Thanks to the reader who flagged this for me since it didn’t appear in the Portland edition of the O. Beyond talking about the current state of the project planning, this article has a nice set of links to the (greatly varying) perspectives on this project in various west side communities.
50 responses to “I-5/99W Connector Update”
I think the regional bypass will be a classic example of “paralysis by analysis”, similarly to the Newberg-Dundee Bypass. Oregon seems destined to congest itself by increasing population and decades late in configuring solutions.
More likely we will end up with better solutions that just more roads.
Lenny,
What are the “better solutions”? I’m exhausted with the “induced traffic” studies that offer no solutions except slow down commerce and everyone else stay home.
So the big question is, what are the “better solutions”?
“What is the solution?” It depends on the problem being addressed, and in this instance the reason the analysis seems to take so long (aside from the staggering price tag of the road option) is that the basic problem being addressed has been defined in multiple imprecise ways. It has only been in the last year that there has even been a rational statement of purpose for the study. As Chris points out, there are widely varying (and in some cases mutually exclusive) perspectives among the different communities in this corridor – note the views of the city and Chamber in Wilsonville. If the purpose is to make automobile commuting to and from Yamhill County easier, the “solution” might look one way; if the purpose is to improve freight access to the vital Tualatin and Wilsonville industrial areas, the “solution” would look another way; if the purpose is to provide greater connections among Sherwood, Tualatin, etc., the “solution” would look another way.
I think, however, that Wilsonville raises a very central question. Are you going to simply shift the traffic on Tualatin-Sherwood Road and 99W to I5?
Davis is right: “What is the solution?” It depends on the problem being addressed”
I think Ruh hit the nail on the head when he points out that the “induced traffic” argument is essentially about what doesn’t work rather than what does. What it says doesn’t work is to try to fix congestion. But the region still spends millions of dollars on studies of congestion solutions and this sounds like another one.
If you start to define the problem, as I think Tualatin and some of the jurisdictions have, in more precise terms. “We need to be able to move freight to attract businesses.” Or “We need to get Yamhill County residents to work in Tigard, Wilsonville and Beaverton.” Those specific needs start to get at real answers to the question “What is the solution?”.
Swan Island might be instructive here. 20 years ago the Port of Portland sought to build a second access route to this industrial/employment area with 10K jobs. Neighborhood opposition killed it.
Had they succeeded with one option, an extension of Basin Avenue north along the River to the St Johns Bridge, the area would have been inundated with cut-thru commuter traffic, hampering the flow of freight. With just one access point, all commuter traffic is internal and the TDM (Transportation Demand Management) efforts have boosted non-drive alone commute numbers to better than 1 in 5. Freight moves; everybody’s happy.
The road in question here serves three masters…freight, internal commuters and cut-thru commuters. The best solution for freight might be to restrict access at the Sherwood end…sure to be popular with both groups of commuters. The solution for cut-thru commuters would be to widen the road, but then freight would just be overwhelmed with even more who discover the easy “back way.”
So who comes first…freight or cut-thru commuters. If freight is as important as some think, the answer to that should be easy.
Lenny,
I think the problem is bigger than that. Right now a significant number of vehicles going to the Oregon coast are funneled down 99W through Tigard, Tualatin, Sherwood, Newberg and Dundee. 48 percent of the traffic going through Newberg and Dundee is “pass through” traffic. Do we just allow increased congestion until traffic stops? The answer is a regional bypass that diverts through traffic around the cities involved. Connecting 99W just south of Dundee to the 11 miles over to I-5 at the Donald exit.
But, I’m convinced that it will never happen. I’m expecting increased congestion until I leave the area. I am interested in solutions. Are there any besides building more roads?
Are there any besides building more roads?
In this case, sorry, but no. Building more roads is a big part of the solution, but ideally not the only element.
Moving freight 24/7 is concern number one. We’re going to have more problems than congestion if we don’t address the freight mobility issue. I believe that hwy 99 from Eugene to Junction City then 99W to Newberg/Dundee area needs to be a 4-6 lane limited-access divided highway that is freight-friendly (to serve as the primary freight thru-route for the Willamette Valley and detour route for I-5 during major construction) and use congestion pricing on 99W to encourage long-distance commuters to use I-5 instead (I-5 for people, 99W for freight/HOT lanes). Then you need the connector from Newberg/Dundee to I-5 to get that traffic out of Newberg/Dundee and over to I-5/I-205 (probably 205). Then, unfortunately, you have to build up I-205 to be freight-friendly into Washington (bonus: helps the Sunrise Corridor).
Next problem for Newberg/Dundee is metro/coast through traffic, which would use the same bypass described above, paying tolls during heavily congested periods. Regardless of posturing, people will pay tolls for a more pleasant driving experience, even on weekends.
Next, but perhaps most pressing due to ROW concerns is commuter rail from Yamhill County to Milwaukie. If you have high-quality transit with dedicated ROW and ample parking near the stops, you’ll have commuters who will take the train. Especially if their best alternatives are to pay a variable toll to quickly get to I-5 (where they get to sit in traffic) or to drive really slow through Dundee, Sherwood, Tigard and SW Portland along 99W/Barbur. Even Grande Ronde sees value in this and is investing in further study that would take the line out to their reservation.
