Ron Buel on CRC


Ron (who has a storied history of civic involvement in Portland, including being a leader in Riverfront for People) has a nice opinion piece yesterday’s O about changing the direction of the Columbia River Crossing project.


38 responses to “Ron Buel on CRC”

  1. Ron has identfied that this proposed very high, football field wide bridge is our of place and out of step with the needs of our region.

    It induces more traffic into the I-5 corridor destroying what ever balance we could with all of the interconnectioning freeways and arterials.

    It as Ron suggests just moves the road blocks of congestion further to the south to where as he suggests it makes the environmental and emissions problems even worse on the core of the people of Portland and all stakeholders caught in ever increasing congestion.

    The CRC Task Force recommendations don’t solve anything and as Ron suggests, it just takes away any money that could be used to solve the problems that kill people and businesses alike.

  2. I think what is clear is that the CRC process is unlikely to produce a solution. Ron’s point that the outcome will be the “no-build” option is only slightly off, the real result will be worse. It will be a “do-nothing” option.

    As with the Mt. Hood freeway and the Western Bypass, the decision will be made to add the bridge to the region’s transportation plan, foreclosing any immediate discussion of other, more realistic, approaches for at least a decade. Light rail, improved bus transit, HOV lanes, congestion pricing, a local arterial bridge, land use changes in Vancouver and any other responsible solutions will be put on hold.

    Its going to be a rough ride for the elected officials, with a lot of finger-pointing along the way. There is going to be a lot of passive aggressive political behavior that keeps this project on the back burner. Eventually, as happened with Barbara Roberts and the bypass, an elected official will have the courage to openly say no and break the logjam to allow new solutions to be considered.

    In the meantime several million dollars in transportation funds will have been spent producing a nice report to sit on people’s shelves. Or maybe just in pdf format on people’s computers. That, at least, is an improvement.

  3. The number one fatal flaw of the big bridge proposal is the cost of 3 to 6 billion dollars, and second, who will pay for it. Broken down, the costs equate to one to two billion dollars for the roadway crossing, one to two billion dollars for the light rail component of the crossing, and one to two billion dollars for supporting infrastructure, aesthetics and so called environmental justice associated with the project on both sides of the river. To pay for the project, the expectation is that the Federal government will cover in the range of 60 to 80 percent of the highway costs and probably less of a percentage for the transit as compared to highway costs. Beyond that, the CRC expects to charge motorist only tolls and possibly other motorist charges like congestion pricing to cover the balance of the costs. This mindset creates the second major flaw, that being the expectation that motorists should pay for the local match for all modes of transport. If crossing users of one mode of transport are expected directly to contribute funds to the crossing project, then the users of all modes including transit passengers, bicyclists and pedestrians must also contribute funding and pay tolls or other charges towards the crossing project.

    The third major flaw with the big bridge proposal is it dismisses use of the existing bridges and aspires to take them down. Given opposition to their removal and the price tag for the big bridge proposal, in addition to the CRC moving forward the big bridge option into the DEIS study, the 4th Alternative Task Force was established to find an alternative that would presumably cost less and maximize the usage of the existing bridges. So far this group has met twice with one more meeting scheduled. However, unless there is a change in direction, any proposed task force proposes will also be flawed. First, the proposal assumes the same mindset for local match funding as the big bridge proposal, possibly charging motorists even more. The only real compromises being made are to highway vehicle capacity, not the rest of the project. Although the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure costs have been reduced by recommending using the existing bridges with a proposed sidewalk treatment proposed similar to what was done on the Hawthorne Bridge, the transit component remains the same as the big bridge proposal with no reduction in costs. That is major flaw number four. A compromise fourth alternative must include all modes of transport making compromise. All aspects of the project, including amenities like Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard’s demands to cover the freeway must also be considered for compromise. For a transit compromise, that means that transit must either share the right-of-way with other modes on the crossing, or be realigned to use space on the existing bridges such as one lane in each direction. The latter option would probably also require relocating the lift span on the railroad bridge to accommodate river traffic which would also reduce lifts on the highway bridges.

