High Capacity Transit in Clark County? Oh My!


According to the Daily Journal of Commerce, a committee is looking at long term plans for where high capacity transit would make sense in Clark County.

Through a series of public meetings, the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council will work with a steering committee of policymakers and a citizens’ advisory task force to identify the best high-capacity modes to serve the region’s most-traveled transportation corridors.

The potential for economic development along the travel corridors, the cost of the projects and land-use compatibility will be considered for each of the modes along at least four major corridors: Interstate 5 South, Interstate 205 South, state Route 500 West and state Route 14 West.


32 responses to “High Capacity Transit in Clark County? Oh My!”

  1. FYI, new data out from the Census Bureau shows that Clark County, Washington added 65,343 from 2000 to 2006. Clark County’s population is now 412,938. Only Washington County added more in the metro area, at 65,662. In comparison, Multnomah County only added 19,870 people.

    The bulk of the metro area growth is happening in Washington and Clark Counties, probably because that’s where the jobs and cheap housing are.

    Whether or not that’s good for the metro area as a whole, I’ll leave others to discuss. But given the lack of direct transit/road connections between the two counties, something’s gotta give at some point, one would think.

  2. probably because that’s where the jobs and cheap housing are.

    The housing is cheap in Clark County largely because there are not many jobs there. And land use laws have allowed sprawling, auto-dependent development where the public will now have to pick up the costs of connecting that development to job markets.

    Their choice of “corridors” for potential high capacity transit connections seem to recognize this. They aren’t really focused on improving connections to job centers in Vancouver, they are looking at connections to job centers in Portland.

    But given the lack of direct transit/road connections between the two counties, something’s gotta give at some point, one would think.

    I don’t think a more direct connection is that critical. People aren’t generally choosing houses in Vancouver if they work in Washington County or vice versa. In fact, if the I5 numbers are correct a large percentage of the commuters from Vancouver don’t get as far as downtown Portland. They are working at the airport, in the Columbia Corridor, Marine Drive and Swan Island.

    Clark County, Washington added 65,343 from 2000 to 2006. … Only Washington County added more in the metro area, at 65,662.

    As an aside, does anyone really think the census bureau’s population estimates are accurate enough to distinguish between 65,343 and 65,662? The reality is that their estimates are probably only accurate give or take 10,000 people, if that. Its nice that computers provide these nice precise calculations – but as the saying goes, garbage in garbage out.

  3. Bravo to the RTC…
    Since Interstate MAX opened in 2004, bus bays at the Delta/Vanport station right off I-5 have sat unused by C-Tran. That is set to change this year with the new 4 Fourth Plain and 4 Limited service to MAX at Delta/Vanport.
    The success of the 4 Limited will suggest an option that C-Tran can afford…”BRT Light” in key corridors. But these lines need to connect to MAX on the Washington side in order to get folks thru the bridge bottleneck reliabily. This will come one way or another, sooner or later.
    Extension of MAX once it is into downtown “Couv” and linked to Limited/Express bus service? That’s for the RTC to decide.
    For now the transfer from bus to MAX will be at Delta/Vanpool Station on the Oregon side of the River; eventually it will be somewhere on the Washington side.

  4. I can’t wait until Washington and Clark counties have leapfrogged Multnomah County in population. Maybe then some sensible and down-to earth approaches will come forward.

  5. Agreed…Washington county is in the lead with Commuter Rail while Clark is now getting serious about high capacity transit, with the very popular Mayor Pollard insisting on MAX across the Columbia. Meanwhile Clackamas county will be getting I-205 MAX, the Milwaukie MAX and maybe even Lake Oswego Streetcar. These counties are figuring it out…hang on to your hats.

  6. Clackamas county will be getting I-205 MAX, the Milwaukie MAX and maybe even Lake Oswego Streetcar.

    Lenny –

    Don’t forget that one end of the “Washington County” commuter rail is Wilsonville, which is in Clackamas County. The reality is that the elected leaders in Clackamas County are stronger supporters of alternative transportation than the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners. Portland is used to having the alternative transportation dollars pretty much to themselves, but that is changing.

