The proposed bridge for the Milwaukie Light Rail line, once commonly referred to as the Caruthers Crossing (after the street on the east side it would have aligned with) gets a thorough examination by Dylan Rivera in the Oregonian today. Development opportunities on both sides of the river are major considerations.
80 responses to “Caruthers Revisited”
Oh teriffic another boondoggle in the making! I wonder how many times overbudget this one’s gonna be?
I’m not so thrilled about the “no cars” aspect of this project. As I’ve mentioned before, there probably will be a market for direct access to SoWa from the east side. Tri-Met could charge electronic tolls on private vehicles, using automatic traffic gates to keep the bridge clear enough for transit.
Tri-Met would be foolish not to take advantage of the traffic demand created by South Waterfront development. It might even raise enough money to pay for the bridge.
djk –
Tolled access for autos is an interesting idea, but I’d want to know for sure that allowing private automobiles will not create any legal hurdles for full-speed light rail operation. Cars and MAX share a lane on the Steel Bridge currently, but MAX moves very slow through there so the liabilities are minimal.
If autos on the bridge would require separate lanes from buses/trains (in order to maintain full-speed operation), it might drive the cost of the bridge up beyond the point where tolls could pay off the additional infrastructure.
– Bob R.
Alright! Thank goodness we will finally have a non-auto bridge over the Willamette. I always thought that this kind of bridge was all that was missing from our beautiful city.
I feel sorry for those who are still blinded by auto dependency… If Portland wants to keep being innovative in the movement to build a sustainable world then we need to join the ranks of Vancouver BC, New York, London, Frankfurt, Boston, Prague, etc who already have non-auto multi-model bridges.
Also, I am excited to see a cable-stayed design proposed for PDX. There is a somewhat elegant feel to this type of bridge design, and it offers a great deal of flexibility to the engineer/ architects.
I don’t know about regulatory hurdles, but the practical hurdles should be minimal. Cars enter from a gated ramp. MAX enters on its own ramp. When MAX approaches, when it’s still about twenty seconds away from the bridge, the car gate stops. Any cars on the bridge have twenty seconds to cross. By the time MAX enters the bridge, it’s at least twenty seconds behind the last car in the lane.
If the cars cross at 45 mph, the last one will be at least 1/4 mile ahead. By the time the MAX is halfway across, the cars will have cleared the bridge.
It’s really just a question of timing and access control.
djk –
Thanks for the ideas about access control. I’m not opposed to autos sharing the bridge, so long as conflict issues can be fully identified and addressed, and transit gets to operate at the same speed and frequency it would otherwise operate at on a car-free bridge.
It is worth noting that in addition to mixed-use bridges like the Hawthorne and Steel which serve bikes/peds as well as cars, there are already 16 lanes of dedicated freeway (no bikes, no peds allowed) over the Willamette on the Fremont and Marquam bridges. What we’re talking about here is adding 2, possibly 4 lanes of dedicated transit across the river, where there currently are none.
There’s also 4 to 6 lanes of dedicated high-speed auto access through/adjacent to downtown (I-405) but no dedicated grade-separated transit.
We’ve made a lot of investment in automobile-only infrastructure over the years, which has its benefits, but we haven’t had that kind of scale of investment for other users such as peds, bikes, transit. That’s one reason why I’m hesitant to expand this crossing discussion to include autos.
– Bob R.
Why would we need four lanes of dedicated transit? There’s plenty of room for buses and light rail to share a lane across the bridge.
The thing is, auto access into South Waterfront will be a severe problem. Basically, there will be two bottlenecks at the north and south end. Anyone living there will need to drive a circuitous route to reach a bridge. That should produce a lot of latent demand for another automobile route in and out. It also means Tri-Met should be able to charge top dollar for private bridge access; there will be a lot of wealthy people living in South Waterfront who won’t blink at spending a few bucks to shave five or ten minutes off their trip.
Since the transit bridge will be empty most of the time, even with three or four bus lines on it, it makes sense to sell the empty lane space to drivers willing to pay for it — and to fund the construction and maintenance of the bridge in the process. Since Tri-Met will own the bridge, they might even be able to use surplus toll revenue (if any) to fund transit operations.
If they can’t … well, it’s Tri-Met’s bridge. They don’t have to open it to private cars if they don’t want to.
Whatever the decision is (cars are allowed, tolled, restricted, whatever) the bridge should be designed to allow for a change of mindset about private and public transportation and mode. I know we’re all about rail and buses now, but who knows what the situation will be like fifty years from now?
The design ought to consider that rather than be built in such a way that existing modes are inherently restricted.
Cars already have rather a lot of bridges of their own. The Fremont. The Marquam. To name two.
They also dominate a number of other bridges to the extent that it’s unpleasant to cross via any other mode The Sellwood. The Morrison. The St Johns.
One doesn’t have to be vehomently anti-car, to still wish for one, count it, ONE car-free bridge in this city. As a jogger, I would very much appreciate this. As was pointed out above, many large cities are miles ahead of us in terms of this!
Since they don’t pay gas taxes for those trips, perhaps a toll for peds and bikes…
I would rather see a new bridge connecting SE Holgate Bv. to SW Bancroft. This could have relatively easy access on and off of Interstate 5. I do ride a bicycle so, of course, I would want it to have bike paths. Also, there is nothing wrong with connecting SOWA to OMSI on the lower portion of the Marquam Bridge. It sure would be a lot cheaper since the structure is already there.
Milwaukie MAX is going to be a first class waste. There is scarcely any significant redevelopable land along the route—which has always been a central justification for federally subsidized MAX lines. Neither has anyone provided a realistic cost analysis for taking that line all the way to Oregon City, which is the only way it would even begin to make sense. I bet they are afraid to.
Look out Portlanders! The Federal Pork Machine is leaving the station! All aboard!! We’ve seen nothing yet.
The Federal Pork Machine is leaving the station!
I really do hope they realign their priorities. Skodas and imported MAX trains from the third world seems really wasteful to me. These same types cry about imports from Wal-Mart but they think it’s ok to import trains from eastern europe? Give me a break! Why can’t they use the tracks they already have down the Portland – OR City corridor? They should buy some hand me down trains from another city – recycling… being truly “sustainable”. I know, blame the freight companies. But last I checked freight companies weren’t on the tracks every minute of the day!