But all of this, especially combined, is terribly, terribly expensive.
What are the “better solutions”?
Toll roads, with demand-responsive variable pricing.
We can spend ridiculous amounts of money on a supply-side approach, trying to increase capacity that will never catch up to demand.
Or we can take a demand-side approach. Use premium pricing to manage peak-hour demand, and generate revenue in the process.
The problem here is political. People would rather whine about congestion than pay tolls to help make it go away.
I think the problem is bigger than that.
What problem? I think again you are defining the problem in terms of your preferred solution. And there is no realistic solution to congestion.
Ross,
You said, “And there is no realistic solution to congestion.”
So what is the answer? Ignore the situation until vehicles are at a standstill? I don’t understand where you are going with your comments. Are you suggesting social engineering by transportation failure/gridlock?
Here’s the potential solutions:
1. Rail based solution. It offers zero benefit to freight, zero benefit to anyone travelling outside of Yamhill County (i.e. to the Oregon Coast), and since it’d likely be a “commuter rail” system that would offer only limited (i.e. inbound to Portland service in the AM, outbound service in the PM, workdays only) it’d be of zero benefit to the heaviest travel days on 99W which is Friday evening/Saturday/Sunday. It would also be as expensive as building a regional bypass (especially if a tunnel under Rex Hill were built; if not numerous bridges would have to be rebuilt and the travel time between Newberg and Sherwood would be 1/3rd to 1/2 that of a bus travelling between the same two points on existing 99W.)
2. Bus solution. An efficient bus service on the 99W corridor is cheap to implement and even if ODOT had to buy the busses (using, of course, federal FTA dollars), a $5M investment could put ten brand new luxury busses on the road, plus bus stop improvements. In addition, busses could divert off of 99W and serve either Beaverton, Portland, or East Portland (i.e. to the Airport). However this would have little impact on freight movement, unless it was successfully marketed to attract significant ridership.
The bus option would be the only logical public transit option that could continue west to Lincoln City, also.
3. Toll Road solution. This is flat out discriminatory against McMinnville residents, when NO OTHER CITY in Oregon is forced to pay a toll to travel anywhere. (Since Ross seems dead set on this option, I’d like to place a toll on his street to call for equality, so that he has to pay a $3.50 toll each time he exits his property line; and again when he comes home – but that the toll would not apply to his neighbors.) If a toll is going to be required of McMinnville residents, then a toll should be required of any other city to commute between towns.
4. Newberg-Dundee Bypass. This is an expensive and wasteful option; it cuts through a developed Newberg residential neighborhood, duplicates a long stretch of 99W south of Dundee (resulting in two side-by-side roads) and wastes productive farmland.
5. Regional Bypass. This option would heavily encourage economic development in McMinnville as it’d connect McMinnville with I-5. (Ironically, isn’t “economic development” one of the buzzwords over Streetcar development???) But it’s expensive, and Marion County seems bent on being against it (despite the huge amount of state transportation dollars it receives; and that Marion County today has two freeways of its own; one of which serves a town of a population less than 10,000 residents.)
6. 99W improvements. The second most cost-effective solution, but Dundee seems to want to hang on to it’s “charm”. (The charm of unimproved sidewalks, poor quality asphalt, and a declining commercial center?) The major drawback is that ODOT has royally screwed up access management in Sherwood, turning what was once an effective expressway into stop-and-go traffic. (Hmm. Isn’t Sherwood in Metro’s service boundaries? So much for “smart growth”.)
3. Toll Road solution. This is flat out discriminatory against McMinnville residents, when NO OTHER CITY in Oregon is forced to pay a toll to travel anywhere. *** If a toll is going to be required of McMinnville residents, then a toll should be required of any other city to commute between towns.
That’s actually a pretty good idea. Tolling all the highways in Oregon would pretty much end the maintenance problems with our infrastructure, as long as the tolls are required to be spent on “maintenance first” before going to anything else.
I reiterate: use market-responsive tolls. Set the price to rise automatically with higher traffic, and use part of the toll revenue (once maintenance is covered) to fund enhanced bus service through the corridor at peak travel times. If the toll is electronic (which is should be), you could issue special transponders to local residents that let them pass the toll points at a steep discount or for free.
It keeps our roads and bridges maintained and helps fight congestion, and generates money for the state rather than draining our coffers.
It offers zero benefit to freight, zero benefit to anyone travelling outside of Yamhill County (i.e. to the Oregon Coast),
I don’t think either of those are true. If commuter rail reduces the number of commuters on the road that has tremendous benefit to freight or anyone else using the road.
Right now there are almost no alternatives to driving. The result is that the level of congestion people are willing to tolerate to get to work every day is very high. I don’t know that commuter rail is the solution to that problem, but it is certainly one possible solution.
ignore the situation until vehicles are at a standstill?
That won’t happen if people have alternatives. But I think this begs the question – what is your answer? If you define the problem as moving vehicles from Yamhill County to Portland, there is no solution.
So long as people are willing to tolerate a high level of congestion to live in Yamhill County and drive to work in the Portland suburbs, any new capacity is just going to fill up until it reaches the level of congestion people are prepared to tolerate.
One answer is to provide attractive alternatives to driving. Another is to raise the other costs of making that commute through things like tolls. Another is to provide more desirable job opportunities in the Yamhill County.