  7. Ross Williams Says: The housing is cheap in Clark County largely because there are not many jobs there. And land use laws have allowed sprawling, auto-dependent development where the public will now have to pick up the costs of connecting that development to job markets.
    JK: No, Ross, it is not the jobs part, it is low cost land because they don’t have an artificial shortage of land like Metro has given us. Metro’s policies are costing us BILLIONs. The average rent is probably twice what it should be just to pay for these mis-guided policies.

    Ross Williams Says: Their choice of “corridors” for potential high capacity transit connections seem to recognize this.
    JK: High capacity transit? No the fix is in for toy trains, which never carry much more than one lane of traffic, most of whom would be on a bus if it were available instead of the toy train. In Portland MAX removes about 1/4-1/3 of one lane of freeway worth of cars off the adjacent freeway. See DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/RailAttractsDrivers.htm

    Ross Williams Says: They aren’t really focused on improving connections to job centers in Vancouver, they are looking at connections to job centers in Portland.
    JK: The proper solution is for Metro to do its job and free up land for living where the jobs are instead of putting housing in Damascus while the jobs are in Washington county. What idiots.

    Ross Williams Says: In fact, if the I5 numbers are correct a large percentage of the commuters from Vancouver don’t get as far as downtown Portland. They are working at the airport, in the Columbia Corridor, Marine Drive and Swan Island.
    JK: I know one, well informed person who thinks that data is wrong.

    Ross Williams Says: The reality is that their estimates are probably only accurate give or take 10,000 people, if that. Its nice that computers provide these nice precise calculations – but as the saying goes, garbage in garbage out.
    JK: Finally we agree. Remember a few years ago they did a major revision? Also it seems that building permits are a major input to some of these estimates and sometimes a lot of permits don’t get built as markets change suddenly.

    Also apply that to the climate models.

    Thanks
    JK

  8. it is low cost land because they don’t have an artificial shortage of land like Metro has given us.

    Despite what some liberals might think, housing prices are set by the market. The builder or owners of houses in Clark County sell them for the highest price they can get, regardless of what it cost them to build or buy it. The reason houses are cheaper in Clark County is that they are less desirable. In part because of its land use laws, Oregon is a more desirable place to live.

  9. The reason houses are cheaper in Clark County is that they are less desirable. In part because of its land use laws, Oregon is a more desirable place to live.

    Um, Oregon is more desirable than Washington? Based on what facts?

    Washington has more residents than Oregon.

    Seattle has more residents than Portland.

    The Seattle area has more Fortune 500 companies than Oregon (which has a measly ONE – Nike.)

    Sea-Tac offers more flights than PDX does, including international flights (which for awhile PDX had NONE.)

    Washington has Spokane. We have…um…Pendleton? Burns? Baker City?

    What land use laws make Oregon so much more desirable? It has helped to artificially inflate the value of homes in the Portland metro area – so that homes in Vancouver (which are unaffected by Metro’s “planning”) are less expensive. Why is Hewlett-Packard in Camas and not in Portland? Why do many PDX employees (who are often low-wage service industry jobs) live in Vancouver? The “quality of life” is exactly the same in Vancouver and Portland, except that Vancouver doesn’t have MAX. Both have access to the same colleges, the same recreational opportunities, and there are plenty of very nice Columbia River frontage homes that are in the multi-million range – in VANCOUVER. (Thanks to Oregon, they get a nice view of PDX.)

    Sure, there are little differences here and there; but not unlike what you find in some Portland suburbs and in East Portland. Oh, and Clark County PUD’s electric rates are much less than PGE and Pacific Power.

    The only thing that keeps Clark County from being larger is that most of the jobs are still in Portland, and Clark County residents are still subject to Oregon income tax (albeit at non-residential brackets); and Oregon is without a sales tax (making it more business friendly to be in Oregon compared to Vancouver). When Oregon gets a sales tax, you can bet that any disadvantage given to Vancouver will disappear.