Some random thoughts about the new bridge include;
The artist’s conception with one center pier would seem to be a hindrance to river and marine traffic – design the piers like rocks and it shouldn’t bother the fish.
Any new bridge should have no less clearance for river traffic than the fixed lower deck of the Marquam Bridge.
If this bridge is designed for busses as well as rail transit but with no auto traffic, busses should be banned from other inner SE-SW Willamette River crossings including the Morrison Bridge, Hawthorne Bridge and Ross Island Bridge leaving those bridges for taxpaying traffic.
If there are accommodations for bicycles but no autos on the new bridge, the proposed bicycle lanes on the Morrison Bridge should be scrapped saving taxpayer dollars with bicycles banned from that bridge.
The question also remains how to pay any local match for the bridge.
If the bridge only accommodates transit, bicycles and pedestrians, NO motorist paid dollars should be used to pay for the bridge – that would include any motorist paid taxes such as fuel taxes, motor vehicle registration fees and/or parking meter fees.
Tolls should be considered for bicyclists and transit users for which the multi-dollar charge could be added to fares on routes that cross the bridge.
Any tolls for bicyclists and transit users should be no less thanwhat motorists might possibly pay on the Columbia Crossing if tolls are charged.
Both a bicycle tax paid by bicyclists only (no auto taxes allowed) and a transit fare box tax should be implemented to exclusively pay for any non-auto bridge.
Tax fairness principals must be applied such that any local costs for the bridge are paid for by users only with none of the financing assessed to the community through increased taxes.
In short- no autos on the bridge – no dollars from motorists for the bridge.
I think the question of using a bridge to provide better connections to South Waterfront is one part where does the traffic get on and off the bridge on the east side and one part how it connects on the west side. Its not clear to me that the local street grid on either side of the river can really handle a huge increase in commuter traffic.
On the other hand adding an additional access point for commercial traffic might make sense. It would allow businesses to locate on the east side and provide services to the businesses and residents in South Waterfront. Perhaps this is a place to start with freight only motor vehicle capacity.
East side connections: McLoughlin northbound, McLoughlin southbound, Division Street. If Tri-Met does the tolling right, it should preclude a “huge” increase in commuter traffic. High tolls will keep traffic volumes low. The drivers will mostly be rich motorists who don’t mind paying for a shortcut.
The local increase to traffic on the east side would be minimal, as long as Tri-Met charged high tolls to use their bridge.
One doesn’t have to be vehomently anti-car, to still wish for one, count it, ONE car-free bridge in this city.
There are three along the Springwater Trail. Although I guess those are technically in Milwaukie, not Portland. Yeah, I know, that’s not what you were talking about.
Seriously, I don’t see any intrinsic virtue to a “car-free” bridge. A “car-light” bridge with low vehicle traffic that allows transit to flow unhindered, with wide sidewalks for pedestrians and bicycles, would serve the same ends.
Greg writes (in apparent complete ignorance of all prior revealed self-contradictions):
Skodas and imported MAX trains from the third world seems really wasteful to me.
1. Re: Skodas (and Inekons): No American manufacturer completed a bid on the original project despite a thorough RFP.
2. Oregon Iron Works (in case you didn’t notice dozens of posts and comments on this very blog, plus numerous news articles) is producing a locally-built (in Clackamas) streetcar and is hoping to expand this into nationwide business.
These same types cry about imports from Wal-Mart but they think it’s ok to import trains from eastern europe?
There are no “same types” that you describe. See past admonitions about your straw-man arguments.
Give me a break!
Break over. If you want a longer break, consider joining a union.
Why can’t they use the tracks they already have down the Portland – OR City corridor?
Which of these tracks cross the river in inner-SE Portland? Hmm?
They should buy some hand me down trains from another city – recycling… being truly “sustainable”.
The demand for light rail trains, combined with their longevity, means that very few (if any) light rail trains are available used. Please provide a reference to a city which is currently auctioning off a sufficient number of used light rail trains to accommodate a Milwaukie light rail line. The simple fact is that demand for light rail systems is increasing nation-wide and therefore new vehicles are the primary solution to meeting that demand.
I know, blame the freight companies.
Wow, two straw-man arguments in one post — you’re in great form.
But last I checked freight companies weren’t on the tracks every minute of the day!
Which track in inner-SE Portland was that again? Which one of those inner-SE tracks passes by South Waterfront? Which freight tracks have any bearing on the bridge options being discussed? (crickets)
– Bob R.
Any new bridge should have no less clearance for river traffic than the fixed lower deck of the Marquam Bridge.
The Marquam was sized for the days when Zidell was building full-sized ships. Zidell promptly switched to barges after the bridge opened. Since the Zidell property will redevelop as part of South Waterfront, there is no need for anything like the same clearance.
Terry has some “completely random” and apparently previously completely unexpressed thoughts about the new bridge:
Thanks, Terry, those are new, fresh ideas.
Seriously, though … if you really believe that taxes should be precisely, exactly allocated to services performed in unwavering proportion to the persons paying the tax, why have a general fund at all? Why don’t you just own up to the fact that you don’t believe there should be any taxes and that the private sector should provide absolutely everything and that Government should not intervene in anything, anywhere, at any time? There’s a whole political party organized around that principal — at least they’re open about it.
– Bob R.
Terry said: “Tax fairness principals”
You speak of these as if they have been handed down from heaven. What makes you think that you hold the keys regarding this concept? From my perspective your “principals” are not fair at all. Repeating them over and over again won’t make it so.
Terry also wrote:
The artist’s conception with one center pier would seem to be a hindrance to river and marine traffic
Maintaining obstruction-free navigable channels is a matter of law. Do you have evidence to suggest that planners have not taken this into account? Do you have a navigation chart which shows the primary channel running head-long into the proposed center pier?
If so, I suggest that you send an urgent memo to the Coast Guard and the Willamette River Keeper immediately… multimillion-dollar federally-funded environmental-impact-statement-required bridges pop up every day blocking legally mandated navigation channels. It’s a nationwide plague. Only you have the power to prevent it, so please save us all.