    With the transit option being relocated to the existing bridges, the three I-5 through lanes in each direction could then occupy a new structure eliminating the majority of safety issues with freeway travel on the existing bridges in addition to maximizing the Federal dollar contribution for any new crossing structure. The remaining two lanes on each direction on the existing bridges would become a distributor-collector roadway with local access for Hayden Island, and for the northbound interchange connections to I-5 and SR14, eliminating the interchange issues on Hayden Island itself. The total footprint on the landscape should be no greater then the big bridge option.

    The straw that will probably break the camels back is that government must live within its means. Until the 4th Alternative Task Force and the CRC actually comes up with a true compromise alternative similar to the above suggestion, one that is free from a socially engineered mindset method for local match funding, any option could very well be DOA (Dead On Arrival) with the public.

  4. Big O: This proposal just moves the bottleneck and congestion a few miles down the freeway, as happened with the recent widening of the Sunset Highway.
    JK: What Sunset Highway are you talking of? The one I occasionally use to go the Hillsboro is uncongested all the way out now. If congestion does develop, that just indicates demand in excess of supply and the need for more supply. If you mean the inbound Sunset, then that simply shows the need for more road capacity in downtown. PS: Metro should strive to put housing where the jobs are, not housing in Damascus and jobs in Hillsboro.

    Big O: We should pay attention to the Washington County officials who are in the process of building a commuter railroad between Wilsonville and Beaverton.
    JK: A commuter railroad that is so economically wasteful, that it required a special act of congress to get money for it.

    Big O: And we shouldn’t ignore the Portland city commissioners who voted unanimously last year to include in the Central City Plan update a proposal to bury the east bank of Interstate 5.
    JK: That will provide more land for Homer’s holes to replace family wage jobs.

    Big O:We also shouldn’t marginalize those warning about global warming,
    JK: The more we find out – the less warming should worry us. For instance Al is hyping a 20 ft ocean rise, but the IPCC (UN report) says around 20 INCHES. Latest science shows that CO2 does not start warming cycles and CO2 is not the most significant green house gas anyway – water vapor is. And the peer review process is suspect in the case of the global warming papers because they all come from a small group of “scientists” who peer review each other’s papers (see the Wagman report)

    Big O: who are asking just exactly why we would build a bridge for 170,000 vehicle trips a day in 20 years, beyond the 120,000 trips we have today.
    JK: People living their daily lives to earn a living and have a little fun. What is wrong with that?

    Big O: And we should think carefully about what “peak oil” experts are saying, with their clearly realistic questions about the cost of highway travel 20 years from now.
    JK: This guy shows his lack of historical knowledge. The running out of oil crap comes up every few years. We have been running out of oil for the last 100 years. The basis is fairly simple: when you have a twenty year supply of something, you don’t look very hard for more. But if oil should someday run out, we can make it, like Hitler did 60 years ago.

    Big O: They insist that mass transit can carry 50,000 new daily trips — and can do so much more cost-effectively than can a big new bridge.
    JK: Transit currently costs several times what driving costs, why does this guy think that will suddenly change? See DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit.htm The way to keep the cost down is to eliminate the $100 million bike lanes and the, likely, billion dollar transit option and let transit share the road with ordinary drivers.

    Big O: Getting passenger commuter vehicles off the roads is the best way to serve the less than 10 percent of the bridge trips that involve freight today.
    JK: That will only make their commute times longer (transit is usually slower than an uncongested road). Why would we want to keep people away from their families longer?

    Big O: Well, you don’t see a Mount Hood Freeway or a Westside Bypass, do you?
    JK: No, instead we got some of the nation’s worst increase in traffic congestion. Had we built those two roads, we probably would have little congestion today.

    Big O: We cannot solve our congestion problems by building our way out of them.
    JK: Then why do you suggest building transit? As population increase, we build more water lines, sewer lines, electric lines and phone, why not more roads too? As to money, if we hadn’t wasted 2 BILLION on toy trains, we would have enough money to mostly solve our congestion problem. Of course the solution is not a 6 BILLION mega-pork project whose only purpose is to push light rail, the most wasteful transit of all, across the river. The real Columbia River Crossing solution is something along the lines of a series of smaller bridges, like across the Willamette.

