Isn’t the ultimate goal to promote using transit for travelling to work (when traffic is the worst)? This would probably have a net negative effect on transit use (because the marginal users now would switch to cars or taxis. If they wanted a growth in revenues and a reduction in traffic, they would invest in greater capacity and implement congestion taxes like in London where it costs £8 ($16) per day to drive in the City. New York of all places would be an optimal testing ground for congestion taxes in the U.S. I think that eventually Portland should go for congestion taxes (a charge during rush hour) because of the new MAX lines that will make 5th & 6th all but unnavigable for cars during rush hour. I would bet that there has been a net decrease in traffic downtown (cars/hour) since they started putting in the Green line. With the upcoming commuter rail b/w Beaverton & Tigard to deal with the intra-suburb traffic (could they expand that to encompass the city someday?), a congestion tax would make transit on TriMet easier than it is now and save millions of gallons of gas a year. What they should do to help the process, though, is to invest in more park-and-rides in the East Side. I rode the MAX to hillsboro for the first time (in my 8 years here) and there were a TON of park-and-rides out there. Hell, make the parking free and pay for it with a congestion tax in downtown!
I think premiums at rush hour are fairly common for transit systems. The idea is to encourage people to wait on trips that they can take after rush hour. It might make sense in New York if adding capacity to the subway is not really an option. While it is being pitched here as a lower fair off-peak, the reality is that it always plays out as a premium during rush hour. As I understand it, one of the barriers to transit usage confusion about how to pay fares. This seems like it just adds another barrier.
Transit should be all be prepaid. Fares are the leading cause of conflicts, meaning slower transit, more staff time, and less efficiency.
By prepaid, I don’t mean having to show a pass. I mean that we fund transit by other means other than fares (hotel tax, employer tax, etc.) Right now we’re funding, what, 78% of transit that way anyway?
Either we’re serious about taking action on global climate change or we’re not. Right now, we’re not.
I think transit should be based on how far you travel, just like travelling using other means. The more distance, the more you pay. Give everyone a transit debit card that they fill up and then use them when they get on and get off and charge for the difference.
Making all fares either pre-paid or going “no fair”….both take the operator out of the fare collecting business and probably speeds up travel times by 25% easy. Just watch the next time you are on a bus and see how long boarding can be…then image folks just getting on, front and back. Prepaid would require fare inspectors on all bus lines as well as MAX; no fare could require the same number of staff for security.
RFID implants could make the whole process streamlined. Give everyone a discount if they agree to be implanted and then they could just get on and get off the bus.
There already is a “congestion charge” of sorts on transit. What would you rather ride, a full train/bus, or a half empty one? Most people would choose the half empty… The extra $0.75 a trip is actually worth less to me personally, than factors like: Am I going to get on (in a reasonable amount of time,) with a bicycle at all. And, will I get a seat so I can read a book?
This thread goes, ironically, completely against the idea of expanding transit service which is what so many participants on this board love to do (especially if it’s rail-based transit).
Congestion pricing’s roots is that there is greater demand for a product than supply, so artificially raise the price for the product to help reduce demand (either by eliminating demand altogether, or by moving the demand elsewhere.)
In London, “Congestion Pricing” is intended to get people out of their cars – period.
In public transit systems, “congestion pricing” is used to mitigate rush hour crush loads, by encouraging people to commute at other times of the day – before or after rush hour, or mid-day. (Or weekends.)
In Portland, since there is such a bent to suggest that we can easily build a rail line at whim but neglect investing in the bus system, congestion pricing has no merit – we all know Metro is going to fall head over heels for a new rail project and is going to get the funding, and Fred Hansen is going to go all over and say how great our “transit system” (when in reality he’s only talking about MAX) is going to be.
Maybe, on the other hand, congestion pricing just on the bus system is really the answer. TriMet, after all, doesn’t want to invest in bus service, and Metro wouldn’t dare use regional transportation dollars to improve busses, so congestion pricing could be an effective way to deter more bus ridership. Besides, MAX is “high capacity” and should have no problem accomodating all those displaced bus riders, since MAX supposedly has a lesser cost-per-passenger.
At the same time, since congestion pricing demands a fixed supply, we would also have to eliminate any rush-hour transit operations, so only busses and trains that operate span-of-service-day can continue. (Or, we could emulate C-Tran, and charge a higher fare to ride any bus that is a rush-hour-only schedule.)
Erik, as a transit advocate I wouldn’t want to use congestion pricing to reduce overall transit demand, but I could see a rational strategy to time-shift some of the demand, which would typically allow provision of more service for less dollars (i.e., you need few capital assets for the peak period and can make your assets work more of the day).
I think it is only theoretically possible to time-shift without also reducing overall use of transit. Complex fare structures are another barrier to people using transit at all. As I recall, understanding how to pay the fare was an important first step in getting people to use transit.
Or, we could emulate C-Tran, and charge a higher fare to ride any bus that is a rush-hour-only schedule.
Actually, the $3 fare is for their Portland Express Service only (105,134,157 to/from Lloyd Dist.,164,177,190 to/from Marquam Hill & 199 starting Nov. 19th). 105 also runs during the day M-F. Someone can still ride the Limited Service routes from either Delta Park TC or Parkrose TC or the local Clark Co. service and it’s still the same price as it always is.
BTW… (as my unofficial memory serves me) the $3 fare was implemented in May 2005 as a result of the looming service cuts at that agency at the time due to the exhaustion of their reserve funds that were being used to support their regular service. The fare policy was reviewed, and many of the Portland Express riders said something along the line of ‘how much does it really cost? I’ll pay it!’ This resulted in the $3/ride or $105/mo. (It had been $1.75/ride+All-Zone Transfer [which some used to ’round trip’] or $52/mo. at a time when TriMet All-Zone was $1.65 and $56/mo. [IIRC on that monthly fare.])
It was revealed earlier this year when the fare policy was reviewed that although the $3 fare covered 74% of operating expenses, 40% of the ridership went away.
“the $3 fare was implemented in May 2005 as a result of the looming service cuts at that agency at the time due to the exhaustion of their reserve funds that were being used to support their regular service.”
Yeah, if C-Trans had spent more of their money on running buses instead of the toy train, this never would have happened. Ohhh, wait, they don’t have a train.
As I recall, understanding how to pay the fare was an important first step in getting people to use transit.
You mean, like having a fare that is not an even amount? It makes no sense for an all-zone fare to cost two dollars and a nickel.
In Seattle, the fare schedule (for an adult) is:
Off-Peak: $1.25
One Zone Peak: $1.50 (Within the City of Seattle)
Two Zone Peak: $2.00 (Travel between the City of Seattle and points within King County, but outside Seattle)
In Salem, an adult fare is $1.00, or $2.00 for a day pass.
In Eugene, an adult fare is $1.25, or $2.50 for a day pass.
If there is any consolation, Vancouver (BC)’s fares are MORE expensive than Portland (and keep in mind that today, the Canadian Dollar is now higher than the U.S. Dollar!):
1 Zone: $2.25 (City of Vancouver)
2 Zone: $3.25 (areas north of Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminister and Richmond)
3 Zone: $4.50 (areas east of Vancouver and south of Richmond)
Discount (after 6:30 PM, and all day Saturday/Sunday/Holiday): $2.25 (all zone)
And what is with Portland’s two-plus-overlap zone system? That in itself is both unusual, and hard to explain.
On the other hand, having a stored value debit card (like New York MTA’s “MetroCard”) that is easily obtainable would certainly improve the transit experience, because one can either purchase one that is rechargable (and could be used as a monthly pass, or have a certain value to it that when expired could be recharged) or one that has a fixed value (i.e. $20) – and could be easily sold at small vending machines – like the ones that used to sell phone cards.
Of course, since TriMet made MAX “barrier-free”, there would be no way for a system to work on MAX, because there is no way to tell if someone paid a fare with a card.
Of course, since TriMet made MAX “barrier-free”, there would be no way for a system to work on MAX, because there is no way to tell if someone paid a fare with a card.
Of course, if TriMet had installed barriers at MAX stations, they’d need at least 128 full-time station agents (just for weekdays) and associated supervisory positions, at a cost of over $3 million per year (just for minimum wage, payroll taxes, and bare-minimum benefits (no health). Double that (at least) for a living wage and basic benefits.
