That’s from an editorial in Friday’s Tribune that both celebrates the success of transit advocates while banging the drum for more dollars for roads. It’s a companion to a front page article (“Money comes for rail, but not roads“) that contrasts funding for the I-205/Mall Light Rail with the quest for maintenance dollars for roads.
On the same day, the Oregonian has an article commenting on the apparent lack of opposition to a local improvement district for the Streetcar Loop:
So far, property owners in its path don’t seem overly worked up about paying for the ride.
So what’s going on here? I’d like to think it’s a great enlightenment about the need to build out non-auto transportation networks, but I think it’s a little different than that. The Trib editorial gets one aspect right:
It’s time for partnerships. Light-rail and streetcar supporters have learned to expand their ranks. Road advocates haven’t and sometimes don’t even agree among themselves.
The first part is clearly true. The Streetcar LID will go forward because we’ve spent more than three years working with the local community to define the benefits and get the design right. As a result, the person paying the largest assessment for the Streetcar is also chairing the committee advocating for it. In fact, the Lloyd District has in some ways led the City in alternative transportation. First it taxed itself through a Business Improvement District to found a Transportation Management Association that help shift people from cars to other modes (and saved money by not building parking structures in the process). Now it will tax itself again to bring Streetcar to the district.
By striking contrast, the 2nd biggest freeway bottleneck in the I-5 corridor (after the Columbia Crossing) is also in the Lloyd District: the I-84/I-5 interchange. Has anyone seen a business or community committee organizing for years to solve and fund that one? Nope. (I’m not discounting the efforts of the “Loop Group” study effort, but I would not call them a community group, they are part of a top-down planning process.)
Why is that? I would suggest that one key reason is that the benefits of rail, while having system-wide benefits, are also profoundly local. If you get a Streetcar line or LRT station in your vicinity, your property values go up. In contrast, a freeway in your neighborhood is likely to depress property values. The benefits of a new I-84 interchange would not go to the local neighborhood, but to users of the larger system (many from outside Portland or even outside the state).
I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about what that means, but I will add the thought that I don’t think our lack of enthusiasm for funding roads should extend to failing to maintain the system we have – even if asphalt isn’t sexy.
11 responses to “Asphalt isn’t sexy”
In contrast, a freeway in your neighborhood is likely to depress property values.
Or put another way people want freeways through other people’s neighborhoods.
But I think there is something even more significant here. The transportation investments that are winning support increase access to local businesses.
By contrast, highway builders are focused on moving vehicles. When they talk about “access management” they are almost invariable talking about reducing access to a facility to improve the flow of the traffic already on it. We can see that in Gail Achterman’s proposal to close freeway entrances. If streetcar were designed by traffic engineers, the stops would be a half mile apart to improve its efficiency.
Where roads improve access there is often local support. For instance, there was a lot of local business support in the Central Eastside for the Water Street ramp that would improve freeway access to the district. I suspect there would be support for new freeway interchanges in the Lloyd District. But given the focus of the highway department on throughput, the idea of new interchanges at MLK and 21st and 28th to improve traffic flow into and out of the Lloyd district would not even be considered.
Frankly giving the highway folks money to maintain roads is like giving your kid money for new shoes when you know they will spend it on a gameboy instead. The problem is not just that the highway department lacks money, but that they spend it on new facilities, not basic maintenance, when they get it.
Chris says:
“By striking contrast, the 2nd biggest freeway bottleneck in the I-5 corridor (after the Columbia Crossing) is also in the Lloyd District: the I-84/I-5 interchange. Has anyone seen a business or community committee organizing for years to solve and fund that one? Nope. (I’m not discounting the efforts of the “Loop Group” study effort, but I would not call them a community group, they are part of a top-down planning process.)”
Maybe they don’t see it the same way that you perhaps do.
If you looked at the reponses to Ron Buel’s Commentary on BlueOregon you would see that many people around here don’t think this I-5 freeway interchange is a big issue or one that needs to be “solved”:
http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/11/lets_put_the_ea.html
I was thinking, that during the big debate back in March over Viaduct Replacement options, the supporters of the surface plus transit option were gaining some momentum by trying to re-focus the debate on whether the DOT is supposed to provide the infrastructure to move goods/people, or the vehicles that carry them. It might have helped lead to both options that were on the ballot being defeated. In the late 1940s, it was congestion on US99, which used the Western/Elliot couplet through downtown Seatte that led to the Viaduct being built. It has gaurdrails designed for asthetics so motorist views of Puget Sound are not interfered with, as a result, and so far it has not been tested much, are guardrails that cannot guard. Today, those guardrails would be bigger, and solid. My opinion is, if people are supposed to be safe drivers, why does the view of Puget Sound from a freeway need to be preserved? Especially if people drive alone? Do any of your freeways have similar good views of the Willamette and Columbia Rivers? If so, do they cause fender-benders from distracted drivers?
