The Portland Business Alliance and Oregon Business Council have release a statewide version of the Cost of Congestion study. I haven’t found an online version yet, but according to the coverage (DJC, Trib, O), the pitch is for $350M from the legislature this session (presumably that’s just the beginning) to help fund projects that would provide travel time savings amounting to $1.7B annually.
Senate Transportation Committee Chair Rick Metsger is a little more subdued. He’s proposing a license plate fee increase that would raise about $200M.
The O jumps on the bandwagon Sunday with an editorial (“Step on it, Oregon”) that makes it clear, this is about reliable truck travel.
So when will we adopt policy that gives trucks priority over SOVs on existing facilities?
33 responses to “Cost of Congestion Goes Statewide”
The O jumps on the bandwagon Sunday with an editorial (“Step on it, Oregon”) that makes it clear, this is about reliable truck travel.
So when will we adopt policy that gives trucks priority over SOVs on existing facilities?
Never. Freight is just the newest excuse from the road building industry for spending billions of dollars on new road construction projects. Trucks will continue to sit in congestion along with everyone else.
I see something shaping up here: there are a group of powerful business interests who have decided they want to expand the freeways, and these studies are part of how they’re going to do it. They say it’s for freight movement; I suspect it’s at least partly because property developers want to build more distant suburbs.
On the other hand, enlarging the freeways continues to be extremely unpopular among most Portlanders, for the obvious reasons.
With the I-5 bridge, there could be a showdown between the people of Portland and our successful, widely imitated approach to sustainable growth, vs. freeway boosters all up and down the west coast. Scary.
With this study, I almost feel that, having failed to impress Portland, they’re now trying to get the rest of Oregon involved in this CRC decision. (I don’t think this is all about the CRC, but it’s clearly the congestion issue of the moment.)
“So when will we adopt policy that gives trucks priority over SOVs on existing facilities?”
Motorists and the trucks should have priority as long as they are the only modes taxed and paying license fees to fund transportation projects. When bicyclists are directly taxed and bicycles licensed to pay for bicycle infrastructure; and transit riders pay closer to 80% instead of the current 20% of the costs of providing the service; equity will exist and priority can be equalized.
Good! Let’s expand the passenger rail system to provide an alternative system for people stuck driving SOV’s to get around.
We need capacity and options – case in point, I tried to get out of Portland last Saturday. Every bus and train through both Greyhound and Amtrak was completely sold out for the entire day.
Our transit infrastructure can’t even handle the capacity demands of today! We need more trains & buses!!!
The sad truth is that the current maintenance backlog for ODOT alone is $500 Million per year (Oregon Transportation Plan, 2006). Using current distribution formulas, a $350 Million increase would give ODOT an additional $175M, far short of the maintenance backlog and not a lot in face of the many large, unfunded projects on the state’s wish list.
The system we built during the days of the Interstate Highway expansion simply requires more money than we are currently collecting.
Additional dollars will help, if they are spent to achieve the outcomes the people desire, which our research shows to be maintenance first, then providing choices including new, non-highway road networks as well as sidewalks/bike lanes/transit followed by expansion of highways to accommodate growth.
We find ourselves in a pretty tough spot which requires innovative thinking to get out of.
So how does this all fit in with the proposed $500 Million Newberg-Dundee Bypass? Seems like the 5 minute ride through Yamhill County is getting squeezed out of the picture.
The Oregonian’s coverage of this story last Friday (3/23/07) is instructive. In Mayer’s piece on the “transportation crisis” in the Business section he cites Anderson Hay & Grain in Aurora (no relation) as an example of an impacted businesses…is shipping hay to Japan really our economic future?
Let’s hope not.
To see what is, look just below the fold to the story on ESCO, where innovation drives value added manufacturing. The real “transportation” challenge is speeding up the time between idea, patent and production. To survive in the global economy (ESCO is global) requires imaginative engineers and skilled operators.
Now jump to the Metro section where its reported that the Legislature’s proposed budge strips almost all growth in higher education spending. Any business organization with half a brain knows that any addition taxes we can get our hands on needs to go to higher education, not transportation, if our economy is to prosper.
If this study is as weak as the other cost of congestion study, it uses a too-favorable discount factor and overvalues lost time.
Not that any reporter would want to talk to an economist about it, these days.
I’d love to see the report.
The key line in the Oregonian editorial was along the lines of: we need to focus on the most valuable projects.