If they did that, I have a sneaking suspicion that more than one person would be complaining very loudly that those dozens and dozens of employees could be put to better use driving buses.
If TriMet isn’t losing $3-$6 million per year to fare evasion, I’d say that barrier-free is working fine. (Not to mention, barriers are a — here it comes – barrier to new transit riders.)
(And if you think you can get away with a barrier system without station agents, you’ll have to do a lot of work to get around ADA and other access/security issues, gate jumpers (fare evasion again), etc.)
Additionally, for TriMet to lose $6 million annually on fare evasion would require in excess of 8,000 successful daily fare evaders who would otherwise be riding with a paid All-Zone ticket. Thousands more if we’re talking about boardings which would be replaced by 2-Zone or monthly/annual passes.
If they did that, I have a sneaking suspicion that more than one person would be complaining very loudly that those dozens and dozens of employees could be put to better use driving buses.
I attended Wednesday’s TriMet board meeting, and I think I was the only member of the general public that was there… 99% sure everyone else was either TriMet staff or board.
At that meeting, Fred Hansen himself said that if they were to add more resources to review fare payment, the amount of fares generated probably wouldn’t pay for the extra enforcement, based on other similar agencies with larger enforcement.
As for transit congestion pricing, my guess is lower fares on other systems off-peak is a means to generate more riders outside of regular commute times, rather than charge more for riders using the system during peak travel times. I really think that if we were to install tolls to drive private autos into downtown and a congestion tax on top of current transit fares, the people that could afford to pay won’t… they’ll either move elsewhere, or put forth a ballot measure to repeal them. The ones that would be paying would probably be the folks that can’t afford to relocate – lower-income, or taking care of family, or no resources to be able to relocate, etc.
On the other hand, having a stored value debit card (like New York MTA’s “MetroCard”) that is easily obtainable would certainly improve the transit experience, because one can either purchase one that is rechargable (and could be used as a monthly pass, or have a certain value to it that when expired could be recharged) or one that has a fixed value (i.e. $20) – and could be easily sold at small vending machines – like the ones that used to sell phone cards.
Of course, since TriMet made MAX “barrier-free”, there would be no way for a system to work on MAX, because there is no way to tell if someone paid a fare with a card.
So all they need to do is install barriers at every MAX station so that people will have the “convenience” of using a debit card like in New York City? I think this flies in the face of common sense.
As for transit congestion pricing, my guess is lower fares on other systems off-peak is a means to generate more riders outside of regular commute times,
I think this should be the goal. Having an off-peak discount might actually accomplish both increased ridership and a shift from peak times for omse rides. You could do that with special passes and tickets similar to the short-hopper without adding another fare structure. And a $.25 fare after 8:00 pm might increase both ridership and revenue. You could also try eliminating the zones – make everything a single zone fare – during off-peak hours. Of course all of those things add complexity to the fare system.
yah…congestion pricing as it’s being discussed by the Columbia Crossing Project, is a tool to simply reduce peak traffic by charging as high of a toll as possible in order to force vehicles off of the heaviest crossings during rush hour. I have no idea what the peak toll will be, but I hear it significantly higher than $2.00.
It’s not like those 60,000 Clark County residents who work over there aren’t paying thier fair share already via deferred wages in the form of Trimet taxes, and the non-resident income tax on our wages; now we are going to be faced with astronomical tolls, a sales tax that could easily approach 10% in America’s the ‘Couv, a property tax hike that will be second in size only by the one in King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties that’s being proposed to pay for more Sound Transit Loot Rail over the next 50 years.
The bottom line is that given the current political atmosphere in Clark County in the aftermath of the defeat of the Port of Vancouver’s IDD Levy, funding mass transit over here has a snowball’s chance in hell of ever being passed by the voters who must be asked to approve any or all of this.
There are fundamental differences in the way Washington and Oregon raise money, and they are in direct conflict when it comes to paying for, or even defining the scope of a project like the Columbia Crossing.
At some point, someone has to wake up to some of the political realities on these issues and at least attempt to resove them, otherwise this whole conversation is moot.
It’s not like those 60,000 Clark County residents who work over there aren’t paying thier fair share
The folks that pay a congestion toll are paying no more extra than it is worth to them to keep other people out of their way. The real question is where is the benefit for the people who choose not to pay.
I have no idea what the peak toll will be, but I hear it significantly higher than $2.00.
That depends on how attractive the alternatives are. The more attractive the alternatives, the lower the toll will have to be to get people to use them.
At some point, someone has to wake up to some of the political realities on these issues and at least attempt to resove them, otherwise this whole conversation is moot.
The political reality may well be that there is nothing that can be done with the CRC that is acceptable on both sides of the river. If anything, the CRC’s promise of a large new bridge may well be delaying Clark County coming to grips with reality. The future of Clark County commuters may well be sitting in increasingly worse congestion with few, if any, alternatives. It could easily end up the regions low rent district.
If living in Clark Co and working in Portland is too expensive, you have two choices:
1) Find a different job
or
2) Move
This isn’t complicated, if you want to live a long ways from your work, you need to come to grips with the fact that transportation is expensive, and someone has to pay for it…
If living in Clark Co and working in Portland is too expensive, you have two choices:
1) Find a different job
or
2) Move
Yeah, move to Salem! The Salem community is welcoming new businesses and residents. They are even planning to bring a commuter train (an extension of the WashCo commuter rail) by the year 2012. I’m sure Vancouver won’t even have a new bridge any time before 2050 and by then we’ll all be dead anyway.
A friend attended a meeting in Vancouver today, concerning the streetcar and planning for the same. He posted his review at clarkblog, and I urge you to read and comment on it there.
It is clear there is a complete lack of reality in any of the planning that goes on in Downtown Vancouver, and clear that the streetcar is widely viewed as a development tool for the benefit of downtown merchants, that will be financed via a combination of residential property taxes, and sales taxes.
Thayer Rohrbaugh even went so far as to declare the 10,000 sq. ft. lot a thing of the past, all in the name of density.
Never mind how many existing homes in East Vancouver sit on lots that size right now. I guess the City ought to buy those homes, burn down the houses, and replace each one with 4 duplexes, so we can create the necessary density, and raise enough tax money to pay for a light rail line to serve them, right Ross?
In fact, the streetcar planners freely admit that they are planning for gridlock, while at the same time trying to draw in up to another 30,000 car trips in and out of Downtown America’s The ‘Couv.
This has nothing to do with congestion Ross. And telling me to sell my house and leave if I don’t like it is a typical answer to people here in Vancouver, something we are used to hearing from our Mayor, “Rolls” Royce Pollard, and nothing will make me dig in my heels harder at the voting booth than ignorant comments like that.
And everyone better face the fact that in order to pay for things like this, you still need to convince a whole lot of people just like me, who thank God still have to vote in order for any of this madness to ever take place.
I think you make clear the point I have made repeatedly. Its foolish for Portland to agree to add capacity across the river based on promises from Clark County politicians.
They promised if Oregon fixed Delta Park that they would reign in suburban sprawl and provide alternatives so that the congestion wouldn’t just move to the Rose Quarter. Instead, they have done largely done the opposite. Expanding the urban growth area to acres of rural Clark County where the only transportation option for years to come will be the automobile.
As a result, when Delta Park is “fixed”, the lane that used to be reserved for North Portland residents to get on the freeway is going to be closed to them with ramp meters to prevent them from slowing down the folks coming from Clark County. In short, having got what it wanted, Clark County is already reneging on their politicians promises.
You make clear the problem. Its not congestion on I5 or the need for a new bridge. Its that Clark County does share the same vision for how the region should grow. And Portland shouldn’t let that tail wag the dog by facilitating growth in Clark County that is counter-productive to the kind of livable communities that are attracting jobs to the Oregon side of river.
This has nothing to do with congestion
Of course it doesn’t. A streetcar in Vancouver is not going to get anyone to work in Portland. But if downtown Vancouver is going to attract the kind of jobs and development that would allow people to live and work in Clark County, instead of commuting to Portland, then it is going to need to create a transportation system downtown that makes it an attractive place for denser job development. The streetcar is probably one way of doing that.