The original plan for freeways in Downtown Seattle called for Interstate 90 connecting with now SR99 at the Viaduct, and another freeway running alongside Lake Union from the U-District to Seattle Center and Elliot Bay, choking Downtown in a wall of exhaust fumes. In 1972, we had a little freeway revolt, but other than the freeways getting cancelled, nothing happened. We love to argue but not build when it comes to transportation facilities. A maritime analogy, good or bad, could be Washington State Ferries vs. the Seattle Fire Department. WSF has agreed that the 1927-Vintage Steel-Electric Class needs tobe replaced, that was about 5 years ago. The money has been budgeted for the replacement, but WSF wants to deal only with one shipyard, and we have several that want to bid, so it has gone to the courts, and three shipyards, including the WSF’s favorite Todd-Pacific, now say they want to build them together. Still no decision, though. The SFD has a Fireboat, built in 1928 that will be retired as soon as the 1980s vintage Chief Seattle is upgraded. The voters approved the Fire Levy in 2003, yesterday I saw the new boat on Elliot Bay getting a workout. Done in only 4 years. Amazing! The boat is bigger than three previous fireboats the City has had. The 1909-vintage Duwamush(retired), 1927-Vintage Alki, and the Chief Seattle, but it looks like they threw everything but the Kitchen Sink into it, including probably some room for Medic One, and maybe all the comforts of Harborview Medical Center! In keeping with a maritime tradition around here, the new boat is called the Leschi, after a Native American Chief. I have not heard of too many cost overuns on the Leschi. WSF has not been so lucky. THe Issaquah Class had propulsion problems and cost overuns. So did the Jumbo MkII. WIth the Issaquah Class, WSF went for the best and probably the lowest bidder, but turned out Marine Power and Equipment had never built anything like a Ferryboat before.
Now with Interstate 5 in Downtown Seattle, WSDOT is repairing it. There are a few Eastside Businessmen that want to add 4 new lanes to the Freeway through Downtown Seattle so their 8-10 lane SR520 Bridge will not get bottlenecked. The cost of adding those lanes, brought up during the I-912 debate in 2005, was nearly $25 Billion! How many trips does Get Washington Moving say it will add? Just 9000. Something interesting about the Eastside developer bankrolling a campaign for more pavement. He is building the very high density development that he says the region does not have, and would need to support rail transit. Where? Bellevue. Just happens to be where ST wants to build Light Rail to next.
So what’s going on here? I’d like to think it’s a great enlightenment about the need to build out non-auto transportation networks, but I think it’s a little different than that.
Bob T: It is different than that. People
have learned that these projects have a huge
establishment behind them, and that even if all
so-called open house and public meetings clearly
indicate overewhelming opposition, the projects
will go forward and the people get screwed over.
Bob Tiernan
and that even if all so-called open house and public meetings clearly indicate overewhelming opposition
Key words: “Even if”.
Fortunately, “overwhelming opposition” is not the case in reality.
– Bob R.
OK, Bob T., I’ll rise to the bait. If this is a “railroading” process (and I don’t agree that it is) why can’t the freight and auto interests manage to railroad their projects through?
If the Truckers and AAA have the clout to block a gas tax increase for a decade and a half, why can’t they get some roads built?
Seems like a more nuanced explanation is required :-)
If you look at the regional highway map, the only real gap is a link between Clackamas county and Washington county over the Willamette River and through Lake Oswego…maybe along the RR alignment and through the Hunt Club. I might vote for the money to build that, but everything else is in place on the roads side. ODOT just needs to shift their project staff to maintenance.