    Thanks
    JK

  5. Consider the automobile a “Constitutional Inequity”. Their presence is a severe impediment to other means of travel. Walking and biycling are too dangerous where hoards of speeding automobiles maraude through neighborhoods and commercial districts. Mass transit is too difficult to arrange where automobile-oriented development (sprawl and strip mall) divide home from all other activity.

    It doesn’t matter how road and highway construction is funded. If those funds are directed solely to travel by one means that dominates the others, we have a Constitutional Inequity.

    Our skyrocketing cost of living is entirely related to our dependency upon long-distance travel and transport. Sooner or later, the US economy won’t be able support what today we take for granted. The only way to reduce the cost of living is to drive less.

    JK can go on driving until arriving with some new gross injustice to defend.

  6. jk claims bike lanes are a waste of money, but his suggestions allow and encourage the increased use of a mode of transportation that is a colossal waste of resources. 3,000+ lbs of metal, glass, and petroleum products, plus gas, to move one (1) human being.

    jk: transit is usually slower than an uncongested road

    n: we can’t all drive AND have uncongested roads. it’s just not economically feasible.

  7. This “You can’t build your way out of congestion. Yes, you can!” debate is getting stale. The reality is that most of us who don’t think you can, don’t think you should even if you can. The reality is that the costs are just too high in terms of money, but even more importantly in terms of what kind of community results from the attempt.

    All people need to do is go to small towns where highways have been widened through the center to accommodate traffic. The sidewalks have been narrowed, on-street parking has been eliminated and oceans of parking lots have been created to try to entice some businesses to stay in town. The people who live there drive everywhere, even to get across the street, because it is neither safe nor pleasant to cross the huge wide streets without an automobile surrounding you.

    So enogh with the “We can build our way out of congestion.” I don’t think you can, but it doesn’t matter. You shouldn’t.

    The same is true for whether the region can afford a huge new bridge. Even if it can, it shouldn’t. It will make Portland a worse place to live and do business. As Ron Buel points out, the larger reality is the region won’t afford it. There are just too many other places people would like to see that money spent if its available. Its time to shut down the CRC and admit its purpose, the shepherding of a bridge replacement project through a public process, was ill-conceived.

  8. Ross,
    That was, quite simply, an excellent post. You could not have capture my thoughts more accurately or concisely on each point you made. Well done!

    Thanks
    J_A_

  9. All people need to do is go to small towns where highways have been widened through the center to accommodate traffic. The sidewalks have been narrowed, on-street parking has been eliminated and oceans of parking lots have been created to try to entice some businesses to stay in town.

    And one of those small towns would be…

    I’ll name some examples of the OPPOSITE:

    1. Scappose. Highway 30 was widened; a new park was built between the highway and the railroad tracks; new parking lanes (not parking lots) and sidewalks were built; several traffic lights were installed to allow for safe crossing of the highway – including at least one school crossing. The speed limit is 30 MPH.

    2. Newberg. Southbound 99W was widened to three lanes; northbound 99W was “beautified”; new crosswalks and traffic signals were installed; and the downtown area is busier than ever before. 15 years ago, the place had as many vacancies as occupied buildings; today there are a variety of new businesses from River Street to Main Street; and new buildings have been constructed along Hancock (southbound/westbound 99W).

    3. Depoe Bay. Need I say any more?

    Now if anyone wants to claim that Portland (metro area) is a pedestrian friendly community, should I count the number of times I’ve been a near-hit by a vehicle while I cross the street to get to a bus stop? Never mind that Oregon has one of the most illogical pedestrian crosswalk rules – just how many drivers can accurately judge a distance of SIX FEET between the car and the pedestrian to judge when it is safe to cross?

    I’ve been to Los Angeles (on the bus and rail systems, and accordingly as a pedestrian) – and I can say, 100% of the time – I had my half of the street to myself. Not one car was even part-way in the intersection when I was in the crosswalk – they were behind their stopline/crosswalk. Such is the exception, not the rule, in “pedestrian-friendly Portland”.

  10. Ross Williams Says: This “You can’t build your way out of congestion. Yes, you can!” debate is getting stale. The reality is that most of us who don’t think you can, don’t think you should even if you can.
    JK: But most people aren’t part of the modern Luddite movement. The reality is that we quit building roads years ago and just ignored the increase in population.