– Bob R.
“hindrance to river and marine traffic”
The bigger issue here seems to be whether said river and marine traffic are paying their own way or whether they are just another example of freeboating freeloaders who surf subsidies on the backs of the righteous auto drivers. Plus, that darn bridge will just gum up river traffic.
Hawthorne observes:
freeboating freeloaders
Good point, I hadn’t thought about that!
After we manage to rectify the issue of free-flowing water, I hope we can address the unfairness of untaxed freebreathing airbreathers, who brazenly take fresh air away from numerous taxed industries which pay into our system for clean air but do not receive the right to use up that clean air in return.
Only when there is no air will we truly live in a free country.
Oxygen = Oppression!
– Bob R.
The new bridge being proposed is yet another monumental waste of money. Just like the tram, just like anything these people get their hands on….
Which freight tracks have any bearing on the bridge options being discussed?
Why do they need a transit bridge, anyway? They can use the steel bridge which has not one, but TWO rail decks. They can run their recycled trains down this route and there’s already a train station in downtown and one at Oregon City. They would just need to put a couple in Milwaukie. Much cheaper than this elaborate scam in the making!
I’m going to write all my representatives to express my dismay at this proposal. I’m tired of paying for Disneyland rides for the Portland area. If they are going to spend any money at all it should be on improving the state wide network and better highways for ALL (like 99W for example).
Why do they need a transit bridge, anyway?
To get to the other side.
They can use the steel bridge which has not one, but TWO rail decks.
A. The Steel Bridge isn’t anywhere near where this new bridge is proposed.
B. The Steel Bridge will be nearing its capacity soon.
C. The Steel Bridge is old and requires very slow-speed travel — normal speed operations will require an upgrade to the bridge.
You speak so eloquently about dumb government officials making monumentally bad ideas in so many of your posts, yet here you would propose that transit from Milwaukie to downtown should go all the way north to the Rose Quarter before crossing the river to reverse direction to serve downtown, adding 10 to 15 minutes to every trip.
Where do you come up with this stuff?
– Bob R.
Naah, just trying to raz ya…
I work for the State, remember?
I think they should build TWO bridges, just in case, ya know, one could fail. Buy them now while their still cheap!
AND, they should not only have street cars going over them BUT ALSO , they should provide for TRAM service, just in case there is an accident on the bridge!
NOW THATS PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE!
Salem is planning to build two more bridges. Maybe I’ll focus my effort on what’s going on down here after all I don’t live in Portland any more. Too bad there isn’t an oregontransport.com
Too bad there isn’t an oregontransport.com
So start one. You seem to have a lot to say, so why not do it on your own blog?
Too bad there isn’t an oregontransport.com
So start one. You seem to have a lot to say, so why not do it on your own blog?
Not so easy, a scammer has it.
Greg, your general tone and content of comments are in my view crossing into violation of this section of our rules:
Consider this a warning. The next step will be to restrict your ability to comment.
Thanks.
Chris
Hawthorne questioned if “marine traffic are paying their own way”. Boats are licensed – bicycles have yet to be. I also believe boat operators must take a marine safety course, sort of a boat operator license. Bicyclists have yet to be required to have the same responsibility.
As for tax fairness principals, any Sellwood Bridge replacement or rehabilitation along with the Columbia Crossing should receive the same percentage of costs paid for with lottery funds as this proposed new bridge. Other funding methods, either user paid (fuel taxes applied as the motorist contributions) or otherwise should also be the same. Therefore, if everyone in the community is expected to subsidize and help pay the local match for a light rail bridge whether they use it or not, then that same taxing method must also apply to the Sellwood Bridge and the Columbia Crossing, including non-drivers subsidizing and helping to pay for roadway portions of the those bridges. Anything less would be discrimination.
As for river clearance, the river should remain navigable for full sized ships with no relationship to what happens with the Zidell property. A lower crossing would be limiting any future potential use of the river as a transportation corridor.
And as for the artists conception of a bridge with one center pier being a hindrance to river traffic, to me it appeared as if the pier was placed in the river in an alignment that was almost directly between piers of the Marquam Bridge. Additionally, I found the artist’s conception of such a bridge truly ugly.
I think a car access would be on the streetcar/bus corridor and leave the MAX corridor alone (allow the MAX trains alittle more speed and safety). Hopefully two lanes for MAX and two lanes for multiple uses will fly. The bridge will work nicely for Springwater. Build it yesterday please!
Ray
Terry,
I’m having trouble following you. First, I’m not sure if you could tell I was writing with a certain bit of humor. More important, given you insistance on user-pay. How can you suggest that boaters (and boat builders) pay their own way and then demand that “the river should remain navigable for full sized ships with no relationship to what happens with the Zidell property. A lower crossing would be limiting any future potential use of the river as a transportation corridor.”?
Do you have a financing scheme in place to pay for this luxury?
“Boats are licensed … I also believe boat operators must take a marine safety course, sort of a boat operator license.”
Over a certain size, yes boats are licensed and regulated, but you don’t need one for a kayak or a canoe or a white water type raft, in other words, things that you move under your own power. It is kind of how you need a license and insurance and a bunch of other things to move two ton chunks of steel around on the roads with an internal combustion engine, but if you want to move 20-30 lbs of aluminum around with your legs, they figure it is up to you…
(Very interesting analogy, I’m glad you brought it up.)
May I be the first to suggest a canoe user fee. Time for those paddle pushing freeloaders to start paying their own way ;)
May I be the first to suggest a canoe user fee. Time for those paddle pushing freeloaders to start paying their own way ;)
Not to mention swimmers — by avoiding having a boat (and therefore a license) altogether, swimmers are cheating all other users — boat owners and motorists alike.
Make them buy a vessel or pin a tag to their trunks, preferably with GPS and RFID. It’s only fair.
– Bob R.
Why are you guys letting pedestrians off the hook?