What we are missing is high capacity transit to Milwaukie/Oregon City, to Tigard/Kruse Woods, to Vancouver WA, and out Powell/Foster. People recognize that those segments must be built, and that there is really no physical (not to mention fiscal) space for more or wider roads thru Portland.
re Lloyd District. It also has paid parking. We know that when you switch from free parking (our biggest transportation subsidy by far) and paid transit to paid parking and free (or almost free) transit, people make profound changes in how they travel to work. Lloyd District businesses have saved millions in unbuilt parking structure, insured access for customers/vendors, etc., and doubled their employment base without more road or parking capacity. Its a great story that needs to be repeated all over.
The way to move freight is to give that commuter alone in their car a choice, a real choice. A bus stuck in traffic is often not that. For every two SOVs we dissuade from being on the road, we free up lane space for a semi tractor/trailer.
“Fortunately, “overwhelming opposition” is not the case in reality.”
>>>> I wouldn’t say that the opposition is “overwhelming,” but it seems that there are a considerable number of people who are not buying the rail nonsense. And it’s not just the pro-auto, anti-transit people, either.
it seems that there are a considerable number of people who are not buying the rail nonsense.
If you go by both polls and public meetings they are a closer to a small minority than an “overwhelming opposition”.
But frankly, numbers and ideology should not be the criteria for outcomes at the public meetings anyway. The purpose of those meetings is to get people’s ideas into the discussion and addressed. The only real power people have who attend is the wisdom of their advice and the ability to persuade people. I think sometimes just asking the right question in the right way has more impact than any direct advice given.
I think there is frustration that some of the public dialogue on transportation takes place behind closed doors and out of public view where the business community and other interests are given the opportunity for special pleading. I think it would be healthier if elected officials forced those folks to put their concerns on the public record.
“Frankly giving the highway folks money to maintain roads is like giving your kid money for new shoes when you know they will spend it on a gameboy instead. The problem is not just that the highway department lacks money, but that they spend it on new facilities, not basic maintenance, when they get it.”
And giving the transit and bicycle folks money is like a prerequisite for a tax increase since whatever the transit and bicycle folks do the money will be grounds to subsidize more operations because alternative mode users siphon dollars from non-user sources while unwilling themselves to pay for the systems, services and frills they desire. If highway dollars were not siphoned off to pay for everything from transit facilities to bicycle infrastructure to nature trails to public advertising propaganda, there would be considerably more dollars to fund both increased motor vehicle capacity and road maintenance.
“If this is a “railroading” process (and I don’t agree that it is) why can’t the freight and auto interests manage to railroad their projects through? — If the Truckers and AAA have the clout to block a gas tax increase for a decade and a half, why can’t they get some roads built?”
The fact is there is a current “stacked deck” political process that has become a false deception of what should be a true and diverse cross section of citizen participation, but is not because it lacks quantitative representation based on the current transport mode split, and has the alternative activist “usual suspects” with direct phone lines to PDOT and Metro serving as majorities on all key citizen advisory committees. An good example is a well known business person that serves on the Portland Streetcar board, is a member of the Eastside Streetcar Citizens Advisory Committee and now has also been appointed to be on Commissioner Sam Adams street maintenance steering committee. Officially being a participant in all three rings under the big top is definitely an all around the block railroad job. Additionally to serve on just about any PDOT or Metro transport related citizens committee these days, a prospective member must first pass a socialist designed litmus test that basically suggests he or she will for the most part will rubber stamp a pre-conceived transit, bike and anti-motor vehicle agenda. Furthermore, I think the concept of freight and auto groups blocking a tax increase on themselves is a statement being made that suggests more dollars from the present methods of taxation should be redirected to roads instead of going to alternative forms of transport.
“If you go by both polls and public meetings they are a closer to a small minority than an “overwhelming opposition”.
People vote by driving their cars everyday. This overwhelming majority can not be ignored. These same people however are those who work hard for a living and have jobs to go to, have families to spend quality time with, and for the most part probably do not have all that nuch extra and additional time to participate in the public process discussions and polls that people who live on taxpayer subsidies have time for.
Economics is even less sexy. But here is the comptroller of the General Accounting Office of the United States of America in his around-the-nation plea for fiscal responsibility. This link has a video you can watch, on the right hand side of the page. It aired on CBS’ 60 Minutes on Sunday evening:
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml
How does that affect Portland area transportation projects and our need to remain an economically viable region? What projects do you think are a must-have and which are just a nice-to-have. Other nations have already found less to like about the United States; that is mainly why the US dollar has declined a good 33 per cent in the lasr five years. Do we dare risk continued excessive (IMO) spending?
Chris, perhaps you would even post this as a discussion item…RS