But you, like a lot of Clark County residents, don’t really want job development. Your vision of your community is as a suburban bedroom community where people are spread out on large lots and can get in their car and drive somewhere else to go to work. Unfortunately, that “somewhere else” is Portland, an Portland has something to say about whether to allow its economic growth to be strangled by traffic from suburban commuters who are unwilling to share their ride with anyone.
Ross, your comments are well written, and well recieved; let me clarify my position for you on all of this, because you do not appear to be reading me correctly.
My vision for Clark County is to create jobs on this side of the river, so that more people can own a house and pay thier taxes in Washington. I was, (and still am) an avid supporter of the Port of Vancouver, and I think we shot ourselves in the foot recently when voters voted down the Port’s IDD Levy which could have created up to 6,000 new, high paying and very secure jobs right here in Clark County. Short-sighted in my view, but the voters have spoken.
My biggest problem with Light Rail as it is being presented, is that is does not serve Clark County.
What the Columbia Crossing Project is proposing, with about 1.5 miles or so of Light Rail serving only Downtown Vancouver, was reported to be priced at $6 Billion last January, as the project was known at that time. Since then the City of Vancouver has added all kinds of Bells and Whistles, and Metro along with Clark County have attempted to redefine the whole project scope, and actually leave the existing bridges in place.
I constantly hear Light Rail supporters over here talk about how neat it would be to catch a train from The ‘Couv to the Schnitz, and that ain’t worth the price.
If I and the rest of Clark County are going to ever agree to pay for anything on rails, wheels, or monorails, beyond what we already have in C-Tran, then someone better come up with something that serves Clark County, and not Downtown Portland.
If there is to be a high speed transist system for Clark County, it cannot avoid the I-205 corridor, instead that is where it should run. If someone told me they could connect the Clark County Fairgrounds to PDX via light rail, and do it for $6 Billion, I would listen closely. Even if we had to build follow-on stations at more places later, such a system along I-205 has a lot more merit than the three-ring circus that is going on over here right now.
Thankfully RTC has a plan under development right now, and from what I hear it is light-years beyond the CRC in scope, and might actually have some features Clark County voters might support; like a third bridge at 192nd Ave, crossing over to Troutdale; a variation on the so-called “Lady Island Crossing” from several years ago.
The bottom line is that there are simply not enough homeowners in the City of Vancouver to pay for what is being proposed, and since all of what is being proposed between Loot Rail on the Columbia Crossing to the Streetcar for the Historic Reserve, benefit no-one but businesses in Downtown Vancouver, Clark County voters have absolutely no reason to approve any of it.
Ask yourself: if you owned a home in Ridgefield, Hockinson, Brush Prarie, Battle Ground, Ambodia or Yakoltistan; what is it worth to you to raise the property taxes on your home to pay for any kind of transit, when you already have a hard time raising enough taxes to pay for the schools that your kids attend??
How much of a percentage increase in your property taxes do you think would be reasonable to pay for either a streetcar or light rail into Downtown America’s the ‘Couv??
The property taxes on my house went up 21% this year, and resulted in an increase in our monthly escrow payment for taxes by $100 a month. That was the fifth straight year that we have had a significant increase in our taxes on the house; what was $1800 annually in 1998 is now almost $4000. The County is mailing out the next round of reassessments at the end of this month and we have no idea what to expect this year. I know Thurston County WA (Olympia) mailed out thier notices earlier this week and the average increase in assessments is 19%…
My wife commutes to Portland daily, to process weekly Union payroll for an electrical contractor. She consistently needs 27 minutes to get to her job on Macadam from our house here in Cascade Park on the very edge of the City of Vancouver. She has used the bus several times at the Fisher’s Landing Transit Center, both going to and coming home from work, and every time she measures the trip in hours, including her wait times. Billions of dollars worth of infrastructure for development driven transit in Downtown Vancouver will do nothing to improve her comute time significantly, and it is not worth the additional taxes and tolls it would cost us and Clark County residents just to end up with a ride to the Schnitz, and the same damned traffic problems that we started out with.
We do have a vision for Clark County Ross, and for some of us it has nothing to do with Vancouver’s Portland envy. There is plenty of development taking place over here in East County, and none of it requires anything on rails to make it continue. We could use the $50 Million that we are currently wasting on the Columbia Crossing Project, in order to add a few more C-Tran buses out here though…
might actually have some features Clark County voters might support; like a third bridge at 192nd Ave, crossing over to Troutdal
I think you missed the point. How does a bridge at 192nd serve the Portland region? I think this is, or should be, a non-starter. It essentially just moves Washington’s congestion problem across the river.
Portland is at the limit of the number of vehicles it can absorb from Clark County. That means any growth in trips is going to have to be accommodated by getting more people into each vehicle.
My vision for Clark County is to create jobs on this side of the river
You complained that streetcar only serves downtown Vancouver businesses. Isn’t serving businesses the way you create jobs? I think the question is whether you are willing to build the kind of community that is going to attract jobs.
The basic reality is that job development in Clark County has not kept up with population growth. It is a bedroom community for Portland. Thus your wife drives to Portland to work. But I think the notion that Clark County has the ability to create a self-sustaining economy is highly questionable. Clark County has been growing because of its proximity to Portland’s growing economy.
Then someone better come up with something that serves Clark County, and not Downtown Portland.
Light rail to Vancouver serves Clark County, not Portland. In fact, Portland residents will likely find themselves standing because the seats are taken by folks in Clark County before the line crosses the river. Its not as though there is a huge demand from people in Portland to get to Vancouver.
If someone told me they could connect the Clark County Fairgrounds to PDX via light rail, and do it for $6 Billion, I would listen closely.
There is nothing preventing Clark County from building a light rail line to connect to the airport. I am sure no one on the Portland side of the river would raise any objections at all.
. She has used the bus several times at the Fisher’s Landing Transit Center, both going to and coming home from work, and every time she measures the trip in hours, including her wait times.
Which is the nature of the development in Clark County. The suburban style, auto dependent, development is too spread out to sustain high quality transportation alternatives. So people drive everywhere, including to Portland to go to work. That needs to change because Portland can’t absorb that traffic any more.
How much of a percentage increase in your property taxes do you think would be reasonable to pay for either a streetcar or light rail into Downtown America’s the ‘Couv??
That depends on what kind of place you want to live. If cheap is your goal, then not much. And I think that is the goal for a lot of people who move to Clark County. They want live in “Portland” but let folks in Oregon pay the property taxes for all the urban amenities that generate job growth and make the Portland area desirable.
There is plenty of development taking place over here in East County, and none of it requires anything on rails to make it continue.
You will notice that there is not a huge demand on the Portland side of the river for a new bridge to get to those jobs. So your wife should have no trouble finding a job there and she won’t need a bridge of any kind for her commute.
The fact is that a new bridge, whether for transit or motor vehicles, serves Clark County and only Clark County. Portland’s support for transit is simply providing an alternative for people so that they won’t clog Portland’s streets with their cars.
If I and the rest of Clark County are going to ever agree to pay for anything on rails, wheels, or monorails, beyond what we already have in C-Tran, then someone better come up with something that serves Clark County, and not Downtown Portland.
I can’t find a link to it right now, but I remember reading some time back about Royce Pollard’s current proposal for light rail. IIRC, it crosses from Jantzen Beach to downtown Vancouver, goes across Vancouver (I don’t remember if it was along Fourth Plain Road or SR 500) to Vancouver Mall, then follows the I-205 corridor south to Gateway.
The entire line would be built within Vancouver city limits. That means it could be treated as a City of Vancouver project, and operations contracted out to C-Tran. (Sort of like the Portland Streetcar).
Any votes for local funding would be city-wide rather than county-wide, which might make it more likely to pass. Depending on the actual design, the vast majority of the population of Vancouver could be just a few minutes drive from a park-and-ride lot. People are more likely to vote for something they could actually use.
I have no idea what the project would cost, or whether Vancouver’s economic base could realistically pay for 1/4 of the project (or whatever the local share would be). But shifting the question from “Clark County voters” to “City of Vancouver” voters clearly creates a different political equation, and one that’s probably more favorable to getting light rail built.