  10. yea, well put ross. its really just about that simple. homes sell for the value that the market determines.

    people are willing to pay more to live in portland then vancouver. why? cause more people with more money want to live there. i’ll define that as “desireable”.

  11. Jim Karlock, if land is so much cheaper in Clark Co., why don’t more businesses move there (and not just people)? And presumably their tax burden is lower too, so you’d think businesses would be moving hand over fist to Washington, right? Why isn’t it happening?

    “I know one, well informed person who thinks that data is wrong.”

    Source, please.

  12. people are willing to pay more to live in portland then vancouver. why?

    That is an interesting question. As is the question of why if Vancouver is so much cheaper and better more people don’t move there. But the truth is that Portland is a very desirable place to live. People from all over the country are choosing it even when they don’t have a job.

    But that is bringing changes, not all of them positive. And some longtime residents resent those changes. And some of those have concluded its Metro and the planners “fault” that those changes are occurring. Others have concluded it is the “fault” of all those lycra clad newcomers. But whoever you blame, the reality is that they are missing (or resenting) the tremendous energy that Portland has right now.

    That energy is driven in part by the willingness of the region to consider new approaches and create a new kind of city. Some of those new approaches are bound to either fail or produce results different than anticipated. But it is that energy that is driving the Portland economy. People whose creative abilities can produce the best, most highly advanced computer chips in the world are not going to settle for a city that is any less creative. They will move away and Intel will move with them.

  13. What Ross said is very true… For instance, I was talking to someone a few months ago that wanted me to come interview with them, and I was interested until they mentioned the job was in Vancouver, at which point I said that I wasn’t, because the only way to get there was to drive, and I’d rather not… And their response was: “We know. You aren’t the only person that says that. We are going to open up a NE Portland office soon, should I call you again when we do?” (Now, admittingly, that company is a engineering design firm, so their employees are probably more likely to worry about that sort of thing than most, but still…)

    For a median income family with the standard possessions/needs, the difference in total taxes/fees/etc between living [and working] in Vancouver and vs Portland works out to ~$150 a year, (Vancouver is cheaper.) And when I look at what I get for that extra $150, it is pretty obvious choice…

  14. Instead of building the I-5 bridge maybe they should instead build the western freeway – start it at Salem and connect McMinnville, Hillsboro, over the hill and into Vancouver. Then all traffic can completely bypass Portland and the Portlanders can ride their bikes and toy trains, tear out all the freeways and not be inconvenienced by those dang Clark County and Washington County people!

  15. LOL. How much will that cost, Greg? Those farmers want a freeway running over their land? How about the EIS on that puppy? Where are you going to build the third bridge?

  16. They’ll need something….. The farmers won’t care because they can sell out. Farming isn’t profitable, especially in this anti-farming, anti-business state of Oregon! Everywhere out in the Orenco/Quatama areas were farmland just 5-10 years ago. The area is exploding whether the anti-growth people like it or not. They’ll eventually have to accomodate it.

  17. I have seen a lot of change in Vancouver’s westside over the last 8 years. I now see a lot of Portlanders living over here.

    One thing that pushed up the pace of this migration was the whole schools crisis in Portland and the continued doubt about inner city schools. Perhaps with OR’s rainy day fund this will change.

    I wish our regional goverrnments could take 20% of what they are going to spend on the I-5 bridge and just do a very robust jobs to housing match. Set up a jobs and housing bank so that folks do not have to cross the bridge unless they want to.

    Tolls also to get the SOVs off the bridge for better freight access.

  18. One thing that pushed up the pace of this migration was the whole schools crisis in Portland and the continued doubt about inner city schools. Perhaps with OR’s rainy day fund this will change.

    I think this hits the nail on the head. The largest danger to Portland’s continued economic vitality has nothing to do with transportation. Its the education system. From bottom to top, that is where the investments will bring the greatest return.

    There needs to be more early childhood education programs that make sure every kid has the skills to learn so teachers can concentrate on teaching instead of discipline. There needs to be an increase in technology in the schools. Its ironic that Oregon, where the most advanced chips in the world are created, ranks toward the bottom of states for computer access in classrooms. And there needs to be the investment to make PSU a world class university.