    Ross Williams Says: The reality is that the costs are just too high in terms of money,
    JK: You are forgetting that roads cost less than transit. Or are you suggesting that people should be locked up at home?

    Ross Williams Says: but even more importantly in terms of what kind of community results from the attempt.
    JK: Solving congestion will improve everyone’s life – why do you think otherwise? Or are you wishing to turn back the clock 100 years to 1900? When people died of cut fingers. There were no motor vehicles to rush people to trauma centers? And the streets were full of horse sh*t.

    Ross Williams Says: So enogh with the “We can build our way out of congestion.” I don’t think you can, but it doesn’t matter. You shouldn’t.
    JK: You can and we can afford it. For instance that $2 Billion we wasted on the toy train would have built between 66 and 400 lane-miles of road. Almost certainly enough to not have a congestion problem today.

    Ross Williams Says: The same is true for whether the region can afford a huge new bridge. Even if it can, it shouldn’t.
    JK: Right for once, but for the wrong reason. The better solution is a series of smaller bridges, like those across the Willamette. Probably would cost ½ Billion or less each.

    Ross Williams Says: It will make Portland a worse place to live and do business.
    JK: Worse? Only to the extent that they build light rail. Aside from that any measure that really reduces congestion will make everyone’s life better.

    Ross Williams Says: Its time to shut down the CRC and admit its purpose, the shepherding of a bridge replacement project through a public process, was ill-conceived.
    JK: The real problem with the CRC is that they weren’t really formed to relieve congestion – their main purpose was to get wasteful light rail across the river and be paid for by automobile users.

    Thanks
    JK

  11. JK,
    That was, quite simply, an excellent post. You could not have capture my thoughts more accurately or concisely on each point you made. Well done!

    Thanks
    JK
    End of parody

  12. [personally directed comment removed – we don’t question people’s motives here – still to the policy]

  13. The reality is that we quit building roads years ago

    Not hardly. Oregon is generating more money than ever from the gas tax and all of it gets spent building (or rebuilding) roads.

  14. Oregon is generating more money than ever from the gas tax and all of it gets spent building (or rebuilding) roads.

    Ross, that’s a little over the top. The absolute dollars may be higher, but the spending power is declining, and in fact the totalality of state gas tax revenue is insufficient to maintain the roads the state is responsible for.

    The fact that ODOT continues to build new lane miles despite this just means the maintenance backlog gets worse every year.

  15. “The fact that ODOT continues to build new lane miles despite this just means the maintenance backlog gets worse every year.”

    Let’s not forget that the OTIA bond payments begin in a year or two, further reducing funds.

  16. the absolute dollars may be higher, but the spending power is declining,

    Actually, I don’t think even that is true if by “spending power” you mean inflation. The problem is the increasing immediate need for maintenance that has built up over the years.

    the totalality of state gas tax revenue is insufficient to maintain the roads the state is responsible for.

    That is correct, as I have pointed out here repeatedly. But the reason for that appears to be the increasing cost of maintaining an aging and expanding road system. The money that should have been set aside to pay those expected costs was spent on new road facilities instead.

    The fact that ODOT continues to build new lane miles despite this just means the maintenance backlog gets worse every year.

    I think it is a mistake to see this as just a backlog. Part of the reason that there is not enough money is that the bill is coming due from past deferred maintenance. Roads that were not properly maintained are now needing additional maintenance and will eventually have to be rebuilt.

    The fact that continuing to defer maintenance off into the future means the problem will only get worse. And it does not appear that Oregonians are willing to pay the real cost of the road network it has, much less continuing to expand it.

    That said, Oregon still continues to spend far more on roads than all the other modes of transportation combined. Which was the point.

  17. Ok, just to double check here is it true that the new bridge is building 6 lanes in each direction or just six lanes (to replace the current bridges)? There’s an article in the Daily Journal of Commerce that says it’s only 3 lanes in each direction-the same as is there now. The CRC website say five to six lanes for cars, bicycles and pedestrians (which implies three to four for cars, maybe and two for bicycles and pedestrians). SO, is it five to six new lanes for cars or for the other stuff? I just want to know which is it?

    WHO AM I TO BELIEVE HERE?!
    WILL SOMEONE TELL ME! PLEASE!?