I don’t remember if it was along Fourth Plain Road or SR 500
You are describing the plan that was approved as part of the recommendations by the bi-state task force that preceded the CRC. They did not resolve the question of which route to follow.
As can be seen here, even extending the line across to Vancouver meets with serious resistance. It is going to be a tough sell to put a string of light rail stations through Vancouver neighborhoods. Although it may be easier than selling it to Clark County as a whole.
djk; there simply are not enough houses to tax inside the City Limits of Vancouver, to be able to pay for billions of dollars worth of light rail or a streetcar.
Right now, on the City of Vanncouver’s very own Transportation Improvement Program, they are carrying over $300 Million Dollars worth of unfunded street improvement projects that the City cannot pay for. You can search thier website where they have a detailed listing of what those projects consist of.
Right now the City of Vancouver is being sued because it does not have enough ADA curbcuts and other handicapped amenities that the City cannot raise the money for.
And if my taxes are at $4000 a year right now, how much higher should I reasonably expect them to go in order to pay for all of this?
Ross, you are mistaking reality for resistance. I am pointing out the hurdles that supporters of Light Rail and/or a streetcar have to overcome before anything can happen over here. Making insulting, catty comments down your nose at all of us Vantucky residents will not earn you our support for anything, my friend.
When I-5 became so overcrowded it no longer served the Portland Metro area, I-205 was built, and it somehow managed to cross the river and hook back up to I-5 in the Salmon Creek area. I would say that I-205 serves both states nicely, and it’s pretty obvious that a bunch of people in both States managed to share a common vision, and pull off a real, joint transportation solution.
Now it’s time to consider another crossing to the East, that will serve both States Ross, and relieve some traffic pressure on both I-5 and I-205, like the 192nd Avenue crossing I described will do. If nothing else it diverts heavy thru trucks from transiting either of the other two crossings just to access I-84 and points East. Every truck you remove from I-5 makes room for a lot of cars. Believe it or not Ross, there is an entire economy across the river from you that has nothing to do with Portland. Seattle actually ships things in and out and would deeply appreciate not having thier goods tied up in Oregon’s traffic problems…
I would like to add a sidenote here, that ODOT’s repair of I-5 through Delta Park is going to make a tremendous net positive impact on the Columbia Crossing and I want to see those results before committing to all of this mass transit when all we really need is just a new bridge.
Instead of a streetcar to artificially try to stimulate business in Downtown Vancouver, it would cost us way less money to simply move those businesses that are dying along Main Street, and set them up on the Public dime in new digs up here in Cascade Park; because, (with due credit to Sam Kinnison) That’s where the people are!
In any case, it makes absolutely no sense to sink billions of scarce dollars into Downtown Vancouver alone, and infrastructure designed to create gridlock, and ignore other more viable projects that serve the region more effectively. The terms “Columbia Crossing Project” and “Light Rail” are being used synonymously in Vancouver.
What started out as a search for a solution to a freight mobility slowdown problem on Interstate 5 has morphed into an extended argument about how best to get Trimet and Light Rail into Clark County almost exactly the same way it was tried in 1995. It failed then because it was a bad and overpriced boondoggle, and little has changed since then, except we have spent millions more studying what ought to be obvious solutions.
On another side note, someone should suggest that the Cowlitz Tribe offer to underwrite a portion of light rail all the way from thier new Casino in North Clark County clear to PDX…if they do, that Casino couldn’t fail to win widespread approval, and Ross will have a reason to ride Trimet into Clark County after all…
I find it interesting that you note that Vancouver, which does not have a particularly large investment in transit, and is often portrayed here by anti-Portland critics as a suburban development and tax paradise, can’t afford to pay for its own roads.
How can it be that this community outside the jurisdiction of Metro, the City of Portland, the State of Oregon, has inadequate funding for roads?
I’ve been assured by others here that roads were always adequately funded by suburban development patterns and that it was streetcars, light rail, aerial trams, and fareless squares, and greedy condo developers (as opposed to greedy detached housing developers) who were responsible for the shortfalls in road maintenance funding around here.
Now it’s time to consider another crossing to the East, that will serve both States
I am not sure how it serves both states. In fact, it serves neither. What it serves is sprawling residential real estate development to the east. And the result will be additional traffic congestion on I-94 and I-205 as those folks commute to work.
I am pointing out the hurdles that supporters of Light Rail and/or a streetcar have to overcome before anything can happen over here.
And I am agreeing with you. Washington politicians have not shown they can actually deliver on their promises to adopt compatible transportation and land use policies. And until they do, Oregon would be foolish to accept their promises.
ODOT’s repair of I-5 through Delta Park
This is not a repair. There is a lane that was built to allow residents of North Portland to access the freeway. That lane is being connected so that people like your wife can get to their jobs faster, while the residents of North Portland are sitting at ramp meters waiting to get on the freeway.
And that decision was made based on promises that Clark County was going to control sprawl and establish a robust transit system. Neither one has happened because the politicians who made those promises have not been able to deliver on them.
What started out as a search for a solution to a freight mobility slowdown problem on Interstate 5
The CRC has nothing to do with freight mobility. Virtually every evaluation of the problem comes to the same conclusion. Whatever new capacity is added, it will serve commuters.
Every truck you remove from I-5 makes room for a lot of cars.
And every car removed makes room for trucks. Which is it, freight or commuters?
there is an entire economy across the river from you that has nothing to do with Portland. Seattle actually ships things in and out and would deeply appreciate not having thier goods tied up in Oregon’s traffic problems…
I take it you don’t drive to Seattle. Oregon freight is tied up more in Seattle traffic than the other way around. Almost none of the traffic on I-5 goes through Portland.
The reality is that any new capacity across the river will fill up with Clark County commuters driving to work and drowning Portland in traffic. There will be no room for freight and the only impact on congestion will be to shift it from Washington to the Oregon side of the river.
The fact is the Portland region’s economy depends on maintaining a livable city and that isn’t compatible with a deluge of Clark County suburbanites driving their cars across the river every day. No matter how much cheaper the living is in Vancouver.
The only way to reduce the commuter congestion that does interfere with freight is to make alternatives to sitting in congestion more attractive. As long as the alternatives to creating congestion are limited, people will continue to create it. But if there are attractive alternatives for most trips across the river, a lot of people will choose to use them even at lower levels of congestion.
You didn’t miss anything, Matthew. Ross said nothing that was even remotely insulting to Vancouver.
there simply are not enough houses to tax inside the City Limits of Vancouver, to be able to pay for billions of dollars worth of light rail or a streetcar.
Well, if the light rail proved to be a multi-billion dollar project and the only way to pay for the whole thing was local property taxes, that’s probably true. Of course, the route in question has NO expensive components other than that river crossing from downtown Vancouver to Hayden Island, and that will be a bi-state project. No major bridges, no tunnels, just making space on existing right of way. This project probably will come in under a billion.
In addition, most of the funding won’t be local. A light rail project could get at least 50% federal funding, possibly more. The State of Washington could put in half of the local matching funds. And there’s no shortage of revenue strategies to secure the local funding component, including an increase in the City sales tax. The real question is, can Vancouver raise $200 million or so? Assuming a population of 160,000, that would be about $10 per person per month over 20 years. $40 per month for a household of four. That’s steep, but not unachievable if dispersed among several funding sources.
(I don’t know that these are the actual numbers, I’m just ballparking to make a point. But I suspect my made-up numbers are closer to accurate than “billions.”)
I suspect if this project every went forward, it would be years in the planning and the funding components wouldn’t go to a vote until the City government was fairly sure there was community support for it. (Or maybe enough developers who stood to gain to put up funding for a massive pro-light-rail campaign.)
37 responses to “Congestion Pricing for Transit?”
King County Metro (Seattle) has been doing this for years. Current 2-zone fare is $2.00 peak (6 – 9 a.m. and 3 – 6 p.m), and $1.25 off-peak.