But adding capacity is not going to change the congestion situation. What is will do is allow even more people to move to Yamhill County. That is not necessarily a bad thing. But if you define the problem as providing more desirable opportunities for people to live in Yamhill County and work in Portland, you have to ask who is doing the social engineering here.
Ross,
I think you are over estimating the commuter traffic from Yamhill County to Portland. That is not the sole source of the problem. The heaviest traffic is the weekend traffic when most commuters are not commuting, and commerce is not moving (as much). Do you want to eliminate the coast traffic, also? Or, the tourist traffic?
The state is increasing in population. You still seem to suggest that the alternative is to keep packing people into Portland. I get the impression that you probably don’t drive and congestion is a meaningless term for you.
You asked, “But I think this begs the question – what is your answer? If you define the problem as moving vehicles from Yamhill County to Portland, there is no solution.”
The problem is moving the vehicles from all along the coast to Portland. Also, moving Yamhill County (and beyond) to Portland. This includes doctor visits, the airport and a whole host of other reasons. It also includes all of the Portland (and beyond) congesting 99W because of an efficiency problem.
Does your philosophy extend to airports, also? When airport traffic gets congested we should just let the planes sit on the tarmac longer until people just stop flying (or have to use the train?)? Or, make people live in the town of their destination? Or do we increase airport capacity? Using your ideas PDX would be half the size (or less) than it is now.
Ross,
You said, “Another (alternative) is to provide more desirable job opportunities in the Yamhill County.”
The transportation problem (primarily through Dundee/Newberg) is the primary drawback for any business (creating jobs) locating in Yamhill County. That is why the link to I-5 is crucial.
Is the lack of transportation really what is creating the imbalance between jobs and people in Yamhill county. I strongly doubt it. Quite the contrary, it is the existing transportation links that facilitate that imbalance by allowing people to live in Yamhill county and commute to work in Portland.
I get the impression that you probably don’t drive and congestion is a meaningless term for you.
Quite the contrary. I have lived in many urban areas and they have all had congestion.
This includes doctor visits, the airport and a whole host of other reasons.
Again, what would you do? If you add capacity the delays will remain the same only with more people delayed.
Does your philosophy extend to airports, also?
What philosophy? Are you suggesting we should build a new airport in Yamhill County because it takes too long for you to get to PDX?
The heaviest traffic is the weekend traffic when most commuters are not commuting, and commerce is not moving (as much).
Ross,
You completety missed the point about airport congestion. You continually say for people to just put up with congestion until they change their lifestyle. Is that what you would do with PDX, rather than expanding to accomodate traffic increases?
Ross,
You said, “Quite the contrary, it is the existing transportation links that facilitate that imbalance by allowing people to live in Yamhill county and commute to work in Portland.”
Is it the commuting that causes you concern? You seem to emphasize that quite often. Perhaps we should get rid of roads altogether, following your logic.
I still am having considerable trouble (and I am trying) following your solutions. You are saying that congestion is a way of life and don’t reduce it. Then you jump to rails and bus service as though that would accomodate everyone’s problems. Then you suggest everyone move to Portland if they work there. You surely must be against tourism. It just seems as though you are blindly throwing darts.
Is it the commuting that causes you concern?
No. In fact, isn’t that the whole point of commuter rail? To allow people to commute?
ou are saying that congestion is a way of life and don’t reduce it.
No, I am saying you can’t reduce it in a dense urban area by adding capacity.
Then you jump to rails and bus service as though that would accomodate everyone’s problems.
No more than roads accommodate everyone’s problems. But by providing desirable alternatives you can reduce the level of congestion by reducing the level people are willing to tolerate.
Then you suggest everyone move to Portland if they work there.
In fact, that is what the overwhelming majority of people do. They live close to where they work. Even some people in McMinnville live there because it is closer to their job than Lincoln City. And there are plenty of people who changed jobs or moved because they got tired of a long commute. Those are choices people make, just as they choose to create congestion.
OK,so the advice you would give to ODOT in the meetings to come, would be to 1)forget adding capacity (or efficiency) for travel all the way to the coast, or 2) add rail (at $300 million) to a relatively unpopulated area, 3) add jobs in Yamhill County, 4) add buses to serve the area, 5) let the residents of the area deal with the congestion until they move, and 6) what did I forget?
Basically, you are saying not to improve the transportation to the area because it will make it a more desireable place to live. And, a more desireable place to live would increase traffic demands and that would be bad.
a more desireable place to live would increase traffic demands and that would be bad.
No, but it wouldn’t solve the congestion problem.
And increasing traffic on I5 will cause problems for many of the transportation related businesses in Wilsonville. And it is likely the increased traffic will also appear on I5 north of the 99w interchange.
So my advice to ODOT, in short, is the moto of the doctor – First, do no harm.
Forget adding capacity (or efficiency) for travel all the way to the coast
Oh, no. I said that if getting people to the coast is a problem then capacity to move people should be added. But that is different than getting more vehicles to the coast so that they can increase the congestion on Highway 101. Frankly, on the list of important issues in Oregon, I don’t think the length of weekend trips from Portland to the coast is a real high priority. Especially if the result is to clog Portland’s transportation system during the work week.