I think that pedestrians should definately not be off the hook. They have been walking (for free!) on sidewalks for years and this must stop in the name of tax fairness principles. Those bureaucratic paper pushers at Metro are probably not up to the task, but I will suggest what they are not capable of imagining since they are so focused on light rail. In as much as their light rail delusions are causing them to see Portland with rose tinted glasses I would suggest that all pedestrians be implanted with a gps device. Such devices would not be that expensive and would allow for each sidewalk user to pay for his or her own use of sidewalks instead of walking on the backs of the auto user and siphoning money off from the constitutionally sacred gas tax.
Furthermore, people standing on sidewalks “bulbs” which restrict the free flow of traffic and just gum things up and contribute to pollution should pay double.
Just my casual observations, though.
So,
Will there ever be a day in which the “Bob Rs” and “Terry Parkers” can agree in principle on anything?
Will there ever be a day in which the “Bob Rs” and “Terry Parkers” can agree in principle on anything?
Although it may astonish many, Terry and I have agreed on a few things here and elsewhere in the past.
One thing that comes to mind is that a year or so ago, regarding the east side loop streetcar project, Terry and I both agreed that 6th might make an ideal streetcar/bike/ped street, with a connecting bridge across I-84 at 7th. The bridge would also add a new N-S auto/bike/ped option on 7th, taking pressure off 11th/12th and MLK/Grand.
Now, Terry isn’t hot on the streetcar project at all, but if one is going to be built, Terry thought that would make a better corridor than what is proposed. Me personally, I understand the various reasons why the current route was selected, and I’m not going to expend any energy trying to convince people otherwise at this stage.
But it does go to show that two people, coming from two very different perspectives, can occasionally find something to agree upon.
As I recall, Terry is also very skeptical of the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) proposal — although in Terry’s case the transit component is as much of a potential negative issue as not including separate arterial bridge(s) is for others here.
Finally, we both agree that Rose City Park is a good neighborhood, and are actively involved in neighborhood issues (even if we’re of opposing opinions on what to actually do about those issues.)
– Bob R.
I don’t like looks of the single-pillar cable-stayed bridge design. A double-pillar cable-stayed suspension bridge would be more appropriate architecturally.
I’ll go on record as being opposed to automobile access to the new bridge. There will likely be a detrimental impact to the South Waterfront with the additional traffic. Either way, car access is an issue that should be studied.
“Boats are licensed – bicycles have yet to be. I also believe boat operators must take a marine safety course, sort of a boat operator license. Bicyclists have yet to be required to have the same responsibility.”
Terry, boat operators are not paying their own way. If they were they would have also paid for all of the dam construction, dredging projects, wood removal, and channel armoring in the Columbia and Willamette.
Historically the river used to be a shallow braided system with a depth around 17 feet. Navigation with merchant ships very difficult if not impossible back then.
Now, The river has been altered a single wide channel with a depth of 43 feet. The cost to provide this navigable waterway wasn’t paid solely by those merchant ships.
We also know now all the alteration to the river has caused significant environmental damage. The boat operator’s aren’t paying their fair share for that either.
I recognize however, as I think most of civil society, is that making the boat operators bear all the cost for this is unrealistic and doesn’t make sense…for the same reason it doesn’t make sense to have a policy that bicycles alone bear the entire cost of their infrastructure .
Also, when I took “drivers” ed class. It included lessons on how to ride your bicycle in traffic and all the proper legal hand signals.
“There is scarcely any significant redevelopable land along the route—which has always been a central justification for federally subsidized MAX lines.”
The feds don’t consider that anymore as part of their formula for funding new transit lines – or at least it has much lower priority; this is one reason they may only fund bus service in the future.
We currently have 8 bridges that see most of their traffic on automobiles:
St. Johns
Fremont
Broadway
Burnside
Morrison
Marquam
Ross Island
Sellwood
…exactly why do we need another? SOWA already has 2 auto-only bridges in its vicinity (RI & Marquam); another one that actually touches down in the neighborhood will only serve to negatively impact the pedestrian realm there. People who buy a condo or travel to the area have got to realize that the cars are – by design – not fully accommodated.
If the architects/planners wanted it otherwise, they could have stuck a gated community down there with a freeway onramp like the original plan was in the early 80’s.
Planners of this project should be required to go to San Francisco and ride the transit under San Francisco Bay.. possibly the best solution here, and the best agency to pay for it should be the sole user…
dick –
Are you saying you believe a tunnel would be cheaper than a bridge?
If buses are to share the river crossing, would that drive up the costs of the tunnel (to add the necessary extra lane width/shoulders to allow full-speed operation plus ventilation for diesel exhaust), wouldn’t that make a tunnel way more expensive than a bridge for the equivalent level of service?
– Bob R.
exactly why do we need another? SOWA already has 2 auto-only bridges in its vicinity (RI & Marquam); another one that actually touches down in the neighborhood will only serve to negatively impact the pedestrian realm there.
Its not clear to me that is true. If it is, I agree with you. But the issue is not a bridge. The issue is providing better motor vehicle access, including for deliveries and other commercial vehicles.
Am I the only one here that finds it extremely ironic that we build a new development (SoWa) that is supposed to be mostly reliant on Streetcar; yet now we are talking about having to accomodate the fact that motor vehicles are needing access to this area?
IMO: “Too bad so sad.” You told us you didn’t need more roads, now sleep in the bed you made. Maybe a “Freight Streetcar” could be made for use during the night hours when “passenger” Streetcar doesn’t run to make the deliveries to the restaurants and to the OHSU building. UPS could even own/operate it, just as they have UPS boats in Venice.
Erik –
Who, beyond the ideas of a couple of people here, is seriously pushing for new automobile bridge access to the South Waterfront district?
– Bob R.
”Planners of this project should be required to go to San Francisco and ride the transit under San Francisco Bay.. possibly the best solution here”
I agree a tunnel would be a better option than a new bridge, however SoWhat is in the 100 year flood plain. One only has to look back to the mid-1990s when water covered part of that land and filled the basements of developed properties just North of SoWhat around where the old steam plant once stood. Therefore any tunnel would require an entrance on higher ground than at the river front.
“and the best agency to pay for it should be the sole user…”
With that I do agree!