Isn’t the ultimate goal to promote using transit for travelling to work (when traffic is the worst)? This would probably have a net negative effect on transit use (because the marginal users now would switch to cars or taxis. If they wanted a growth in revenues and a reduction in traffic, they would invest in greater capacity and implement congestion taxes like in London where it costs £8 ($16) per day to drive in the City. New York of all places would be an optimal testing ground for congestion taxes in the U.S. I think that eventually Portland should go for congestion taxes (a charge during rush hour) because of the new MAX lines that will make 5th & 6th all but unnavigable for cars during rush hour. I would bet that there has been a net decrease in traffic downtown (cars/hour) since they started putting in the Green line. With the upcoming commuter rail b/w Beaverton & Tigard to deal with the intra-suburb traffic (could they expand that to encompass the city someday?), a congestion tax would make transit on TriMet easier than it is now and save millions of gallons of gas a year. What they should do to help the process, though, is to invest in more park-and-rides in the East Side. I rode the MAX to hillsboro for the first time (in my 8 years here) and there were a TON of park-and-rides out there. Hell, make the parking free and pay for it with a congestion tax in downtown!
I think premiums at rush hour are fairly common for transit systems. The idea is to encourage people to wait on trips that they can take after rush hour. It might make sense in New York if adding capacity to the subway is not really an option. While it is being pitched here as a lower fair off-peak, the reality is that it always plays out as a premium during rush hour. As I understand it, one of the barriers to transit usage confusion about how to pay fares. This seems like it just adds another barrier.
Transit should be all be prepaid. Fares are the leading cause of conflicts, meaning slower transit, more staff time, and less efficiency.
By prepaid, I don’t mean having to show a pass. I mean that we fund transit by other means other than fares (hotel tax, employer tax, etc.) Right now we’re funding, what, 78% of transit that way anyway?
Either we’re serious about taking action on global climate change or we’re not. Right now, we’re not.
I think transit should be based on how far you travel, just like travelling using other means. The more distance, the more you pay. Give everyone a transit debit card that they fill up and then use them when they get on and get off and charge for the difference.
Making all fares either pre-paid or going “no fair”….both take the operator out of the fare collecting business and probably speeds up travel times by 25% easy. Just watch the next time you are on a bus and see how long boarding can be…then image folks just getting on, front and back. Prepaid would require fare inspectors on all bus lines as well as MAX; no fare could require the same number of staff for security.
RFID implants could make the whole process streamlined. Give everyone a discount if they agree to be implanted and then they could just get on and get off the bus.
There already is a “congestion charge” of sorts on transit. What would you rather ride, a full train/bus, or a half empty one? Most people would choose the half empty… The extra $0.75 a trip is actually worth less to me personally, than factors like: Am I going to get on (in a reasonable amount of time,) with a bicycle at all. And, will I get a seat so I can read a book?
“Transit should be all be prepaid. Fares are the leading cause of conflicts, meaning slower transit, more staff time, and less efficiency.”
I second that motion!
This congestion pricing idea is moot as long as Portland clings to the fare less square concept, which is ruining the system generally speaking.
This thread goes, ironically, completely against the idea of expanding transit service which is what so many participants on this board love to do (especially if it’s rail-based transit).
Congestion pricing’s roots is that there is greater demand for a product than supply, so artificially raise the price for the product to help reduce demand (either by eliminating demand altogether, or by moving the demand elsewhere.)
In London, “Congestion Pricing” is intended to get people out of their cars – period.
In public transit systems, “congestion pricing” is used to mitigate rush hour crush loads, by encouraging people to commute at other times of the day – before or after rush hour, or mid-day. (Or weekends.)
In Portland, since there is such a bent to suggest that we can easily build a rail line at whim but neglect investing in the bus system, congestion pricing has no merit – we all know Metro is going to fall head over heels for a new rail project and is going to get the funding, and Fred Hansen is going to go all over and say how great our “transit system” (when in reality he’s only talking about MAX) is going to be.
Maybe, on the other hand, congestion pricing just on the bus system is really the answer. TriMet, after all, doesn’t want to invest in bus service, and Metro wouldn’t dare use regional transportation dollars to improve busses, so congestion pricing could be an effective way to deter more bus ridership. Besides, MAX is “high capacity” and should have no problem accomodating all those displaced bus riders, since MAX supposedly has a lesser cost-per-passenger.
At the same time, since congestion pricing demands a fixed supply, we would also have to eliminate any rush-hour transit operations, so only busses and trains that operate span-of-service-day can continue. (Or, we could emulate C-Tran, and charge a higher fare to ride any bus that is a rush-hour-only schedule.)
Erik, as a transit advocate I wouldn’t want to use congestion pricing to reduce overall transit demand, but I could see a rational strategy to time-shift some of the demand, which would typically allow provision of more service for less dollars (i.e., you need few capital assets for the peak period and can make your assets work more of the day).
Not that I’m suggesting TriMet should do it :-)
Chris –
I think it is only theoretically possible to time-shift without also reducing overall use of transit. Complex fare structures are another barrier to people using transit at all. As I recall, understanding how to pay the fare was an important first step in getting people to use transit.
Which is why in no way am I suggesting we should do it :-)
Chris –
I understood that. I wonder if there are other ways than congestion-pricing to get a time-shift.
Or, we could emulate C-Tran, and charge a higher fare to ride any bus that is a rush-hour-only schedule.
Actually, the $3 fare is for their Portland Express Service only (105,134,157 to/from Lloyd Dist.,164,177,190 to/from Marquam Hill & 199 starting Nov. 19th). 105 also runs during the day M-F. Someone can still ride the Limited Service routes from either Delta Park TC or Parkrose TC or the local Clark Co. service and it’s still the same price as it always is.
BTW… (as my unofficial memory serves me) the $3 fare was implemented in May 2005 as a result of the looming service cuts at that agency at the time due to the exhaustion of their reserve funds that were being used to support their regular service. The fare policy was reviewed, and many of the Portland Express riders said something along the line of ‘how much does it really cost? I’ll pay it!’ This resulted in the $3/ride or $105/mo. (It had been $1.75/ride+All-Zone Transfer [which some used to ’round trip’] or $52/mo. at a time when TriMet All-Zone was $1.65 and $56/mo. [IIRC on that monthly fare.])
It was revealed earlier this year when the fare policy was reviewed that although the $3 fare covered 74% of operating expenses, 40% of the ridership went away.
“the $3 fare was implemented in May 2005 as a result of the looming service cuts at that agency at the time due to the exhaustion of their reserve funds that were being used to support their regular service.”
Yeah, if C-Trans had spent more of their money on running buses instead of the toy train, this never would have happened. Ohhh, wait, they don’t have a train.
As I recall, understanding how to pay the fare was an important first step in getting people to use transit.
You mean, like having a fare that is not an even amount? It makes no sense for an all-zone fare to cost two dollars and a nickel.
In Seattle, the fare schedule (for an adult) is:
Off-Peak: $1.25
One Zone Peak: $1.50 (Within the City of Seattle)
Two Zone Peak: $2.00 (Travel between the City of Seattle and points within King County, but outside Seattle)
In Salem, an adult fare is $1.00, or $2.00 for a day pass.
In Eugene, an adult fare is $1.25, or $2.50 for a day pass.
If there is any consolation, Vancouver (BC)’s fares are MORE expensive than Portland (and keep in mind that today, the Canadian Dollar is now higher than the U.S. Dollar!):
1 Zone: $2.25 (City of Vancouver)
2 Zone: $3.25 (areas north of Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminister and Richmond)
3 Zone: $4.50 (areas east of Vancouver and south of Richmond)
Discount (after 6:30 PM, and all day Saturday/Sunday/Holiday): $2.25 (all zone)
And what is with Portland’s two-plus-overlap zone system? That in itself is both unusual, and hard to explain.
On the other hand, having a stored value debit card (like New York MTA’s “MetroCard”) that is easily obtainable would certainly improve the transit experience, because one can either purchase one that is rechargable (and could be used as a monthly pass, or have a certain value to it that when expired could be recharged) or one that has a fixed value (i.e. $20) – and could be easily sold at small vending machines – like the ones that used to sell phone cards.
Of course, since TriMet made MAX “barrier-free”, there would be no way for a system to work on MAX, because there is no way to tell if someone paid a fare with a card.
Of course, since TriMet made MAX “barrier-free”, there would be no way for a system to work on MAX, because there is no way to tell if someone paid a fare with a card.