Ruh said:
“The heaviest traffic is the weekend traffic when most commuters are not commuting, and commerce is not moving (as much).”
and then later:
“The transportation problem (primarily through Dundee/Newberg) is the primary drawback for any business (creating jobs) locating in Yamhill County. That is why the link to I-5 is crucial.”
Why do those people care about the traffic problems on the weekends? You’ve even said it yourself, commerce is not moving then.
1) Traffic is terrible to get product to market from McMinnville area. It is always mentioned when businesses talk about relocating to McMinnville area. That is weekday traffic that is terrible.
2) Traffic through Dundee/Newberg is additionally heavy during weekends.
What am I missing in your question? I don’t understand the conflict that you are reading into my comments.
Erik says: NO OTHER CITY in Oregon is forced to pay a toll to travel anywhere.
Would you consider it discriminatory to build a new, high-capacity road to bypass Newberg/McMillville and cut over to I-5 and charge tolls for it’s use? I can understand your point if you’re only talking about tolling existing roads and arbitrarily choosing only 99W to implement tolls/congestion pricing. But if you give Yamhill County a new way to get to I-5 (or even tolling just a loop bypass around Newberg/Dundee, I see nothing discriminatory about tolling it. Primarily you would just want to have a toll-free alternative route (and make sure the tolled route really attractive for drivers).
DJK has the right idea: variable tolls (congestion pricing), preferably just for new highways. I’ve supported congestion pricing for all gateways into the Metro region, but you don’t just want to do one (unless, again, it’s new construction).
Commuter rail that doubles as tourist rail to the coast would be absolutely brilliant. Starting with buses is a good first step, and marketing them well to put greater demand in place for that service while building the rail line. I have to admit that if the trains went fast enough trip-wise, it’d be kind of cool to live at the beach and commute to work in Portland. Then again, I still think the 20 minute bus commute from Ladd’s Addition to downtown Portland wins out in that duel.
It wouldn’t hurt to have more jobs in Yamhill County, but somehow I don’t believe that they aren’t already trying to attract more business.
So Ruh, what you tell ODOT, for the near-term, is to build a limited-access divided highway from 99W to I-5 @ I-205 and toll it to pay back the construction. But I still don’t know where along 99W to tell them to connect to that road. Secondly, you ask them to simultaneously implement commuter/tourist BRT in the corridor while still participating in exploring an eventual rail version of that same project. Attractive BRT will take cars off the road, which will attract still others to drive when they otherwise wouldn’t and the net result is the same level of congestion but more people moving through the corridor. Then upon completion of the tolled highway, much of the congestion would move to the new road and shortly would be replaced by still others who wouldn’t otherwise be driving on 99W, but we’d be moving even more people and freight through the corridor and collecting tolls for a great deal of that traffic to pay back the construction costs.
Joseph,
Thank you for your comments. I agree that a possibility might be to toll a regional bypass. The only way that relief is provided to the Tigard-Tualatin-Sherwood-Newberg-Dundee area would be to connect 99W to I-5 south of Dundee. Anything closer (to Portland) will maintain congestion in the corridor.
I think a BRT project would be difficult considering the low population of the area. There would be empty buses on the roads. The further a rider gets from Portland, the more diverse the reasons and locations of the destination. Buses heading from Portland to a final destination at the coast would also most likely be low ridership. Where does a person from Portland go once they depart the bus? There is no mass transportation after getting off the bus.
Same problems exist with rail. The costs are outrageously high with little hope of sponsership or sufficient ridership in a low populated area.
You dream, “I have to admit that if the trains went fast enough trip-wise, it’d be kind of cool to live at the beach and commute to work in Portland.”
You are also talking about a $1 Billion project (or more).
You are also talking about a $1 Billion project (or more).
Indeed. It’s too bad money doesn’t grow on trees.
However, the corridor would also serve those going partway along the trip (those who live at the coast and work at Spirit Mountain or in McMinnville, for instance, or live in Newberg and work in Tualatin or Tigard). People in SoCal will ride a train 60+ miles into LA for their jobs; it only stands to reason that some Oregonians would be willing to do the same.
The population will only increase over time throughout this corridor, and it only makes sense (IMO) to provide transportation alternatives to facilitate the needs of those who live/work in the corridor. The only reason to push it all the way to the coast is to boost ridership (i.e., revenue) by putting tourists in those seats. BRT (with appropriate Park & Ride lots close to stops and clever marketing tactics) would inexpensively allow us to test the waters and grow demand (what came first – the chicken or the egg? we have to start somewhere…). Maybe we don’t build the rail line yet but we should preserve the rail ROW for some future solution. Inevitably, regardless of how distant into the future, population growth will dictate that the corridor be equipped with rail at some point, and the ROW already exists and it would be foolish to let it go.
Not having a system to which it can connect along the coast is a problem, but at least initially it would serve two of the larger tourist attractions in Oregon (Spirit Mountain and Chinook Winds). Lincoln County and perhaps Tillamook County could then decide if they wanted to provide service to tourists who land in Lincoln City with no way to get around once they get there. Hopefully they’d be part of the conversation before any of this went too far into the planning stages, let alone implementation.
…even if ODOT had to buy the busses (using, of course, federal FTA dollars)…
Would you still support the idea if it meant a few more years of riding TriMet’s 1400s and 1600s? That would compete with the same funds.