  18. Just an apology for derailing the discussion, I just want to be sure there’s a reason for -most- of the posters here to be upset.
    (If what I read is true, then Mr. Karlok will undoubtedly be pretty steamed.)

  19. The fact that ODOT continues to build new lane miles despite this just means the maintenance backlog gets worse every year.

    Just where are all of these ODOT funded new lane-miles?

    I can count the Sunset Highway (Sylvan-Cornell), and I-84 in the Wood Village area.

    I can also count the Bend Parkway (U.S. 20/97) which is a bit outside of the metro area.

    The Highway 47 bypass, although a state highway, was funded by Washington County – not the state. Sunnybrook was funded by Clackamas County. Roy Rogers was funded by Washington County. I don’t think there have been any new roads in Multnomah County in a long time. I-5 hasn’t been widened in years; I-84 was widened (I-5 to I-205) in 1986 – the same year MAX was built within the same right-of-way.

    So…where are all of these lane-miles? And don’t count the third lane on I-5 northbound through Delta Park, that was accomplished without construction (by re-striping the lanes and “removing” the shoulder.)

  20. That said, Oregon still continues to spend far more on roads than all the other modes of transportation combined. Which was the point.

    Yes, and Oregon still travels mostly by automobiles.

    Is it fair to tax motorists to provide busses and MAX? Then why don’t, as Terry Parker often suggests, we tax bikes to fund highway improvements (which offers a benefit in the form of safer routes for bikes?) Or tax running shoes to provide better drainage on highways (which would also include sidewalks)?

  21. Is it fair to tax motorists to provide busses and MAX?

    Yes, people have to pay taxes whether they are motorists or not. But the gas tax and other motor vehicle related taxes are constitutionally dedicated to roads.

    Joe Blow –

    The bridge has grown to 5 to 6 lanes in each direction. The claim is that I5 will only be “three through lanes” since north of SR500 in Clark County it will only be three lanes and south of Delta Park it will only be three lanes – two at the Rose Quarter.

  22. Speaking of taxes, Tri-Met is funded through a business excise tax, not the gas tax. Still, I’ll repeat my point, “It doesn’t matter how road and highway construction is funded. Because those funds are directed solely to travel by one mode that dominates the others, we have a Constitutional Inequity.” Noboby wants to handle this hot potato?

    I visited LA in December via Amtrak and local transit. I found LA proper and cities in the area to be difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists. The most convenient, comfortable, reliable and effectively patronized transit were the light rail lines. The bus lines did not seem to be organized very well. Too many in some places, too few elsewhere. LA dedicates far too much land area to automobiles.

  23. “complete with its gigantic earthquake-proof construction”

    Is Ron Buel actually criticizing the notion that any new bridge should be built to modern seismic standards? He loses a lot of credibility with statements like that, IMO. That’s about as smart an idea as not getting flood insurance for your riverfront house.

  24. Ron Buel’s seismic comment deserves some explanation. Of course any new bridge will be built to current seismic standards.

    The problem comes when the seismic vulnerability of the current bridges is used to justify a new bridge, without concern for the benefit-cost ratio and without considering alternatives.

    For example, it is much cheaper to build a parallel new local access bridge than to replace the I-5 bridges. Such a new bridge would provide emergency alternative access in the event of an earthquake. There is also the question of priorities. The new Sauvie Island bridge will meet current seismic requirements, but none of the other Willamette River bridges does. The I-205 bridge is probably the closest to meeting standards. So where should the money be spent? On a replacement I-5 bridge? The Hawthorne? The Sellwood?

    Incidentally, flood insurance is subsidized. If it were not, it too might not be worth the cost.

  25. Yes, people have to pay taxes whether they are motorists or not. But the gas tax and other motor vehicle related taxes are constitutionally dedicated to roads.

    Speaking of taxes, Tri-Met is funded through a business excise tax, not the gas tax.

    Um, the OREGON gas tax is constitutionally dedicated to highways.

    20% of the FEDERAL gas tax funds mass transit projects.

    So of the 18.whatever cents you pay in federal gas tax, 3.6 cents of it goes to pay for mass transit projects like MAX. Don’t anyone dare tell me that TriMet is not a federal grant recipient… In FY 2006, $56.9M in federal funds went to TriMet – where did that money come from?