“boat operators are not paying their own way. If they were they would have also paid for all of the dam construction, dredging projects, wood removal”
In response to a comment about boaters paying their own way I said; “…Boats are licensed – bicycles have yet to be. I also believe boat operators must take a marine safety course, sort of a boat operator licensed…” That statement neither confirms nor denies boaters are paying their own way. What it does suggest is that boaters (unlike bicyclists that don’t pay at all to use bike lanes, roads and bridges) are at least directly paying a fee through licensing and boater safety courses to be on the river. As for paying for dam construction: maybe other beneficiaries like property owners in low lying areas such as SoWhat should also be paying for dams since dams hold back the waters from flooding their neighborhoods. And what about the farmers who use the water in the dam reservoirs for irrigation – the price of corn and all food ma de with corn products additives would jump again in price and bicyclists along with everybody else would be paying higher prices for what they eat. As for the costs of dredging the rivers: for small craft owners dredging or not dredging has little affect on their operation. I do believe however there are port and/or other fees assessed the cargo ships that use the river. If these ships do not cover all the costs, those opposed could probably just close down the Port of Portland. That however would affect the railroads, the trucking industry and eliminate a large segment of the good family wage paying jobs in Portland’s transportation based economy. I am sure another port on the West coast would be more than willing to pick up the business as the cost of transporting consumer goods into Portland just skyrockets at the same time the economy is plummeting. Of course to get products to market, there is always another way; freight on Max and streetcars, the possibility pedal powered cargo ships and harnessing groups of bicyclists to semi-truck trailers in the same manner horses were attached to stagecoaches. With the proper clothing, the pedal pushers probably would not even feel the crack of the whip. And what about wood removal? Maybe the costs for that too should be added to transit fares and bicycle bridge tolls. After all, a log jam floating down the river and hitting that single light rail bridge pier smack dab in the middle of the Willamette might just wipe out the entire bridge. Without the dams and a lot of rain, maybe a house boat or two could also hit that single pier and take out the bridge. Better yet, maybe the bridge just shouldn’t be built.
So Terry, should people who only ride bicycles get a refund of any general/county/city taxes that they have paid that ended up being used to pay for roads?
Maybe also they should get a rebate for lessening congestion during rush hour, allowing trucks and traffic to get wherever they’re going faster too.
Then you could tax them for the miniscule amount of tax resources they’ve used. I’m sure most bicycle riders would be willing to make this trade.
Terry, fundamentally I think you’re grasp of economics and fairness is wrong. In particular, with transport, the reason the government has to pay for it is because a good transport network benefits everyone, but the people that could be directly taxed (i.e. the users) don’t feel the complete benefits.
It’s exactly the same as your example with the dam and also the Port of Portland – the government pays for things that benefit a whole lot more people than just the immediate users.
It’s the same with mass transit and roads – downtown redevelopment was spurred along by the streetcar and & MAX, raising a bunch of people’s property values, increasing the desireability of Portland as a place to live, and decreasing congestion for those still on the roads.
But those property owners and car drivers can’t be directly charged a per-use tax or fee for MAX despite the fact that they benefit, so it is unrealistic and short-sided to try and make MAX & the streetcar pay for itself based on fare collection. Same with bicycle owners.
Now, certainly there can be plenty of debate about how much is a reasonable subsidy for MAX and there should be a careful analysis of how much actual benefits there are, but this simple-minded push to have everything pay for itself in a very narrow sense really misses the point about how positive externalities work. If I were you, I’d get thee to an Econ 101 course on the subject…
You told us you didn’t need more roads,
Who told us that? I remember the discussions of South Waterfront. Everyone recognized that the limited auto access was a challenge for its devevlopment. The issue is not just South Waterfront, it is the impact of traffic on the communities surrounding the two access points on the north and south.
No one is proposing building a new bridge for autos to serve South Waterfront, any more than they are talking about adding a bridge just to serve it with transit. The question is whether a bridge being built to support the regional transit network should also allow some motor vehicle use, given that the bridge is going to land in South Waterfront on the west side. I suspect there are a lot of good reasons why it shouldn’t, but the question should be asked given the change in plans for the bridge location.
The question is whether a bridge being built to support the regional transit network should also allow some motor vehicle use, given that the bridge is going to land in South Waterfront on the west side.
As the guy who proposed it here, I want to stress that I thnk it should be opened to cars purely to raise funds to pay for the bridge. I’m fairly sure this could be done without interfering with transit operations. High tolls would keep the number of cars down, and access control can keep cars off the bridge while MAX is crossing.
Tri-Met really needs to study this issue. Find out exactly how high they can set tolls to maximize revenue. The best-case scenario is that the tolls will pay off the entire bridge, and becomes a long-term source of revenue for Tri-Met. But even partial cost recovery still frees up capital resources to be used elsewhere.
“With the proper clothing, the pedal pushers probably would not even feel the crack of the whip.”
Thank you Terry, for that incredibly offensive comment.
I’m a bit late to this free for all, but the main shortcoming of the artist’s rendering of a new signature bridge on last Friday’s front page, is that the Marquam Bridge is still there…a real blight on the city-scape that needs to go.
Both it and the Eastbank Freeway will be removed to accommodate Portland’s growing demand for close in land for commerce, housing and recreation. Freeways are a poor use of this valuable property. I-5 will be reouted via I-405.
Between MAX, Streetcar, bikelanes and surface streets, access to SoWa will be fine, with deliveries made at night if necessary. The fact is if there is limited auto access, there will be limited auto use. Perhaps the number of bikes parked at OHSU’s new building at the base of the Tram is testimony to that. The last thing SoWa needs is a bridge dumping more cars onto its streets, just as the last thing Division Street needs is more motor vehicles destroying what peace there is during the PM peak.
“should people who only ride bicycles get a refund of any general/county/city taxes that they have paid that ended up being used to pay for roads?”
In prospective, very little general/city/county taxes go to the motor vehicle components of roads. People who only ride bicycles and/or use transit should therefore be taxed double the amount drivers pay for roads because busses run on and do the most damage to them, because bicyclists use roads sidewalks, bike lanes trails etc and because both transit riders and bicyclists benefit from consumer goods shipped on roads but freeload when it comes to paying to use them. On the other hand motorists financially subsidize both transit and bicycle infrastructure at the federal, state and local levels. It should be the motorists whom keep the economy moving that receive any refunds paid for by bicyclists and transit users. It is truly insulting that bicyclists expect the rest of society to pay for their lifestyles and the infrastructure they use for their transportation choice. Furthermore, it is equally insulting that taxpayers and not transit users are expected to pay for snail rail and a new bridge designed for transit and bicycles.