As for the buses to/from Yamhill Co. and serving the casinos (Spirit Mountain and Chinook Winds) – the casinos themselves have buses specifically for casnio guests that aren’t otherwise open to the general public. Many have wondered why they wouldn’t be interested in opening up any additional capacity they might have to the general public. Also, since the Greyhound route between Portland, Yamhill Co., and the coast was canceled, the only service other than some expensive airport shuttles is one that, last I heard, cost $40 one way (probably more now).
Also, I’m totally against the toll idea, especially the ‘let’s toll everyone going from one city to another,’ for the following reasons:
1. Are you talking about tolling cities with unconnected UGBs/city limits, or all cities, (i.e, would you toll Portland to Gresham?)
2. Many are going to want the tolls to take the place of all state and local gas taxes.
3. (And biggest) Too easy to have existing infrastructure set up for domestic police/government checkpoints. (Anyone else remember the TV show “Dark Angel?”)
I’m totally against the toll idea
Why? As for #1, nobody’s realistically proposing tolling trips between all cities in the state, so that warrants no clarification nor further discussion. Back to reality, most states and many countries have toll roads. It’s the fairest model of revenue collection for maintenance of existing roads or paying off construction of new roads (i.e., user pays). To address #2, the tolls do not supplant other revenue sources in these other states, nor should they here (unless you were talking about completely replacing the gas tax with a mileage tax, which is currently being researched by ODOT/OSU). As for your #3, Oregon’s existing laws prohibit “police” checkpoints, as I understand it, so the toll booths won’t be staffed by troopers with breathalyzers or narcotics dogs, and nobody in the government is interested in where you’re going anyway.
Why reject this model of paying for new construction that we otherwise wouldn’t see for decades? What makes Oregon so different from the rest of the world that a “user pays” system for construction of new highways leaves such a bad taste in your mouth?
Would you consider it discriminatory to build a new, high-capacity road to bypass Newberg/McMillville and cut over to I-5 and charge tolls for it’s use? I can understand your point if you’re only talking about tolling existing roads and arbitrarily choosing only 99W to implement tolls/congestion pricing. But if you give Yamhill County a new way to get to I-5 (or even tolling just a loop bypass around Newberg/Dundee, I see nothing discriminatory about tolling it. Primarily you would just want to have a toll-free alternative route (and make sure the tolled route really attractive for drivers).
Let’s see.
In recent history, ODOT has built or improved the following new highways or bypasses, WITHOUT tolls:
1. U.S. 30, Portland-St. Helens
2. Oregon 213, I-205-Oregon City
3. Oregon 22, Salem-Dallas
4. Oregon 22, Salem-Stayton
5. Oregon 34, I-5-Lebanon
6. Oregon 34, I-5-Corvallis
7. U.S. 97, Bend Parkway
8. U.S. 97, Klamath Falls Bypass
9. U.S. 199, I-5 through Grants Pass
Why is it that Oregon can fund each of those eight projects – not including Interstate Highways or freeways (such as Oregon 126 or 217 or U.S. 26) – without tolls, but McMinnville residents will be singled out in having to pay a toll?
Ask yourself this – would you be willing to pay a toll to leave your front door, but your neighbors get a free ride? That’s exactly what McMinnville residents are being told – the N-D bypass committee even goes so far as to suggesting Newberg/Dundee residents should be toll-exempt; even though more traffic from those two cities heads towards Portland than McMinnville (Dundee is essentially a bedroom community as there are few local jobs; and Newberg is experiencing significant growth as an alternative to Sherwood which itself is adding pressure on 99W that is clearly not the fault of Yamhill County).
It’s mentioned that it’s fair to charge Yamhill County for a route to I-5 – what about Polk County’s free ride on Oregon 22? (Or east Marion County? Or Benton County’s ride on 34, or east Linn County for that matter? Washington County on 26 and 217? The Sunrise Corridor in Clackamas County, or Highway 213?) Why were they never charged a toll?
I fail to see why Yamhill County – and especially McMinnville – residents should not be given the benefit that every other city and county in Oregon is given. If the argument is that Yamhill County causes a commuting problem into the Portland metro area, then I would insist that U.S. 26 and 30, I-5 and I-84, and Oregon 99E also be given the same treatment and be tolled as well. And if the argument is access to I-5, then Oregon 22, 34 and 126 must be tolled as well. And if it’s just bypasses, then Oregon 213 and U.S. 97 deserve tolls.
It doesn’t make sense to penalize McMinnville.
Why is it that Oregon can fund each of those eight projects – not including Interstate Highways or freeways (such as Oregon 126 or 217 or U.S. 26) – without tolls, but McMinnville residents will be singled out in having to pay a toll?
Because every year, the state gas tax, which has not increased since 1993, has less and less buying power. We are actually now at a level where the gas tax is no longer sufficient to even fund maintenance on state highways. So every modernization project is now causing the maintenance backlog to get even deeper.
In recent history…
I’m not talking about recent history, I’m talking about the present and the future. As Chris said, the gas tax doesn’t have the buying power that it did 15 years ago when it was last raised. Projects for which there is presently no capital to fund their construction but that the people want built before the funds become available in 2080 (or whenever) should be built now and tolled to pay off the construction costs. If they don’t agree that the new road should be tolled then they can keep using the existing roads until the toll is lifted when the construction bonds are paid off.
