) to pay off the project. Whichever method (tolling or bonding) of financing is not practical. The rest of the state would not support a $500-600 million project that serves for a 5 minute ride.
6) It is time to recognize that this bypass in its present form, will not happen.
7) The only remaining alternative is to place five lanes (now three) through Dundee at $40 million.
Comments would be appreciated.
The five lane through Dundee should be done regardless of the bypass being built. I can’t believe there are 2/3 lane sections on 99W in the first place.
6) It is time to recognize that this bypass in its present form, will not happen.
7) The only remaining alternative is to place five lanes (now three) through Dundee at $40 million.
I don’t think that is the only remaining alternative. The bypass was put out there as the best alternative. But as I recall, there were others. If you take the bypass off the table, the communities need to go back and take a serious look at how they can improve traffic conditions in both Dundee and Newberg.
I am not sure adding lanes in Dundee will do that. The congestion on 99W is not limited to the stretch through Dundee. If you are trying to pour more into a bottle that is already full, the “bottleneck” isn’t the problem no matter how narrow.
Anthony,
I agree completely, and now is the time to do the five lanes. There is relatively nothing in the way when compared to the bypass. The organized consensus of ODOT, the Mayors, the City Councils and County Commissioners need to now take a fresh look at the situation.
Ross,
I agree with your thoughts, also. Naturally, a regional bypass that would connect 99W just south of Dundee would be the preferred option. This would help solve the situation you refer in Tigard/Sherwood/Tualatin. It is only 11 miles from 99W to I-5 at that point. It seems, however, that that option runs into the same problems as the Newberg-Dundee Bypass, lack of funds.
That is why I conclude that the only realistic improvement possible, would be the 5 lanes through Dundee. This could be accomplished as either one five lane cross section, or a split one way section separated by a city block.
This discussion has been going on for about 50 years now with zero results. At the same time, 99W through Dundee has been allowed to fester and deteriorate. The last price tag for the “bypass” has been put at almost $600 million.
Ross,
An additional comment. You are correct about the Newberg-Dundee Bypass not solving the problem. There are 39 traffic lights after leaving the bypass (heading toward Portland), before a vehicle gets to I-5. The bypass only solves the local problem and does nothing for the regional situation. The regional situation is of primary concern. This regional problem could be significantly addressed by diverting traffic completely away from 99W (Tigard/Tualatin/Sherwood/Newberg/Dundee) and connecting south of Dundee.
This regional problem could be significantly addressed by diverting traffic completely away from 99W (Tigard/Tualatin/Sherwood/Newberg/Dundee) and connecting south of Dundee.
As I understand it, that won’t solve the “regional problem” either. Large amounts of the traffic on 99W through Newberg and Dundee never reach I-5. Its going to destinations in Tigard or up 217 to Washington Square, Beaverton, etc.
Oregon’s land use calls place priority on protecting farm and forest land and maintaining compact urban areas. The development patterns in Yamhill county are in conflict with those priorities. That problem will not be solved with new transportation investments.
That’s “land use laws” not “land use calls”
Ross,
You are correct, it wouldn’t solve the problem. Especially in comparison to the cost. Perhaps the 5 lanes through Dundee is the only solution, albeit a temporary one. The “wine train” certainly won’t help.
Ross: This is about transportation, not land use. What some may think works in Portland does not work in other areas. People move to Yamhill county because they do not want to live in “compact cities.”
“This is about transportation, not land use.”
The two are intertwined and inseparable. Oregon’s land use laws apply to all of Oregon – not just Portland.