So bike riders and transit users don’t pay taxes? Really?! I had no idea.
Those darn freeloaders, expecting everyone else to pay for their deviant “lifestyle”.
Man, some people are rude.
Actually, it is more likely they are just trolling. But here goes, I am going to feed the trolls.
Let me start with Terry Parker:
The costs of moving freight on the roads is paid for by the trucking companies – each state has their own revenue generator, in Oregon it is the weight/mile tax. Those costs which are paid for by the trucking company are passed on to the consumer in the price of the goods. Therefore, no matter if you drive a car or not – when you pay for products you are paying for the shipping costs which include taxes which pay a serious chunk of the cost of roads.
And even if you sit at home and never leave your home, the companies that deliver the goods to your house – like UPS, FedEx or New Seasons – they all pay weight/mile tax and some probably pay fuel taxes (if they are smaller companies).
Hmm. I see, so bicyclists never spend money in the economy. (Lets ignore the fact that you said that transit and bike riders benefit from consumer goods shipped on roads – which implies that they buy those consumer goods). I would think that spending your money on local goods and services would be better for the economy than spending your money on oil from countries half way around the world.
What if I am a tax payer, a car owner, a transit rider, and a bike rider? Who do I insult? If you don’t like the way Portland does it I invite you to move to Atlanta or Houston or Dallas or Phoenix. They have great car focused infrastructure. We have enough diverse cities in this country that you can choose.
But we have very few places that are pedestrian, bike, and transit oriented.
Something for everyone. But the reality is that the world will never conform exactly to your ideals – so coming on a public forum and being a jerk doesn’t help anything.
Now on to others…
At least “djk” has been willing to discuss nicely other ideas. And I think that the option of having toll controlled access to the bridge for autos should be kept on the table. There is no reason at this stage in the game to rule out any possibility. I feel that one car free bridge over the river is a good thing (no – the bridges on the springwater don’t count, since we wouldn’t need those bridges if there was not 50 lane highways all over the place…)
Zilfodel:
Not technically. The Ross Island is open to pedestrians and bikes. It is just not very *nice* for bikes or Peds, especially it’s connection to the west side. No real easy way to get *off* the bridge… Plus it is REALLY loud and lots of fumes, and the sidewalk is only on one side and not all that big anyway… So I would say that while it can carry people and bikes, it is really unpleasant. I personally ride an extra half mile each way to detour to the Hawthorne so as to avoid the RI.
Between MAX, Streetcar, bikelanes and surface streets, access to SoWa will be fine, with deliveries made at night if necessary. The fact is if there is limited auto access, there will be limited auto use. Perhaps the number of bikes parked at OHSU’s new building at the base of the Tram is testimony to that. The last thing SoWa needs is a bridge dumping more cars onto its streets, just as the last thing Division Street needs is more motor vehicles destroying what peace there is during the PM peak.
Hypothetical: After a rigorous study, Tri-Met concludes that they can open the bridge on a toll basis to a limited number of cars with NO significant interference with transit operations (MAX, bus, or streetcar). They work out a toll structure where the tolls are high enough to keep traffic at a low level, while still raising a lot of revenue. If they do so, the automobile tolls will pay for the entire bridge over thirty years, and leave Tri-Met with a significant ongoing funding source after that.
Assume the savings on the bridge means Tri-Met will have funds to put into transit projects elsewhere in the system.
Should we dismiss the possibility if it means a 10% increase in automobile traffic in SOWA and Division?
djk –
In case your hypothetical was pointed in part at my past comments, let me state clearly that I do support studying the issue, and that I would support allowing autos to use the bridge *if* the outcomes you mention are indeed plausible.
– Bob R.
The fact is if there is limited auto access, there will be limited auto use. Perhaps the number of bikes parked at OHSU’s new building at the base of the Tram is testimony to that. The last thing SoWa needs is a bridge dumping more cars onto its streets, just as the last thing Division Street needs is more motor vehicles destroying what peace there is during the PM peak.
Lenny –
As you know, I agree with you on that. But in this case I think we also need to take into account whether the area can develop with its current motor vehicle access and what the impact of only to access points is on both the development and the neighborhoods all that traffic needs to go through. Its not clear to me that the number of access points is really going to be the limiting factor on the number of cars in the neighborhood.
Bob, my comments weren’t directed at you. And believe me, the only way I’d support cars on the bridge was if the tolling revenue would pay for at least part (and preferably all) of the bridge AND they didn’t impede transit operations. Given the SOWA bottlenecks and the lack of direct east-side access elsewhere, this bridge will provide a unique opportunity to charge “pay through the nose” tolls that will keep traffic volumes low while still generating revenue. And because Tri-Met will own the bridge, Tri-Met will get to set the rules for it — what cars can use it, when they can use it, and how much they should pay.
djk –
And because Tri-Met will own the bridge, Tri-Met will get to set the rules for it — what cars can use it, when they can use it, and how much they should pay.
The fact is Tri-Met is a public agency. The public owns it and the bridge. I don’t think at “pay through the nose” toll is going to be politically viable. If a bridge with motor vehicles works only as a special luxury that can be used only by a select few that can afford it, it is probably a bad idea in the long run.
djk –
Do you have any idea what kind of traffic volumes a tolled two-lane bridge would carry?
Suppose for a moment that during 6 peak hours the bridge carries 500 vehicles per hour (250 each way, a vehicle in each lane about every 4 seconds) at a premium toll of $3.
Suppose further that the rest of the day (including nights) averages 100 vehicles per hour at a reduced toll of $1.
Finally, assume that weekend traffic is about 75% of normal weekday traffic, same tolls.
That equals revenue of just over 3.6 million per year. Take 10% off the top for administrative costs including toll collection and credit card merchant fees, etc., and you’re down to about 3.3 million per year.