Of course, if TriMet had installed barriers at MAX stations, they’d need at least 128 full-time station agents (just for weekdays) and associated supervisory positions, at a cost of over $3 million per year (just for minimum wage, payroll taxes, and bare-minimum benefits (no health). Double that (at least) for a living wage and basic benefits.
If they did that, I have a sneaking suspicion that more than one person would be complaining very loudly that those dozens and dozens of employees could be put to better use driving buses.
If TriMet isn’t losing $3-$6 million per year to fare evasion, I’d say that barrier-free is working fine. (Not to mention, barriers are a — here it comes – barrier to new transit riders.)
(And if you think you can get away with a barrier system without station agents, you’ll have to do a lot of work to get around ADA and other access/security issues, gate jumpers (fare evasion again), etc.)
– Bob R.
Additionally, for TriMet to lose $6 million annually on fare evasion would require in excess of 8,000 successful daily fare evaders who would otherwise be riding with a paid All-Zone ticket. Thousands more if we’re talking about boardings which would be replaced by 2-Zone or monthly/annual passes.
If they did that, I have a sneaking suspicion that more than one person would be complaining very loudly that those dozens and dozens of employees could be put to better use driving buses.
I attended Wednesday’s TriMet board meeting, and I think I was the only member of the general public that was there… 99% sure everyone else was either TriMet staff or board.
At that meeting, Fred Hansen himself said that if they were to add more resources to review fare payment, the amount of fares generated probably wouldn’t pay for the extra enforcement, based on other similar agencies with larger enforcement.
As for transit congestion pricing, my guess is lower fares on other systems off-peak is a means to generate more riders outside of regular commute times, rather than charge more for riders using the system during peak travel times. I really think that if we were to install tolls to drive private autos into downtown and a congestion tax on top of current transit fares, the people that could afford to pay won’t… they’ll either move elsewhere, or put forth a ballot measure to repeal them. The ones that would be paying would probably be the folks that can’t afford to relocate – lower-income, or taking care of family, or no resources to be able to relocate, etc.
On the other hand, having a stored value debit card (like New York MTA’s “MetroCard”) that is easily obtainable would certainly improve the transit experience, because one can either purchase one that is rechargable (and could be used as a monthly pass, or have a certain value to it that when expired could be recharged) or one that has a fixed value (i.e. $20) – and could be easily sold at small vending machines – like the ones that used to sell phone cards.
Of course, since TriMet made MAX “barrier-free”, there would be no way for a system to work on MAX, because there is no way to tell if someone paid a fare with a card.
So all they need to do is install barriers at every MAX station so that people will have the “convenience” of using a debit card like in New York City? I think this flies in the face of common sense.
As for transit congestion pricing, my guess is lower fares on other systems off-peak is a means to generate more riders outside of regular commute times,
I think this should be the goal. Having an off-peak discount might actually accomplish both increased ridership and a shift from peak times for omse rides. You could do that with special passes and tickets similar to the short-hopper without adding another fare structure. And a $.25 fare after 8:00 pm might increase both ridership and revenue. You could also try eliminating the zones – make everything a single zone fare – during off-peak hours. Of course all of those things add complexity to the fare system.
yah…congestion pricing as it’s being discussed by the Columbia Crossing Project, is a tool to simply reduce peak traffic by charging as high of a toll as possible in order to force vehicles off of the heaviest crossings during rush hour. I have no idea what the peak toll will be, but I hear it significantly higher than $2.00.
It’s not like those 60,000 Clark County residents who work over there aren’t paying thier fair share already via deferred wages in the form of Trimet taxes, and the non-resident income tax on our wages; now we are going to be faced with astronomical tolls, a sales tax that could easily approach 10% in America’s the ‘Couv, a property tax hike that will be second in size only by the one in King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties that’s being proposed to pay for more Sound Transit Loot Rail over the next 50 years.
The bottom line is that given the current political atmosphere in Clark County in the aftermath of the defeat of the Port of Vancouver’s IDD Levy, funding mass transit over here has a snowball’s chance in hell of ever being passed by the voters who must be asked to approve any or all of this.
There are fundamental differences in the way Washington and Oregon raise money, and they are in direct conflict when it comes to paying for, or even defining the scope of a project like the Columbia Crossing.
At some point, someone has to wake up to some of the political realities on these issues and at least attempt to resove them, otherwise this whole conversation is moot.
Just sayin’…
It’s not like those 60,000 Clark County residents who work over there aren’t paying thier fair share
The folks that pay a congestion toll are paying no more extra than it is worth to them to keep other people out of their way. The real question is where is the benefit for the people who choose not to pay.
I have no idea what the peak toll will be, but I hear it significantly higher than $2.00.
That depends on how attractive the alternatives are. The more attractive the alternatives, the lower the toll will have to be to get people to use them.
At some point, someone has to wake up to some of the political realities on these issues and at least attempt to resove them, otherwise this whole conversation is moot.
The political reality may well be that there is nothing that can be done with the CRC that is acceptable on both sides of the river. If anything, the CRC’s promise of a large new bridge may well be delaying Clark County coming to grips with reality. The future of Clark County commuters may well be sitting in increasingly worse congestion with few, if any, alternatives. It could easily end up the regions low rent district.
If living in Clark Co and working in Portland is too expensive, you have two choices:
1) Find a different job
or
2) Move
This isn’t complicated, if you want to live a long ways from your work, you need to come to grips with the fact that transportation is expensive, and someone has to pay for it…
If living in Clark Co and working in Portland is too expensive, you have two choices:
1) Find a different job
or
2) Move
Yeah, move to Salem! The Salem community is welcoming new businesses and residents. They are even planning to bring a commuter train (an extension of the WashCo commuter rail) by the year 2012. I’m sure Vancouver won’t even have a new bridge any time before 2050 and by then we’ll all be dead anyway.
A friend attended a meeting in Vancouver today, concerning the streetcar and planning for the same. He posted his review at clarkblog, and I urge you to read and comment on it there.
It is clear there is a complete lack of reality in any of the planning that goes on in Downtown Vancouver, and clear that the streetcar is widely viewed as a development tool for the benefit of downtown merchants, that will be financed via a combination of residential property taxes, and sales taxes.
Thayer Rohrbaugh even went so far as to declare the 10,000 sq. ft. lot a thing of the past, all in the name of density.
Never mind how many existing homes in East Vancouver sit on lots that size right now. I guess the City ought to buy those homes, burn down the houses, and replace each one with 4 duplexes, so we can create the necessary density, and raise enough tax money to pay for a light rail line to serve them, right Ross?
In fact, the streetcar planners freely admit that they are planning for gridlock, while at the same time trying to draw in up to another 30,000 car trips in and out of Downtown America’s The ‘Couv.
This has nothing to do with congestion Ross. And telling me to sell my house and leave if I don’t like it is a typical answer to people here in Vancouver, something we are used to hearing from our Mayor, “Rolls” Royce Pollard, and nothing will make me dig in my heels harder at the voting booth than ignorant comments like that.
And everyone better face the fact that in order to pay for things like this, you still need to convince a whole lot of people just like me, who thank God still have to vote in order for any of this madness to ever take place.
Stout Hearts!!
Bob K –
I think you make clear the point I have made repeatedly. Its foolish for Portland to agree to add capacity across the river based on promises from Clark County politicians.
They promised if Oregon fixed Delta Park that they would reign in suburban sprawl and provide alternatives so that the congestion wouldn’t just move to the Rose Quarter. Instead, they have done largely done the opposite. Expanding the urban growth area to acres of rural Clark County where the only transportation option for years to come will be the automobile.
As a result, when Delta Park is “fixed”, the lane that used to be reserved for North Portland residents to get on the freeway is going to be closed to them with ramp meters to prevent them from slowing down the folks coming from Clark County. In short, having got what it wanted, Clark County is already reneging on their politicians promises.
You make clear the problem. Its not congestion on I5 or the need for a new bridge. Its that Clark County does share the same vision for how the region should grow. And Portland shouldn’t let that tail wag the dog by facilitating growth in Clark County that is counter-productive to the kind of livable communities that are attracting jobs to the Oregon side of river.