This is simply a new way (for Oregon, not for the rest of the world) to fund highway projects that are needed now but for which ample funds are not presently available. If you want to move it up the list, you can pay to use it. If you don’t mind waiting several decades for the funds to arrive through conventional channels, then you can keep sitting in traffic on the existing roads. This was perfectly acceptable for the Interstate Bridge when it was built, and the Astoria-Megler Bridge, and other Columbia River bridges… why is it so wrong to apply this same formula to new highways?
So Ruh, what you tell ODOT, for the near-term, is to build a limited-access divided highway from 99W to I-5 @ I-205 and toll it to pay back the construction.
The reality is that every time ODOT actually studies tolls they won’t cover the cost of construction. Given the choice of sitting in congestion and paying a toll that covers the full cost of a new facility, people will choose to sit in congestion.
So every modernization project is now causing the maintenance backlog to get even deeper.
Chris – I think this understates the problem a bit. Backlog implies the problem is simply delaying needed maintenance. But is is not simply a delay. The cost of fixing the problems that result from lack of maintenance is going to be considerably higher than the price of maintaining the facilities in the first place. Its like waiting for the ceiling to sag before replacing the shingles.
The fact is Oregon’s paved road system is very slowly being allowed to go back to gravel. And the slope of that deterioration is going to increase. Spending any money on new capacity just speeds the process along.
Ross,
I would support raising gas taxes which would be designated solely for infrastructure (roads) improvement. There is a developing disconnect that ODOT and the state of Oregon are efficiently allocating revenue. That is the increasing problem with all requests for increasing revenue in this state.
This was perfectly acceptable for the Interstate Bridge when it was built, and the Astoria-Megler Bridge, and other Columbia River bridges… why is it so wrong to apply this same formula to new highways?
Let’s see.
On one hand (the toll bridges) you’re talking about a link between Oregon and another state. Not ODOT’s responsibility (at least sole responsibility) to provide that link, and the people on the other side of the magical line called the State Line don’t pay into our gas taxes.
On the other hand (Newberg-Dundee Bypass) you’re talking about an existing state highway that ODOT has a legal responsibility to maintain (including capacity improvements) but has failed to do so yet 30 years of warnings. So ODOT cries “foul” and claims that a toll is needed.
Despite NINE specific projects that were of the same or similiar scope, that were constructed WITHOUT tolls.
If the gas tax isn’t generating enough revenue, are you saying that “gas taxes raised in McMinnville aren’t generating enough revenue”, suggesting that a toll road to account for the loss in specific revenue is acceptable – or that “gas taxes raised in OREGON aren’t generating enough revenue”, so we’re going to penalize McMinnville – but continue to build out U.S. 97 as a four-lane highway, continue to maintain Oregon 35 (despite that it’s simply an access road for Mt. Hood resorts), continue the massive investment in Portland area roads (despite that Metro has long siphoned federal flex dollars from highway purposes), continue overinvestment in Salem area roads to appease state legislators, and continue maintaining high-maintenance stretches of U.S. 101?
Again, there is absolutely, positively NO LOGICAL EXPLANATION why to penalize McMinnville residents at the expense of everyone else.
Let’s put it this way: If McMinnville pays a toll for 99W, then I expect ODOT to four-lane 47 to Forest Grove, 99W to Highway 22, Highway 18 (end to end) – ALL without tolls – to make up for the loss in state spending on the now-semi-privatized 99W north of McMinnville. Oh, and every penny of gas tax raised in Yamhill County must be spent in Yamhill County.
As for the issue of raising the gas tax, I know a simple way that voters will approve it:
Tell voters where the money is going, and make sure that not one penny goes towards public transit. (It worked in Washington, and survived a repeal.)
I would support raising gas taxes which would be designated solely for infrastructure (roads) improvement.
The Oregon gas tax already is designated for that purpose. It isn’t enough.
Tell voters where the money is going, and make sure that not one penny goes towards public transit.
That’s what they told the voters last time and it lost something like 20-80.
If McMinnville pays a toll for 99W…
Under the scenario we’re discussing here (I-5/99W connector and/or Newberg/Dundee Bypass) I’m not proposing tolling 99W, only new construction (i.e., the new connector from 99W to I-5 and/or the Newberg/Dundee bypass).
Again, this is as simple as “if you want the project completed before the funds become available through conventional channels in another 40 years, you agree to pay tolls to pay off construction bonds.” Additionally, we should be willing to partially fund the project with other, conventional revenue sources so as not to require $12 tolls per vehicle. We don’t want to discourage people from wanting to use it in the first place, or it’d take 50-100 years to pay it off, which is unacceptable.
I see nothing wrong with tolling a newly constructed road to move up the construction schedule by several decades, if it’s worth it to those who want it. Again, if you’re content to wait out those several decades for the revenue to appear from conventional channels then that’s fine, too. The problem is that people like myself, who would be willing to go to Dundee if the traffic weren’t miserable, won’t be going there to spend our disposable income. If your traffic sucks, your local businesses are going to lose out on potential revenue. So with that in mind, you collectively decide whether or not you want to wait for the revenue to become available or if you’d be willing to allow the new road to be tolled to get it built immediately.