In 30 years, that adds up to $100 million. No small chunk of change, but is it enough to make the project worth it? To really pay off the bridge from autos alone would require a multiple of several times either in throughput or in toll rates, and I’m not sure either is remotely achievable.
Still, I’m sure there are tested models out there for this sort of toll vs. traffic vs. cost structure, and I wouldn’t mind seeing a formal study of the possibilities.
– Bob R.
Terry, interesting you brought up external costs of shipping, etc.
What about the costs of global climate change, of air pollution, environmental degradation, and health effects?
Each person who gets regular exercise (e.g. a cycling commuter) saves us $1000 in health care every year.
If you want full accounting, I’m more than happy to pay my bill if you pay yours.
Unfortunately, we’ve devolved yet another interesting discussion about the Caruthers into the usual tit-for-tat.
Bob R:
Suppose for a moment that during 6 peak hours the bridge carries 500 vehicles per hour (250 each way, a vehicle in each lane about every 4 seconds) at a premium toll of $3.
Just to be clear, 250/hour ~= 4/minute = 1 vehicle/15 seconds. So *if* the bridge had capacity and demand for 1 vehicle/4 seconds/lane, your numbers are low by a factor of 4.
That said, I suspect 1 vehicle/15 seconds/lane is closer to what you’d see: a consistent 1 vehicle/4 seconds/lane seems like pretty dense traffic for conditions beyond a crowded highway with no merging. And that’s assuming toll-paying traffic could use it all the time as opposed to sharing it with transit.
Steve –
Thanks for catching my error about the per-vehicle times.
– Bob
I assume that MAX will run (at most) once every six minutes at rush hour. In order to allow MAX to cross the bridge quickly, it means that a signal and/or gate would stop traffic entering the bridge as MAX approaches, and allow the lane ahead to clear. I expect that would take between thirty and forty seconds, although more time might be required. So assume that peak hour traffic involves cars having access to the bridge about 90% of the time, with 10% reserved for light rail.
I expect streetcar and buses could share the bridge with the cars, as long as they had a separate entry (to jump the line of cars waiting at a toll gate) and signal preemption.
An approaching MAX train, of course, would preempt everything.
“Man, some people are rude”
And some like bicyclists are just plain irresponsible when it comes to paying for the specialized infrastructure they want and use.
“Actually, it is more likely they are just trolling.”
And it is always the bicyclists and transit advocates that do the trolling for someone else’s tax paid dollars to subsidize their desires. All a person has to do is look at the patched together funding package for the Eastside Streetcar that takes away funding from a host of other items to see trolling in action.
“The costs of moving freight on the roads is paid for by the trucking companies”
I find this an interesting comment because in the next breath someone will make a post that motorists don’t cover the costs for roads. If motor freight carriers cover their costs, then obviously other motorists do also.
“Hmm. I see, so bicyclists never spend money in the economy.”
Keeping the economy rolling goes far beyond just buying one’s favorite gourmet coffee at Starbucks. How many jobs are related to the bicycle industry compared to the auto industry? The average new car dealership in Oregon employs 60 people. How does that compare to the number of people (probably far less) at an average bicycle shop? And how many new car dealerships are there compared to an undoubtedly lesser number of bicycle shops? I have been employed in auto industry jobs twice in my lifetime. One of the things that was brought to my attention when receiving an education that lead into the first position was that one in every seven jobs in the US was tied to the auto industry. In Portland alone there are a considerable number of longshoreman jobs at the Port of Portland and many other jobs related to just the transportation of new cars. Can bicycle related jobs come anywhere near close to the same numbers of jobs related to the auto industry. Furthermore, how does the pay compare? Most auto related jobs are in the private sector that pay taxes, and the jobs pay good family wages. Answer these questions correctly and it will demonstrate that auto industry jobs and jobs related to the auto industry have a far greater economic factor in keeping the economy rolling than does the two wheel pedal pusher industry. A decline in new car sales always has had a measurable negative impact on the economy.
“What if I am a tax payer, a car owner, a transit rider, and a bike rider?”
When driving your car you are paying to use the roadways through fuel taxes, vehicle registration and license fees, and other taxes and fees associated with driving. When you are using transit in the Portland area, your ride is being subsidized on average 79% by taxpayers. When you are riding your bicycle, the infrastructure you are using is being subsidized 100% by taxpayers.
“Who do I insult?”
Many who are subsidizing the portions of your mobility you are not paying for.
“If you don’t like the way Portland does it I invite you to move to Atlanta or Houston or Dallas or Phoenix.”
This is what is called being rude – telling people if they don’t like it to get out. As a fourth generation Portlander on my dad’s side and a person who has probably lived in Portland much longer than most who post here, I find it incomprehensible that some people who move in immediately want to have their lifestyles subsidized by and control those who have been here paying taxes for a much longer period of time. That too is extremely rude.
“What about the costs of global climate change”
A natural occurrence – palm trees once grew on at least one of the polar caps and the earth was once covered with ice. When the ice melted it created the Columbia Gorge. Too bad SUV’s were not around during those times to blame it all on.
“Each person who gets regular exercise (e.g. a cycling commuter) saves us $1000 in health care every year.”
Total bicycle propaganda – even cycling commuters have heart attacks and other ailments.
Now after defending the personal attacks and getting back to subject matter – The simple fact is, equally applied to all modes of transport, either user paid or taxpayer funded, how Caruthers Crossing is financed sets the example for both the Columbia Crossing and the Sellwood Crossing.
Is there any way the moderators can prevent people like Mssrs. Parker and Tompkins from commenting? We get it Terry, you hate bikes. We get it Greg, you hate Portland. The constant monotony and rabble rowsing is making this blog far less constructive that it should be. Bob, do you have that authority? Chris is probably busy…
Grant –
I have reserved my use of moderation for obvious examples of direct personal attacks and spam, and only on a post-by-post basis. I have yet to ban a participant entirely.
I know that Chris is busy and is also very reluctant to silence voices in the conversation, although I agree a certain degree of coarseness here has become counterproductive to genuine conversation.
As for the particular individuals you mention, I’m not going to comment directly on their situations at this time.