This has nothing to do with congestion
Of course it doesn’t. A streetcar in Vancouver is not going to get anyone to work in Portland. But if downtown Vancouver is going to attract the kind of jobs and development that would allow people to live and work in Clark County, instead of commuting to Portland, then it is going to need to create a transportation system downtown that makes it an attractive place for denser job development. The streetcar is probably one way of doing that.
But you, like a lot of Clark County residents, don’t really want job development. Your vision of your community is as a suburban bedroom community where people are spread out on large lots and can get in their car and drive somewhere else to go to work. Unfortunately, that “somewhere else” is Portland, an Portland has something to say about whether to allow its economic growth to be strangled by traffic from suburban commuters who are unwilling to share their ride with anyone.
Ross, your comments are well written, and well recieved; let me clarify my position for you on all of this, because you do not appear to be reading me correctly.
My vision for Clark County is to create jobs on this side of the river, so that more people can own a house and pay thier taxes in Washington. I was, (and still am) an avid supporter of the Port of Vancouver, and I think we shot ourselves in the foot recently when voters voted down the Port’s IDD Levy which could have created up to 6,000 new, high paying and very secure jobs right here in Clark County. Short-sighted in my view, but the voters have spoken.
My biggest problem with Light Rail as it is being presented, is that is does not serve Clark County.
What the Columbia Crossing Project is proposing, with about 1.5 miles or so of Light Rail serving only Downtown Vancouver, was reported to be priced at $6 Billion last January, as the project was known at that time. Since then the City of Vancouver has added all kinds of Bells and Whistles, and Metro along with Clark County have attempted to redefine the whole project scope, and actually leave the existing bridges in place.
I constantly hear Light Rail supporters over here talk about how neat it would be to catch a train from The ‘Couv to the Schnitz, and that ain’t worth the price.
If I and the rest of Clark County are going to ever agree to pay for anything on rails, wheels, or monorails, beyond what we already have in C-Tran, then someone better come up with something that serves Clark County, and not Downtown Portland.
If there is to be a high speed transist system for Clark County, it cannot avoid the I-205 corridor, instead that is where it should run. If someone told me they could connect the Clark County Fairgrounds to PDX via light rail, and do it for $6 Billion, I would listen closely. Even if we had to build follow-on stations at more places later, such a system along I-205 has a lot more merit than the three-ring circus that is going on over here right now.
Thankfully RTC has a plan under development right now, and from what I hear it is light-years beyond the CRC in scope, and might actually have some features Clark County voters might support; like a third bridge at 192nd Ave, crossing over to Troutdale; a variation on the so-called “Lady Island Crossing” from several years ago.
The bottom line is that there are simply not enough homeowners in the City of Vancouver to pay for what is being proposed, and since all of what is being proposed between Loot Rail on the Columbia Crossing to the Streetcar for the Historic Reserve, benefit no-one but businesses in Downtown Vancouver, Clark County voters have absolutely no reason to approve any of it.
Ask yourself: if you owned a home in Ridgefield, Hockinson, Brush Prarie, Battle Ground, Ambodia or Yakoltistan; what is it worth to you to raise the property taxes on your home to pay for any kind of transit, when you already have a hard time raising enough taxes to pay for the schools that your kids attend??
How much of a percentage increase in your property taxes do you think would be reasonable to pay for either a streetcar or light rail into Downtown America’s the ‘Couv??
The property taxes on my house went up 21% this year, and resulted in an increase in our monthly escrow payment for taxes by $100 a month. That was the fifth straight year that we have had a significant increase in our taxes on the house; what was $1800 annually in 1998 is now almost $4000. The County is mailing out the next round of reassessments at the end of this month and we have no idea what to expect this year. I know Thurston County WA (Olympia) mailed out thier notices earlier this week and the average increase in assessments is 19%…
My wife commutes to Portland daily, to process weekly Union payroll for an electrical contractor. She consistently needs 27 minutes to get to her job on Macadam from our house here in Cascade Park on the very edge of the City of Vancouver. She has used the bus several times at the Fisher’s Landing Transit Center, both going to and coming home from work, and every time she measures the trip in hours, including her wait times. Billions of dollars worth of infrastructure for development driven transit in Downtown Vancouver will do nothing to improve her comute time significantly, and it is not worth the additional taxes and tolls it would cost us and Clark County residents just to end up with a ride to the Schnitz, and the same damned traffic problems that we started out with.
We do have a vision for Clark County Ross, and for some of us it has nothing to do with Vancouver’s Portland envy. There is plenty of development taking place over here in East County, and none of it requires anything on rails to make it continue. We could use the $50 Million that we are currently wasting on the Columbia Crossing Project, in order to add a few more C-Tran buses out here though…
Stout Hearts..
might actually have some features Clark County voters might support; like a third bridge at 192nd Ave, crossing over to Troutdal
I think you missed the point. How does a bridge at 192nd serve the Portland region? I think this is, or should be, a non-starter. It essentially just moves Washington’s congestion problem across the river.
Portland is at the limit of the number of vehicles it can absorb from Clark County. That means any growth in trips is going to have to be accommodated by getting more people into each vehicle.
My vision for Clark County is to create jobs on this side of the river
You complained that streetcar only serves downtown Vancouver businesses. Isn’t serving businesses the way you create jobs? I think the question is whether you are willing to build the kind of community that is going to attract jobs.
The basic reality is that job development in Clark County has not kept up with population growth. It is a bedroom community for Portland. Thus your wife drives to Portland to work. But I think the notion that Clark County has the ability to create a self-sustaining economy is highly questionable. Clark County has been growing because of its proximity to Portland’s growing economy.
Then someone better come up with something that serves Clark County, and not Downtown Portland.
Light rail to Vancouver serves Clark County, not Portland. In fact, Portland residents will likely find themselves standing because the seats are taken by folks in Clark County before the line crosses the river. Its not as though there is a huge demand from people in Portland to get to Vancouver.
If someone told me they could connect the Clark County Fairgrounds to PDX via light rail, and do it for $6 Billion, I would listen closely.
There is nothing preventing Clark County from building a light rail line to connect to the airport. I am sure no one on the Portland side of the river would raise any objections at all.
. She has used the bus several times at the Fisher’s Landing Transit Center, both going to and coming home from work, and every time she measures the trip in hours, including her wait times.
Which is the nature of the development in Clark County. The suburban style, auto dependent, development is too spread out to sustain high quality transportation alternatives. So people drive everywhere, including to Portland to go to work. That needs to change because Portland can’t absorb that traffic any more.
How much of a percentage increase in your property taxes do you think would be reasonable to pay for either a streetcar or light rail into Downtown America’s the ‘Couv??
That depends on what kind of place you want to live. If cheap is your goal, then not much. And I think that is the goal for a lot of people who move to Clark County. They want live in “Portland” but let folks in Oregon pay the property taxes for all the urban amenities that generate job growth and make the Portland area desirable.
There is plenty of development taking place over here in East County, and none of it requires anything on rails to make it continue.
You will notice that there is not a huge demand on the Portland side of the river for a new bridge to get to those jobs. So your wife should have no trouble finding a job there and she won’t need a bridge of any kind for her commute.
The fact is that a new bridge, whether for transit or motor vehicles, serves Clark County and only Clark County. Portland’s support for transit is simply providing an alternative for people so that they won’t clog Portland’s streets with their cars.
If I and the rest of Clark County are going to ever agree to pay for anything on rails, wheels, or monorails, beyond what we already have in C-Tran, then someone better come up with something that serves Clark County, and not Downtown Portland.
I can’t find a link to it right now, but I remember reading some time back about Royce Pollard’s current proposal for light rail. IIRC, it crosses from Jantzen Beach to downtown Vancouver, goes across Vancouver (I don’t remember if it was along Fourth Plain Road or SR 500) to Vancouver Mall, then follows the I-205 corridor south to Gateway.
The entire line would be built within Vancouver city limits. That means it could be treated as a City of Vancouver project, and operations contracted out to C-Tran. (Sort of like the Portland Streetcar).
Any votes for local funding would be city-wide rather than county-wide, which might make it more likely to pass. Depending on the actual design, the vast majority of the population of Vancouver could be just a few minutes drive from a park-and-ride lot. People are more likely to vote for something they could actually use.