    The gas tax…

  26. So, what Eric is saying is that the Oregon gas tax is a constitutional inequity. Who knows how many of the federal hoops that local transit agencies have to jump through for federal funding could be avoided, were it not for state “constitutional inequity” for how gas taxes are distributed. Oh well, I guess the people of Oregon are too wimpy to challenge an unjust constitutional inequity.

  27. The gas tax isn’t fair, let me give you an example: Amtrak paid about $50M in gas taxes last year, for fuel that they burned in locomotives. Locomotives don’t drive on streets, but most of the money was spent on roads anyways. (Jet fuel taxes are at least typically directed back towards airports, they closed that hole, but there are still a lot of other ones…) When you count up all the money that was collected from people that aren’t actually road users, it more than pays for the money that is “diverted to mas transit.”

  28. Amtrak paid about $50M in gas taxes last year, for fuel that they burned in locomotives.

    Uh, state your source…

    According to IRS Publication 510, any use of diesel fuel in a train/locomotive is NOT TAXABLE.

    Further, Amtrak is generally exempt from taxes (see 49 CFR 24301(k).)

  29. So, what Eric is saying is that the Oregon gas tax is a constitutional inequity.

    And how so?

    That people who use the highways should rest knowing that their taxes are going to the infrastructure that they use?

    That the gas tax is not squandered on some project that is sold on the belief that it will reduce congestion; but turns out to make an insignificant contribution?

    Maybe we should make TriMet riders (or mass transit riders anywhere) pay the full cost of their service – AND, TriMet should be forced to pay property taxes, diesel fuel tax, etc.?

    Now I don’t believe that TriMet should have to pay all the taxes (since they are a government entity, albeit undemocratic) but the money that TriMet receives is money that isn’t going towards schools, law enforcement, etc.; from the federal gas tax it’s money that isn’t going towards maintaining the roads used by the people that pay the tax; and it forces us into a discussion on how to avoid providing services that the public demands and wants.

    If the gas tax being 100% dedicated to highways is inequitable, then maybe all passenger fares on public transit should have a 25 cent surcharge to pay for roads – after all, those roads have to support busses, and busses do cause road damage (anyone who doesn’t believe me – try to use the left-turn lanes on N.W. Cornell Road at 158th Avenue.)

  30. My point is that the automobile presents a serious impediment to other means of travel. You want to walk more often, more often than not the distances are too far or the crosswalks too dangerous, the sidewalks or walkways incomplete. You want to bike, you risk your life. You want mass transit, development patterns that cater to cars makes mass transit too impractical to arrange. You have no choice, no liberty, no freedom. Say it with me now, “Constitutional Inequity.” Not just any doofus jerkwad can get elected president man-handling that concept.

  31. Wells Said: “Consider the automobile a “Constitutional Inequity”.

    But fails to consider the freeloading funds from the taxes and fees assessed to motorists that pay for bicycle infrastructure as a not only a “Constitutional Inequity”, but a “financial inequity”. The same is true when transit approximately 80% of transit service costs are financed by taxpayers rethere than being charged the ridership.

    Ross said: “You can’t build your way out of congestion”.

    This over used sound bite can also be modified to read; This “You can’t build your way out of congestion with transit alternatives” or “You can’t build your way out of congestion by building bike lanes”

    Ross also said: “The same is true for whether the region can afford a huge new bridge. Even if it can, it shouldn’t.”

    One third of the of the three to six million dollar price tag for the big new bridge proposal is the light rail crossing component, and just to downtown Vancouver. Even if the region can afford this excessive amount, it shouldn’t. There are less expensive options to providing transit service across the Columbia that need to be explore and incorporated into a middle ground option.

    “Is it fair to tax motorists to provide busses and MAX?”

    NO NO & NO!!! Transit fares need to reflect the costs of providing the service just as bicyclists should be directly taxed to pay for bicycle infrastructure. Anything less is “Constitutional Tax Inequity”.

  32. Say it with me now, “Constitutional Inequity.”

    Wait a second.

    Exactly how is funding more roads a “constitutional inequality”?

    If I read the U.S. Constitution, the ONLY reference to transportation is that the federal government is to establish post roads and post offices.