Suffice it to say that I probably take a stricter view of what constitutes welcome behavior in this forum than Chris, but these kinds of decisions need to be reached by more than one person. This goal for this blog is to bring more people into the writing/moderating/managing fold, which also necessitates avoiding swift unilateral actions.
– Bob R.
I never said I outright “hated” Portland. In fact there are some things I miss. Such as the fact Salem closes down and there’s not much going on after 5PM in the evening. I’ve mentioned in other posts some of the bad things I’ve seen in Salem and McMinnville, too. Every city has its own malfeasance that goes on. Shouldn’t we be able to disagree without being “shut out”? That’s what goes on in China and Iran….. dissenters are shut down :(
As has been pointed out, my time is limited :-)
I actually gave Greg a warning last week.
So, I’ll politely ask Terry as well: please stop repeating yourself about bicycle funding. We ALL understand your point of view and we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I don’t expect to sway you and I hope you can figure out by now you haven’t swayed me :-)
Thanks.
That’s what goes on in China and Iran….. dissenters are shut down :(
Greg, this is not a Government-run blog, it is operated by a private non-profit with a board of directors. As such, membership and participation rules are determined by a private entity, which has the freedom to establish such rules.
You are just as free to establish your own blog, alone or with a group, and set up your own policies and rules for maintaining a conversation.
Nothing in the Constitution gives you the right to demand to speak in any particular private setting that you do not control.
I’m surprised you cannot seem to distinguish rules about comments on a private blog from the treatment of dissenters in totalitarian regimes.
– Bob R.
Terry was suggesting that he’d like to whip bicycle riders earlier in this thread. If that isn’t a personal attack, I don’t know what is…
Bob R.,
I thought I had modified my behavior and someone still complains. Oh well. I’m going to stop commenting as of now and I’ll do as you suggested and start up my own blog. Goodbye all. E-mail me if you want greg@gregtompkins.com
While I wouldn’t say that Greg’s comments are particularly constructive (generally the I hate everywhere mentality), and I would say they are pretty erratic and self-contradictory, I also wouldn’t say that they are offensive in any way as of late….just erratic and self-contradictory, like I said.
Just for the record; I have NEVER said I hate bikes or even streetcars. Both have their place, but with the following conditions:
First, bicycle infrastructure and transit operations/infrastructure must not displace motor vehicle infrastructure and/or have a negative impact on motor vehicle traffic flow. Many of the comments I have made support this condition.
Second, bicycle infrastructure needs to be paid for by (adult) bicyclists exclusively, and transit fares must cover the costs of operations and significantly contribute the costs of transit infrastructure. This is a basic tax fairness principal that should be the pretext applied to any financing plan for the Caruthers Bridge. Motorist paid taxes and fees should not subsidize bicycle infrastructure and/or transit
Third, bicyclists need to be held fully accountable for obeying all traffic laws with strict enforcement and hefty fines for violators.
If I am being repetative, it is only to make things perfectly clear.
As an example of the third item, last Saturday when on my way home, I was waiting for a traffic signal to change from red to green when a bicyclist rolled past on the right side of my truck stopping out in front of the crosswalk of rather than behind it. As soon as the cross traffic cleared, the bicyclists darted across the cross street against the red signal. He was halfway down the next block when the signal actually turned green and the motorists waiting started moving. Obviously the bicyclist had to of known he was violating the law when he made his move, Given the criticism I have received for my attitude towards bicyclists, I bring this up because I would like to khow how others who post here categorize this type bicyclist behavior and attitude? Do bicyclists in general think traffic laws do not apply to them and only to motorists? Do other bicyclists condone what he did and regularly do it themselves? From a view behind a steering wheel, it seems to me the majority of bicyclists display a similar behavior. When other people view this same behavior, it only sends a negative message to the public at large about bicyclist attitudes. .
Additionally, my comment about cracking the whip was meant to be humor and not directed at any individual. So I question how this can be viewed as offensive when VR is allowed to directly call somebody a “troll” and not have it censored. My response to those comments were a day and a half – 31 hours later and criticized It seems like those who complain in reality want to stifle opposing views while at the same time are more than willing to “offensively” condemn motorists and pick their pockets to pay for transit and bicycle infrastructure.
Terry,
“bicycle infrastructure and transit operations/infrastructure must not displace motor vehicle infrastructure and/or have a negative impact on motor vehicle traffic flow”
Interesting comment. My question is why? Why is it ok for cars to displace bikes, peds and transit but not the other way around? Why isn’t balance the goal?
“This is a basic tax fairness principal”
Again, the issue that I have with you is you make statements like this as if they are some given fact instead of your opinion. Frankly, I find you priciples starkly unfair.
“If I am being repetative, it is only to make things perfectly clear.”
I note that you do not appologize for this. Really, you made this clear about a year ago. Can we all move on now?
“As an example of the third item, last Saturday when on my way home…”
Great, I can give you an anecdote from my ride home tonight when a speeding car almost ran me over. A key point that seems to be missed is that when cyclists choose to break the law they put themselves at risk. When the driver of a vehicle that is thousands of pounds breaks the law they put others at risk. That said, sure. I think everyone should follow the law.
“Additionally, my comment about cracking the whip was meant to be humor and not directed at any individual” Yes, but it was offensive and needlessly combative.
Speaking of which…
“It seems like those who complain in reality want to stifle opposing views while at the same time are more than willing to “offensively” condemn motorists and pick their pockets to pay for transit and bicycle infrastructure”
So now you claim that people like me want to stiffly your free speech and call me a pick pocket.
Can’t you see the disconnect here?
To put some numbers out there to help address whether PortlandTransport is inclusive of dissenting views and strongly critical comments, I’ve run some counts on frequent commenters here. I won’t categorize the particular individuals, but I think regular readers by now will have formed an opinion about the perspectives of the various authors.
Suffice it to say that the numbers clearly show that a diversity of opinions have historically shared the stage here with great frequency:
(The following stats go back to July, 2005, ordered by most frequent commenter on a comments-per-day average — sorry if I missed any of the regulars)
Author / Total Comments / Date of 1st Comment / Average Comments per Day
– Bob R.