Rex,
I would be more convinced of ODOT’s financial needs, if I saw some restructuring there…maybe some layoffs in the departments that oversee the mega-projects, some reallocation of funds to the Public Transit Division, some real efforts to reduce SOVs on state highways to make room for freight, etc. ODOT should be looking for the low cost solutions, and like the energy sector has been doing for years looking for solutions on the demand side instead of the supply side.
Rex Burkholder said: “Additional dollars will help, if they are spent to achieve the outcomes the people desire, which our research shows to be maintenance first, then providing choices including new, non-highway road networks as well as sidewalks/bike lanes/transit followed by expansion of highways to accommodate growth.”
Beyond the “maintenance first” piece: by what neutral public poll or public survey having only non-weighted questions is this so called research information backed up by? Reducing congestion is one of the top priorities on most public surveys. With the projected regional population growth and an average of 41 new motor vehicle registrations taking place per day in Oregon, reducing congestion can not be accomplished by just increasing alternative transport mode infrastructure and only expanding highways to accommodate growth. Since increased motor vehicle capacity has been stymied for the last decade or so, and has NOT kept up with growth, reducing congestion today requires aggressive and robust highway expansion beyond the level of just accommodating projected growth.
Well, let’s see….Rex was elected by popular vote, so was Robert Liberty, not to mention Newman, Harrington, Bragton…et.al. at Metro.
While over at City Hall in Portland Sam Adams, but also the rest of the council fundamentally agree with Rex’s assessment. Who with a “Roads agenda” as been elected in this region in the last few decades? I think the last gas tax increase lost 7-1. Give it up.
Harrington beat Tom Cox in the most recent election. Cox’s stated “Number One Priority” was to resuscitate the Westside Bypass project. The voters in Washington County clearly stated how they felt about that “roads agenda”.
Lenny Said: “Well, let’s see….Rex was elected by popular vote, so was Robert Liberty, not to mention Newman, Harrington, Bragton…et.al. at Metro. While over at City Hall in Portland Sam Adams, but also the rest of the council fundamentally agree with Rex’s assessment. Who with a “Roads agenda” as been elected in this region in the last few decades? I think the last gas tax increase lost 7-1. ”
And the majority of people VOTE everyday by driving their cars. My previous question was NOT about who or how people vote, but about what neutral and specific questions have been directly asked and answered by the public to back up this so-called research, and guide the votes already cast. Obviously with a 7 to 1 “NO” vote by the public on a gas tax increase, all those politicians voted into office that want to raise it are not listening. When traffic/highway congestion rises to the top on public surveys, sometimes even other issues like school funding, obviously those politicians voted into office are not listening. My question has yet to be answered.
Lenny Said: “Well, let’s see….Rex was elected by popular vote, so was Robert Liberty, not to mention Newman, Harrington, Bragton…et.al. at Metro. While over at City Hall in Portland Sam Adams, but also the rest of the council fundamentally agree with Rex’s assessment. Who with a “Roads agenda” as been elected in this region in the last few decades? I think the last gas tax increase lost 7-1. ”
And the majority of people VOTE everyday by driving their cars. My previous question was NOT about who or how people vote, but about what neutral and specific questions have been directly asked and answered by the public to back up this so-called research, and guide the votes already cast. Obviously with a 7 to 1 “NO” vote by the public on a gas tax increase, all those politicians voted into office that want to raise it are not listening. When traffic/highway congestion rises to the top on public surveys, sometimes even over issues like school funding, obviously those politicians voted into office are not listening. My question has yet to be answered.
With regards to who won the Metro seats – look at any of the election results.
The number of ballots that even marked a vote for any Metro councilor is small compared to measures or the major offices (President, Governor, Senator, Representative, or even Mayor). So to suggest that, for example, “Washington County voters chose overwhelmingly…” – no, that’s not correct. Of those Washington County voters who marked a vote for Metro Councilor, they chose one over another. But of total votes, only a minority spoke.
Case in point: In the May 2006 election (note that Metro councilors aren’t even elected in the general election!), David Bragdon received 42,824 votes and ran unopposed. 41,313 ballots were counted as “undervotes”, or no vote was given. This, in an election that had a 37.74% voter turnout!
http://www.co.washington.or.us/deptmts/at/election/results/electarchive/2006/res0605.htm
So under the rules that we have, whoever receives the most votes wins, and if you don’t vote it doesn’t count – so Mr. Bragdon did indeed win the vote from Washington County in that election. But to suggest that Washington County voters are “happy” with Metro or their decisions, I would have to reserve judgement. I don’t think a single Metro councilor candidate would dare canvass my neighborhood (why, I live in an apartment complex), or set up a forum in my neighborhood (hint: there’s a middle school four blocks away) to discuss issues that we feel are important – and transportation is a MAJOR topic in Tualatin.
Does anyone remember the last time a U.S. President won without a majority of votes? Does anyone remember how much “respect” that was given to that President and his policy positions? Metro is in the same vote – the people holding those offices don’t truly represent the majority of eligible voters in their districts. Frankly, if a petition to abolish Metro were offered in a General Election (particularly in 2008) I honestly think that Metro would be on very limited time, because Metro is associated with a lot of bad blood that the suburbs are not happy about – not just with transportation issues (namely, the Convention Center).
With regards to who won the Metro seats – look at any of the election results.
The number of ballots that even marked a vote for any Metro councilor is small compared to measures or the major offices (President, Governor, Senator, Representative, or even Mayor). So to suggest that, for example, “Washington County voters chose overwhelmingly…” – no, that’s not correct. Of those Washington County voters who marked a vote for Metro Councilor, they chose one over another. But of total votes, only a minority spoke.
Case in point: In the May 2006 election (note that Metro councilors aren’t even elected in the general election!), David Bragdon received 42,824 votes and ran unopposed. 41,313 ballots were counted as “undervotes”, or no vote was given. This, in an election that had a 37.74% voter turnout!
http://www.co.washington.or.us/deptmts/at/election/results/electarchive/2006/res0605.htm
So under the rules that we have, whoever receives the most votes wins, and if you don’t vote it doesn’t count – so Mr. Bragdon did indeed win the vote from Washington County in that election. But to suggest that Washington County voters are “happy” with Metro or their decisions, I would have to reserve judgement. I don’t think a single Metro councilor candidate would dare canvass my neighborhood (why, I live in an apartment complex), or set up a forum in my neighborhood (hint: there’s a middle school four blocks away) to discuss issues that we feel are important – and transportation is a MAJOR topic in Tualatin.
Does anyone remember the last time a U.S. President won without a majority of votes? Does anyone remember how much “respect” that was given to that President and his policy positions? Metro is in the same vote – the people holding those offices don’t truly represent the majority of eligible voters in their districts. Frankly, if a petition to abolish Metro were offered in a General Election (particularly in 2008) I honestly think that Metro would be on very limited time, because Metro is associated with a lot of bad blood that the suburbs are not happy about – not just with transportation issues (namely, the Convention Center).
Pretty much all surveys done in Portland or Metro by private, well-respected pollsters confirm the desires for the region represented by Rex, Robert, David, et al.
Here’s one example.
The majority want more transit investments instead of more roads, and two-thirds want more biking, walking, and transit.
Even Gordon Smith supports lightrail…come on you guys, get a life. How do you suggest we select our leaders or set policy? Give it up.
Congestion is the “biggest problem,” for 17% of the population. The other 83% said that congestion wasn’t the biggest problem. For that 83%, is congestion a problem at all?
Terry said:
“by what neutral public poll or public survey having only non-weighted questions is this so called research information backed up by?”
Bingo. If you ask what is the “biggest” problem, you will get a different result than if you ask, “How would you rate each of the following problems?” Education is probably a biggest problem for more people than congestion, but some of those people also have to worry about crime, or affordable housing or any number of other problems, so their vote was split…
“And the majority of people VOTE everyday by driving their cars.”
No, the problem is that they don’t have a choice. Most people, would gladdy bicycle for their short trips if there was a safer way to do so. The problem is that we have built a road network, not a bike network, so those people don’t have a choice. Likewise for public transit, it isn’t as convenient as driving, but people actually do want it to be better. I think the most interesting poll I’ve ever seen was on gasbuddy.com: Would you favor or oppose the government spending more on subway, rail and bus systems? These are drivers, specifically, people that spend enough money on gas to be comparison shopping, not the general population…
People want more bicycling and transit for their neighbor.. so it will free up room on the road for themselves.
Many people are brainwashed on the idea that transit and bike lanes actually reduce congestion.. when, in fact, the opposite is true.
Bike lanes and transit only work if people choose to use them.. and I don’t see that happening any time soon [see any area outside Portland or east of 82nd].
“And the majority of people VOTE everyday by driving their cars.”
And everyone caught in congestion voted to be there so lets stop worrying about them. The got exactly what they voted for.
Erik,
So I guess what you’re saying is that people aren’t concerned enough about congestion in the region to bother to vote in the elections for candidates that can most directly influence how we deal with it. I concur.
Evan Manvel Said: “Pretty much all surveys done in Portland or Metro by private, well-respected pollsters confirm the desires for the region represented by Rex, Robert, David, et al … The majority want more transit investments instead of more roads, and two-thirds want more biking, walking, and transit.”
Here is a sampling of some of the responses of the 2006 Metro Poll Evan had an indirect link to:
Under Quality of Life Issues:
What do you think will be the 3 most key issues facing the region in the next 10 years? Traffic congestion was the second highest response. (Education was first, the economy and jobs was third)
What bothers you the most about the quality of you have in the region? Traffic Congestion/Transportation was the top response.
Under goals: Building roads and highways scored almost twice as high as building light rail extensions.
Under priorities: Building roads and highways scored higher than building light rail extensions.
Under Trends – Planning Goals And Quality Of Life Issues:
Public transit, biking and walking will more and more replace the automobile: The 2006 response was less than 50% in the likely categories in 2006 and down 3 points from 1996.
Congestion on the regions jobs will cost the region new jobs: The response was over 50% in the likely categories.
There will be less congestion on the regions highways: The response was over 80% in the not likely categories.
Transportation to work shopping school etc. will be a bigger part of household budgets: The response was over 80% in the likely categories.
People will drive longer distances to their jobs: Over 75% of the response was in the likely categories.
Under Tradeoffs – Planning Goals And Quality Of Life Issues:
There was also a clear and strong sentiment in the poll that developers should pay to bring public services like water, sewer and roads to their property.
Under demographics:
Over 40% of the respondents lived in suburbia, over 75% of the respondents lived in single family homes and over 60 % of the people classified themselves as either liberal or middle of the road. (slightly higher on the liberal side)
Evan along with Metro, Rex, Robert, David and others can undoubtedly put a spin on these responses to fit their own agenda, and there were some responses in the poll that contradicted each other – however what was very clear from the poll is a reality check of what people do as opposed to what they often say or suggest they support. There is a clear reality check in the poll that roads are favored over light rail which contradicts Metro’s stance on the Columbia Crossing. There was also a clear reality check that respondents feel developers should be paying for road expansion rather than taxpayers. Such a response suggests a development tax to pay for roads instead of a gas or license tax increase. Again, I do not see Metro exploring that alternative while going against the poll by supporting increased taxes on motorists. And finally, there is the question of the likelihood of alternative forms of transport replacing the automobile which had a less than likely response, and down from several years ago. Such an answer demonstrates the need to add road and highway capacity as do the demographics of those polled.
If Metro was so convinced that Mass Transit was the “way to go” then they ought to tear down the parking garage attached to their building and make it into a transit stop.
If Metro had any integrity they would have a public vote.
rex burkholder Additional dollars will help, if they are spent to achieve the outcomes the people desire, which our research shows to be maintenance first, then providing choices including new, non-highway road networks as well as sidewalks/bike lanes/transit followed by expansion of highways to accommodate growth.
JK: You are starting to believe your own BS. Here is the reality:
Question asked: Rate these potential transportation improvements for the Highway 217 corridor.
Answers ranked in order of number of people calling item “very important”:
additional highway lane(s)……….266
interchange improvements……….164
arterial improvements (better north-south access on roads)…….108
transit improvements………………..75
bike and pedestrian trail improvements………46
Note that added lanes beat transit by over 3:1 and they beat bikes by over 5:1. Why does Metro continue to peddle bikes and transit?
Details at: DebunkingPortland.com/Polls/CongestionPolls.htm
Thanks
JK
The reality is that Rex got re-elected with virtually no opposition, and those who elected him expect Metro to build almost anything but roads.
Some of the “road heads” around here need to get out on the street and start running for a seat at Metro, Portland, or whatever. Quit wasting everybody’s time here.
Lenny: They did. They put Tom Cox on the ballot. He lost.
Lenny Said: “The reality is that Rex got re-elected with virtually no opposition.”
The reality is that Rex was able to outspend anyone else in the race by more than 30 to one, spending more per each vote received than did the other candidates.
Terry –
A. What you say sounds like a strong argument in favor of public financing of campaigns, and
B. In the current campaign-funding environment, why did the opponents get more financial support? If the business community, for example, really thought that more and wider freeways was the best way to go for our regional economy, wouldn’t they have thrown their weight behind a credible challenger?
– Bob R.
(Correction to the above – “why did” should read “why didn’t”)
Bob,
Those who opposed Rex and his agenda jumped in the race at the very last minute and did not have any fund raising experience or organizations set up.
Terry –
Sounds like your side will be ready, eager, and organized next time, right?
– Bob R.