    If I read the Oregon Constitution, I see no reference to mass transit, or transportation in general, or even the right to travel. There is a reference that the employees of privately owned mass transit systems be given protections when their systems are taken over by the public (circa 1966).

    So what is the question of “equality”, when there is no such reference to the two items of question (highways and public transportation) in the Constitution (either federal or state) to be able to equate or distinguish from?

  33. Say it with me now, “Constitutional Inequity.”

    Wait a second.

    Exactly how is funding more roads a “constitutional inequality”?

    If I read the U.S. Constitution, the ONLY reference to transportation is that the federal government is to establish post roads and post offices.

    If I read the Oregon Constitution, I see no reference to mass transit, or transportation in general, or even the right to travel. There is a reference that the employees of privately owned mass transit systems be given protections when their systems are taken over by the public (circa 1966).

    So what is the question of “equality”, when there is no such reference to the two items of question (highways and public transportation) in the Constitution (either federal or state) to be able to equate or distinguish from?

  34. Terry, what you say is reasonable only IF transportation by automobile was no longer subsidized by the government also. To have transit users pay for the cost of their transit sounds fair, however it would ONLY be fair if the subsidies associated with automobiles were removed as well.

    I agree with you that people should pay a fair share for services utilized by choice, but auto drivers DO NOT CURRENTLY pay their fair share. Direct costs associated with driving are falsely lowered by federal subsidies, bailouts, and tax breaks to automobile related industries thereby subsidizing an individuals costs associated with driving a personal automobile. Indirect costs, while more difficult to quantify, provide and even greater subsidy to automobile drivers which are subsequently absorbed by society as a whole.

    To do as you recommend without also removing ALL transportation subsidies would be to continue the social engineering agenda of automobile-only advocates. And I KNOW you hate social engineering!!!

  35. Dan,

    Where do you think the majority of Federal subsidies for highways come from? Most of the Federal dollars spent on roads come from the Highway Trust Fund. That money comes from a Federal tax on motor fuels. So what you call Federal subsidies are really paid for by motorists.

    Furthermore, the Highway Trust Fund also subsidizes transit alternatives and bicycle infrastructure. Yet, no part of transit fares directly go into the trust fund and bicyclists continue to totally freeload by directly paying zero, nada, nothing in taxes or fees towards bicycle infrastructure.

    To a point, I agree the motorists probably do not pay 100% of the costs for roadways. In reality, it is closer to 90%. But if you consider adding in the subsidies motorists pay to other modes of transport, it moves that 90% figure closer to 100%. Either way, motorists pay far more and a higher percentage of their own way than do transit passengers whom cover only a little more that 20% of the costs of providing the service, and bicyclists that simply poach bicycle infrastructure costs from other taxpayer resources. Therefore, if equality was in place, both transit riders and bicyclists should be paying in the range of 90% of the costs for the services received.

  36. “Where do you think the majority of Federal subsidies for highways come from? Most of the Federal dollars spent on roads come from the Highway Trust Fund. That money comes from a Federal tax on motor fuels. So what you call Federal subsidies are really paid for by motorists.”

    Terry, Please read my post again, as you have responded to a different topic entirely that was never the subject of my post.

    To be clear, I am making no absolutely no references to financing for roads or highways in my above post. I’m referring only to the cost of vehicle itself and the vehicles cost of operation being subsidized by government. It is these subsidies that are NOT paid for by motorists, but rather by every taxpayer in America, whether they drive a vehicle or not.

    If an entity wants to remove the subsidies associated with operating transit systems, then you must also remove the subsidizies that falsely lower the purchasing and operating cost of automobiles. To not do so, as you are fond of saying, would be nothing less than social engineering.

  37. “remove the subsidizies…..”

    I like that. It rolls of the tongue in a far more entertaining way than subsidies.

  38. however it would ONLY be fair if the subsidies associated with automobiles were removed as well.

    Not really. This is the notion that you pay for me today and I’ll pay for you tomorrow. And then tomorrow you suggest we all pay our own way. The reality is that there is a fully built out road network that will get you where you want to go in an automobile. When there is a fully built out transit system that does the same thing you can talk about what is “ONLY fair”. Until then we are talking about public decisions about what is best of the community, not who is paying for them.

Leave a Reply to Erik Halstead Cancel reply

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