I’m not too familiar with the last gas tax attempt, so I’ll ask a basic question. Did they list the projects it would fund on a statewide basis? Were enough of these going to impact enough of the state’s population?
I’d be happy to pay a higher gas tax, since I already usually pay a little more in Washington to not deal with waiting (sometimes a few minutes) for some employee to feel like filling my tank. That, and I drive by a gas station there at least twice a workday, so it seems stupid to exit I-5 just to wait longer to get my gas.
Maybe if I knew that it would fund improvements that applied to me, I’d be willing to wait and pay it.
Thank you for the varied comments. It is easy to understand why many ODOT public meetings end up in a stalemate with “more studies”.
Did they list the projects it would fund on a statewide basis? Were enough of these going to impact enough of the state’s population?
Yes, in fact I believe the Newberg-Dundee bypass was on the list of projects. Voters in Yamhill county voted overwhelmingly against it anyway.
Oregon has had one of the highest gas tax of all states for over a decade. There are now only 14 states (I believe) with a higher tax rate now. Where does all of the money go?
Page 17 of the link below:
http://www.artba.org/economics_research/current_issues/ARTBA%20State%20Gas%20Tax%20Report%20July04.pdf
But if you combine all auto-related fees and taxes (license, registration, gas tax) Oregon is the lowest on the west coast, in some cases by a factor of 2 or 3.
There are 3 states on the west coast so Chris is severely limiting comparisons. Federal gas tax is 18.4 in all states. OR has 24 cents. WA recently rose to 28 cents. CA is 18 cents. The diesel tax for OR , shown on gas tax tables like http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp is incorrect because you can’t assign a number.
The average gas tax in the US is 20.8 cents.
OR taxes trucks on a weight/mile basis which more accurately reflects their destruction of roads. It inflicts higher costs. That’s why the trucking industry is always trying to get it changed.
Registration fees are more in CA because it their part of their over-all tax system and not constitutionally limited. WA had higher registration fee years ago but brought it down to our level. Remember that WA has no property tax.
Chris should tell us where he got the info that we are twice as high as others.
Ruh can see where our transportation dollars (federal and state) are going by viewing the STIP at the ODOT web site. We are in the Metro section of Region 1.
In this region, the money is going to light rail, commuter rail, trolleys, soundwalls, medians, bike lanes, sidewalks, “planning,” etc,. Everything except lane mile additions. In fact, lane miles have gone down because of bike lane additions on the same width of pavement.
40% of OR state gas taxes go to cities and counties (26/14). Portland gets the lions share because of Population. Multnomah gets the lions share of county distribution because of driver registrations and 80% of that goes immediately to Portland.
But, while roads get NO general fund money, transit gets oodles. See this session’s HB 5036.
Mel
Mel, please review the chart on this post. There are seven states compared and Oregon’s tax revenue is half of the lowest other state.
The chart was developed by Sam Adams’ office.
Chris –
That chart is a comparison of automobile related charges per gallon of gas. How does weight-mile on trucks fit into that?
The difference, as you point out, is other states get revenue from non-gas tax revenue streams like annual registration fees. They are actually more significant sources of revenue than you might expect. The state gas tax on 1000 gallons of gas is only $240. So even an annual $100 registration fee is a substantial contribution in that context.
In this region, the money is going to light rail, commuter rail, trolleys,
The Oregon gas tax can only be spent on improvements in the right-of-way. The STIP includes money from all sources, including federal dollars specifically allocated for things like “light rail, commuter rail, trolleys”.
The fact is that the Oregon gas tax and other fees do not cover the cost of maintaining existing roads.
Chris:
Just saying it was prepared by Sam and Roland is a clue that it is baloney. They also say that VMT’s in Portland have gone down and therefor air is cleaner without being able to determine VMT’s in Portland.
The nonsense that is in the referenced site is the same that is trotted out every time they want a gas tax increase. Remember Charlie Hales standing on a dirt road in Lents saying this is why we need more gas taxes. WE DON”T build new roads. The homeowner or developer does that and id the road conforms to standard, it is placed on the map for maintenance. At least, that is what we always did and virtually every municipality in the country does.
But things have gone downhill in Portland and they no longer maintain most toads west of W 23rd at all, even if they had money.
If the City really thought we had a maintenance problem, they would do maintenance instead of trolley, bike paths, etc. Can you name 3 roads that the City added in the last ten years (the City not a developer).
Chris, stop looking at the dog and pony gas tax propaganda. Look at the Portland CIP and operating budget. They got a ton of money for transportation from the legislature but they did not ask for maintenance funds.
Ross:
An audit by the Sec of State showed that cities like Portland commingle the constitutionally dedicated funds so that it is not possible to determine how they use state gas taxes.
You say “The fact is that the Oregon gas tax and other fees do not cover the cost of maintaining existing roads.” Show me those facts. Show me how much they spend on maintenance and how much they get for the last 5 years.
By the way, when the City does maintenance, it costs more than when they contract out.
In other states, the fee you call registration is usually a sales tax and/or a use tax based on value. Those are universally known as dumb taxes because they charge the little old lady from Pasadena who drives 100 miles per year the same as the salesman who drives 40,000 miles per year. They are customarily not dedicated to transportation.