    Until those investments are in place, six billion dollar bridges shouldn’t even be under discussion. Its time to realize the critical infrastructure of the 21st century is human capital, not poured concrete.

  19. I want letting you know that I endorsed Federal Transit Administration, so I want making a Transportation & Transit Address for SW Washington and Northwest Oregon. In the lack of transit agenices are not cooperating with me and others in regard of transit and transportation addresses.

    THey are not cooperating about articulated buses, Heavy Rail, Delta Park/Vanport Station, and other issues. Most of Riders do not appreciate with TRIMET’s bus route number 6, so they must split route at Delta Park/Vanport Station.

    They are not interesting in me as well as I do deepest unfit in these transit providers along with SW Washington/Oregon resident. Most unfitting that I do not want riding in public transit buses with these transit agencies are not welcoming or inviting to me in their tourist rail & bus maintenances and barns. Thank, smile.

  20. Ross Williams Says:

    [regarding migration to Clark Co]

    I think this hits the nail on the head. The largest danger to Portland’s continued economic vitality has nothing to do with transportation. Its the education system. From bottom to top, that is where the investments will bring the greatest return.

    Bob T:

    You might also ask those families if they wanted
    yards for their kids not only play in, but to be safe in. Portland loses families to
    Washington and Clackamas Counties, as well as Clark County, for reasons such as that. You may not want to admit it, but facts are stubborn things. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

    Bob Tiernan

  21. Portland loses families to
    Washington and Clackamas Counties, as well as Clark County, for reasons such as that.

    There are no doubt all sorts of reasons people choose to live where they do. The fact is home prices are higher the more people want to live someplace. And home prices are highest in Portland.

  22. Bob T:

    Portland loses families to Washington and Clackamas Counties, as well as Clark County,
    for reasons such as that.

    Ross Williams:

    There are no doubt all sorts of reasons people choose to live where they do. The fact is home prices are higher the more people want to live someplace. And home prices are highest in Portland.

    Bob T:

    Are you admitting that land squeeze plays a role
    in prices? Portland is SOL when it comes to adding more land, so the “planners” have to try to mandate building up, or squeezing. Goodbye
    traditional yards when the establishment wants to shoehorn more residents so they, and not a smaller
    town, can get their taxes. Just the same, yards go away for the “shared” parks. Many parents would rather have a safer play area. Do you blame them? Hence the migration and then the Portland establishment moaning as if Portland owns those families.

    Bob Tiernan

  23. Regarding home prices: this a simple, uncomplicated economics issue. What the housing market will bear is what prices will be; as is the same in any industry. Whether or not there’s an urban growth boundry creating a “shortage of land” is completely irrelevent, what matters is what the market is willing to pay. If a market finds that consumers are no longer willing to pay a certain amount for the good (a home) and the associated perceived benefits from purchasing said good, demand will drop and prices will subsequently drop also.

    Prices are not cheaper in Vancouver because there are “safe yards” or “more land,” it is because there is a greater market demand in Portland. I am not, however, saying that Portland is a better place to live. What I am saying is prices are cheaper in Vancouver because there are more people who are willing to pay a higher price to purchase a home in Portland based on the quality of life the consumer percieves they will get by buying a home in Portland as opposed to Vancouver. As long there is a segment of the consumer market looking and willing to pay for the quality of life that they feel Portland offers them, demand will be higher and prices will be more. If dense living and “shoehorning” residents onto smaller plots of land is not tolerable to homebuyers, demand will drop, supply will increase, and prices will fall.

    Yes, real estate is affected by urban planning decisions, but ultimately the consumer market will ALWAYS dictate the price of a home.

  24. Dan –

    Well put.

    I would disagree on one point. Urban planning decisions do cause the price of homes in Portland to be higher, by making it a better, more desirable place to live. People who disagree with that can and do move to rural Clark County.

  25. Whether or not there’s an urban growth boundry creating a “shortage of land” is completely irrelevent, what matters is what the market is willing to pay.