I have no idea what the project would cost, or whether Vancouver’s economic base could realistically pay for 1/4 of the project (or whatever the local share would be). But shifting the question from “Clark County voters” to “City of Vancouver” voters clearly creates a different political equation, and one that’s probably more favorable to getting light rail built.
I don’t remember if it was along Fourth Plain Road or SR 500
You are describing the plan that was approved as part of the recommendations by the bi-state task force that preceded the CRC. They did not resolve the question of which route to follow.
As can be seen here, even extending the line across to Vancouver meets with serious resistance. It is going to be a tough sell to put a string of light rail stations through Vancouver neighborhoods. Although it may be easier than selling it to Clark County as a whole.
djk; there simply are not enough houses to tax inside the City Limits of Vancouver, to be able to pay for billions of dollars worth of light rail or a streetcar.
Right now, on the City of Vanncouver’s very own Transportation Improvement Program, they are carrying over $300 Million Dollars worth of unfunded street improvement projects that the City cannot pay for. You can search thier website where they have a detailed listing of what those projects consist of.
Right now the City of Vancouver is being sued because it does not have enough ADA curbcuts and other handicapped amenities that the City cannot raise the money for.
And if my taxes are at $4000 a year right now, how much higher should I reasonably expect them to go in order to pay for all of this?
Ross, you are mistaking reality for resistance. I am pointing out the hurdles that supporters of Light Rail and/or a streetcar have to overcome before anything can happen over here. Making insulting, catty comments down your nose at all of us Vantucky residents will not earn you our support for anything, my friend.
When I-5 became so overcrowded it no longer served the Portland Metro area, I-205 was built, and it somehow managed to cross the river and hook back up to I-5 in the Salmon Creek area. I would say that I-205 serves both states nicely, and it’s pretty obvious that a bunch of people in both States managed to share a common vision, and pull off a real, joint transportation solution.
Now it’s time to consider another crossing to the East, that will serve both States Ross, and relieve some traffic pressure on both I-5 and I-205, like the 192nd Avenue crossing I described will do. If nothing else it diverts heavy thru trucks from transiting either of the other two crossings just to access I-84 and points East. Every truck you remove from I-5 makes room for a lot of cars. Believe it or not Ross, there is an entire economy across the river from you that has nothing to do with Portland. Seattle actually ships things in and out and would deeply appreciate not having thier goods tied up in Oregon’s traffic problems…
I would like to add a sidenote here, that ODOT’s repair of I-5 through Delta Park is going to make a tremendous net positive impact on the Columbia Crossing and I want to see those results before committing to all of this mass transit when all we really need is just a new bridge.
Instead of a streetcar to artificially try to stimulate business in Downtown Vancouver, it would cost us way less money to simply move those businesses that are dying along Main Street, and set them up on the Public dime in new digs up here in Cascade Park; because, (with due credit to Sam Kinnison) That’s where the people are!
In any case, it makes absolutely no sense to sink billions of scarce dollars into Downtown Vancouver alone, and infrastructure designed to create gridlock, and ignore other more viable projects that serve the region more effectively. The terms “Columbia Crossing Project” and “Light Rail” are being used synonymously in Vancouver.
What started out as a search for a solution to a freight mobility slowdown problem on Interstate 5 has morphed into an extended argument about how best to get Trimet and Light Rail into Clark County almost exactly the same way it was tried in 1995. It failed then because it was a bad and overpriced boondoggle, and little has changed since then, except we have spent millions more studying what ought to be obvious solutions.
On another side note, someone should suggest that the Cowlitz Tribe offer to underwrite a portion of light rail all the way from thier new Casino in North Clark County clear to PDX…if they do, that Casino couldn’t fail to win widespread approval, and Ross will have a reason to ride Trimet into Clark County after all…
Stout Hearts…
Bob K –
I find it interesting that you note that Vancouver, which does not have a particularly large investment in transit, and is often portrayed here by anti-Portland critics as a suburban development and tax paradise, can’t afford to pay for its own roads.
How can it be that this community outside the jurisdiction of Metro, the City of Portland, the State of Oregon, has inadequate funding for roads?
I’ve been assured by others here that roads were always adequately funded by suburban development patterns and that it was streetcars, light rail, aerial trams, and fareless squares, and greedy condo developers (as opposed to greedy detached housing developers) who were responsible for the shortfalls in road maintenance funding around here.
– Bob R.
Bob K said:
“Making insulting, catty comments down your nose at all of us Vantucky residents will not earn you our support for anything, my friend.”
Maybe I missed something, but it looks like the only person that has insulted Vancouver in this thread is you…
Now it’s time to consider another crossing to the East, that will serve both States
I am not sure how it serves both states. In fact, it serves neither. What it serves is sprawling residential real estate development to the east. And the result will be additional traffic congestion on I-94 and I-205 as those folks commute to work.
I am pointing out the hurdles that supporters of Light Rail and/or a streetcar have to overcome before anything can happen over here.
And I am agreeing with you. Washington politicians have not shown they can actually deliver on their promises to adopt compatible transportation and land use policies. And until they do, Oregon would be foolish to accept their promises.
ODOT’s repair of I-5 through Delta Park
This is not a repair. There is a lane that was built to allow residents of North Portland to access the freeway. That lane is being connected so that people like your wife can get to their jobs faster, while the residents of North Portland are sitting at ramp meters waiting to get on the freeway.
And that decision was made based on promises that Clark County was going to control sprawl and establish a robust transit system. Neither one has happened because the politicians who made those promises have not been able to deliver on them.
What started out as a search for a solution to a freight mobility slowdown problem on Interstate 5
The CRC has nothing to do with freight mobility. Virtually every evaluation of the problem comes to the same conclusion. Whatever new capacity is added, it will serve commuters.
Every truck you remove from I-5 makes room for a lot of cars.
And every car removed makes room for trucks. Which is it, freight or commuters?
there is an entire economy across the river from you that has nothing to do with Portland. Seattle actually ships things in and out and would deeply appreciate not having thier goods tied up in Oregon’s traffic problems…
I take it you don’t drive to Seattle. Oregon freight is tied up more in Seattle traffic than the other way around. Almost none of the traffic on I-5 goes through Portland.
The reality is that any new capacity across the river will fill up with Clark County commuters driving to work and drowning Portland in traffic. There will be no room for freight and the only impact on congestion will be to shift it from Washington to the Oregon side of the river.
The fact is the Portland region’s economy depends on maintaining a livable city and that isn’t compatible with a deluge of Clark County suburbanites driving their cars across the river every day. No matter how much cheaper the living is in Vancouver.
The only way to reduce the commuter congestion that does interfere with freight is to make alternatives to sitting in congestion more attractive. As long as the alternatives to creating congestion are limited, people will continue to create it. But if there are attractive alternatives for most trips across the river, a lot of people will choose to use them even at lower levels of congestion.
You didn’t miss anything, Matthew. Ross said nothing that was even remotely insulting to Vancouver.
there simply are not enough houses to tax inside the City Limits of Vancouver, to be able to pay for billions of dollars worth of light rail or a streetcar.
Well, if the light rail proved to be a multi-billion dollar project and the only way to pay for the whole thing was local property taxes, that’s probably true. Of course, the route in question has NO expensive components other than that river crossing from downtown Vancouver to Hayden Island, and that will be a bi-state project. No major bridges, no tunnels, just making space on existing right of way. This project probably will come in under a billion.
In addition, most of the funding won’t be local. A light rail project could get at least 50% federal funding, possibly more. The State of Washington could put in half of the local matching funds. And there’s no shortage of revenue strategies to secure the local funding component, including an increase in the City sales tax. The real question is, can Vancouver raise $200 million or so? Assuming a population of 160,000, that would be about $10 per person per month over 20 years. $40 per month for a household of four. That’s steep, but not unachievable if dispersed among several funding sources.
(I don’t know that these are the actual numbers, I’m just ballparking to make a point. But I suspect my made-up numbers are closer to accurate than “billions.”)
I suspect if this project every went forward, it would be years in the planning and the funding components wouldn’t go to a vote until the City government was fairly sure there was community support for it. (Or maybe enough developers who stood to gain to put up funding for a massive pro-light-rail campaign.)