I don’t understand what you mean when you say “The STIP includes money from all sources, including federal dollars specifically allocated for things like light rail, commuter rail, trolleys.” The only sources are from the federal highway trust fund and the state gas tax fund except for a pittance which are required matching funds required for transit. This year, the legislature passed added funds for really stupid transit.
Mel
http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2007/07/maintaining_por_1.html
I have reviewed this chart. It seems to include sales taxes on
automobiles and auto-related products. As you know, most states get
most of their general funds from sales taxes. Oregon relies on income
taxes instead. That is probably the reason why other states seem to
have a higher auto-related tax burden; it is not really auto-related,
it is just sales taxes.
When you count only those taxes that are spent on roads, Oregon is
right in the middle. Counting all state and local taxes spent on
roads (from table SF-1 from Highway Statistics 2005,
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs05/xls/sf1.xls) and divide by
total gallons of gas (table MF2,
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs05/xls/mf2.xls), you get:
Cents/Gallon
Arizona .49
California .37
Colorado .54
Idaho .38
Montana .29
Nevada .35
New Mexico .37
Oregon .38
Utah .44
Washington .44
Wyoming .28
Four states get more than Oregon, two get significantly less, the
rest are about the same as Oregon.
When you count federal funds as well as state and local, you get:
Arizona .63
California .48
Colorado .68
Idaho .69
Montana .72
Nevada .48
New Mexico .57
Oregon .61
Utah .63
Washington .63
Wyoming .63
So only three western states have significantly more to spend on
highways, per gallon of gasoline consumed, than Oregon. Three have
significantly less, and the rest are about the same as Oregon.
Randal O’Toole
—
Cato Institute
P. O. Box 1590
Bandon, Oregon 97411
541-347-1517
541-297-6798 cell
541-982-2226 voice mail
http://ti.org/antiplanner
Randal, that is a fascination piece of obfuscation, and I don’t have time to point out all the problems with it. But, here is what I have found so far:
1) 2005 data. The big change is that Oregon no longer get the timber money replacement funding, (the big $116M in the “Other agencies” column on sf1,) which works out to 5 cents less per gallon on the federal funds data. That alone means that 7 states have significantly more to spend than us, 1 about the same, and only 2 significantly less.
The 2 that are significantly less than us:
2a) Nevada has very large local gas taxes, (where as most of Oregon doesn’t.) That info isn’t in table sf1 table because it never touches the state government. However, the local taxes in Nevada can be up to 10 cents/gallon, (and most counties do collect all 10 cents.) (Note the $0.23 state + $0.10 local = $0.33. Remarkable close to the $0.35 you quote, and we haven’t even added DMV fees.) That info is, interestingly enough, in table ldf.xls on that site, (although it is 2004 data, so don’t compare it directly to 2005.)
2b) Motor Vehicle fees in California are given directly to the counties with no strings attached, (as are Nevada’s,) and as such, again are not counted on sf1. But, if you go follow the sources for that column, you’ll find something interesting: Of the $2.3B that shows up in sf1, the spreadsheet sfd breaks it out as $4.9B collected, $300M spent on the collection, and $2.3M used for “general purposes” which you can track down on spreadsheet mv3: $100M spent on “non-highway” and $2.2M spent on “local general and non-highway” (Complete with a footnote: “Some allocations for local general purposes may have been used in part for highways.”) Only 6 states in the country have a number in that column, Oregon isn’t one of them. And we can’t exactly track down where that money goes, but spreadsheet lgf21 does tell you that the local governments in California managed to scrape together $6B to spend on roads including a random $2B in “misc income” (in 2004, so that might explain why it doesn’t exactly match the $2.2B for 2005,) and $2B “from the state,” (roughly matches the gas tax revenue given to them by the state in 2005) plus another $2B which came from a bunch of things, (local tolls, property taxes, etc…)
1&2 alone leaves us with one state with comparable gas taxes, (New Mexico) and they are a penny higher…
At that point I stopped looking, but I had noticed another problem already:
3) Inconsistencies between sheets. While trying to find where Nevada’s local taxes were going, I ended up looking at mf3, and it refered me to mf1 for the source with the footnote: “Differences between amounts shown and the adjusted net volume tax receipts shown on Table MF-1 are due to timing differences and funds in transit.” Indeed: At first I didn’t even recongize the two columns as supposed to be the same, since Alabama is off by $130M. Most states are off by a few thousand, so no big deal, but the other big number on it is Nevada with $83M too low. (mf3’s numbers made it into sf1, not the higher mf1’s…)
Nevada isn’t looking very good anymore, and then I found there are people like you in other states, and unfortunately, (for you,) they seem to believe that they are paying the highest taxes too:
http://www.npri.org/issues/issues98/i_b012198.htm
“Thus, drivers in the most populous counties in [Nevada] pay a total tax burden of 52.05 cents.” (In 1998, and they are referring to just the gas taxes, not all the other fees for driving.) If you want to go duke it out with them, and come back to us when you figure out who really has the highest taxes, that would be great…
I found there are people like you in other states, and unfortunately, (for you,) they seem to believe that they are paying the highest taxes too
It will be interesting to see their reaction when someone in those states points out that Cato Institute’ transportation expert disagrees.