    Economics requires two things:

    1. Supply.

    2. Demand.

    Increased demand coupled with decreased supply creates higher prices.

    A restrictive urban growth boundary reduces supply of buildable land; excessive laws that restrict in-fill does the same thing.

    Add to that unfair government subsidies to developers that literally give away the land that is available to developers who insist on building high-cost housing rather than affordable housing, which creates higher prices.

    Vancouver has no urban growth boundary, plenty of land (and plenty of construction), and does not subsidize housing to the same extent as Portland. So economics dictate that housing prices are lower because there is more supply to meet demand.

  26. Erik Says:
    “unfair government subsidies to developers […] which creates higher prices.”

    I think developers build what is most profitable, which is why they build high cost housing instead of low cost housing, they can sell it for more… Given that they, (in the end,) have to sell it, (cause if they don’t, it doesn’t matter what they make, they’d still lose money,) so it isn’t like there aren’t people that are interested in high cost housing…

    However, I think your argument is an interesting one. By the same logic, giving people food stamps would make food so expensive that people would starve. Clearly we should eliminate the program, not only does it cost a bunch of money, but it makes the problem worse.

  27. Dan Callaway:

    Prices are not cheaper in Vancouver because there are “safe yards” or “more land,” it is because there is a greater market demand in Portland.

    Bob T:

    Never said that the land was cheaper because of
    those two things (among others) — but they have a
    lot to do with why Portland is losing families and
    thus kids for “their” schools, etc.

    Bob Tiernan

  28. Chris: Is there anyway to prevent the double/triple/quadruple posts? Like look to see if the same person has written the exact same thing before?

  29. “Economics requires two things:

    1. Supply.

    2. Demand.

    Increased demand coupled with decreased supply creates higher prices.”

    I don’t think there is any real doubt that the cost of land within the UGB and in Clark County are at least a little higher than they would be if you could build outside the UGB on the Oregon side. But that has nothing to do with Vancouver versus Portland housing prices which are set in the marketplace.

  30. Is there anyway to prevent the double/triple/quadruple posts?

    I think people are hitting refresh because they are not seeing their comment appear after they hit submit.

    A better approach is to go back to the home page and re-click on the link to the thread. In most cases, I think you’ll find your comment is there.

  31. By the same logic, giving people food stamps would make food so expensive that people would starve. Clearly we should eliminate the program, not only does it cost a bunch of money, but it makes the problem worse.

    Comparing food stamps and subsidies to developers aren’t the same:

    A subsidy to the developer is:

    1. A direct payout to the developer to build.
    2. A handout of land below cost (or free), whereas the market could support the sale of the property for a high price (i.e. the South Waterfront).
    3. Tax credits, so that the developer is exempt from taxes or receives a deferral so as to not pay taxes.

    Food stamps do none of the above – food stamps are not a payout to the food producer, nor does the producer receive anything except payment – the same payment that they would receive from someone who uses cash instead of food stamps.

    Now if we want to argue that we shouldn’t subsidize the “poor” that is an entirely different argument. Maybe if NOBODY got a subsidy (rich or poor), every developer was fully required to pay for their infrastructure (including new schools, police/fire stations, etc., that would not have been necessary without the development), and we allowed the market to set the prices without government interference, then we would see the true value of housing.

    We would also see a lot less out-of-staters purchasing second/third/fourth/fifth/sixth/etc. “investment properties” that are raising rental prices, and by equal enforcement of immigration laws there would be no “illegals”. The demand would immediately go down (because government is propping up demand and reduced supply), there would be greater manufacturing jobs (because of the educated nature of the remaining citizens but the lack of a need for a high service industry), and the transportation infrastructure would have time to be renewed without a discussion on how to expand it – because there would be a population drop.

    Sure, “individual wealth” would go down, because fewer people would own large amounts of real estate – but more individuals would own real estate and more individuals would be owners. IIRC, Portland’s percentage of owner-occupied housing units is less than 50% – which means more than half of Portland metro residents RENT. That means that people are more mobile – and can more easily take their money and jobs elsewhere if needed.

Leave a Reply to Lenny Anderson Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *