Roads to be Issue in Wilsonville House Race


The Daily Journal of Commerce is reporting that Associated General Contractors’ lobbyist Jessica Adamson will announce today as a Democratic candidate for the Oregon House seat being vacated by Jerry Krummel. She will make transportation a central issue in her campaign, according the headline of the article.

On the Republican side in the same race, former Cascade Policy Institute staffer Matt Wingard is already declared.

But both candidates expect transportation to take center stage in the 2008 campaign.

The district is mulling several large road projects, including the controversial Newberg-Dundee bypass, a widening of Tualatin-Sherwood Road and construction of a link between Tualatin’s industrial district and Interstate 5.

“The issue across the district is people want the roads,” Wingard said.


35 responses to “Roads to be Issue in Wilsonville House Race”

  1. Lenny Anderson Says:
    But are they willing to pay for more roads?

    JK: Roads cost only a tiny fraction of what light rail costs, so there shuld be no money problem. If Portland has spent two billion on roads, instead of toy trains, we likely would not have a congestion problem.

    Thanks
    JK

  2. Is the Newberg Dundee bypass raising it ugly head again??? a fairly simple solution is to widen the road to 4 lanes through Dundee, would do wonders, and much cheaper than a stupid bypass…

  3. “If Portland has spent two billion on roads, instead of toy trains, we likely would not have a congestion problem.”

    If Portland spends double the amount of money that we spent on light rail on the single worst congestion problem in the region, (CRC, with it’s estimated $4B price tag,) all it will do is make the second worst congestion problem, (I-5/84 interchange,) much worse… So unless you’ve somehow figured out a way to do the CRC for less than $500M, (you could probably do a 4 lane artery bridge for that price, but that isn’t a freeway,) it looks like that $2B wouldn’t come close to solving the region’s congestion problems.

  4. Okay Matthew How about we solve much of this by eliminating the present I-5 altogether. Let’s build a new highway from Klamath Falls, thru Bend to Yakima. That’ll take much of the traffic out of the Willamette Valley that everyone complains about.

    M.W.

  5. That’ll take much of the traffic out of the Willamette Valley that everyone complains about.

    I think that is doubtful. The vast majority of traffic in the Willamette Valley is not going through. It is either starts or ends somewhere in between. Like the old proposed bypass in Washington County from Wilsonville to Hillsboro, there just aren’t that many trips that would use a “Willamette Valley Bypass”.

    Roads cost only a tiny fraction of what light rail costs,

    With operating costs of automobiles approaching $.50 per mile, there is no way “roads cost only a fraction of light rail costs.” The problem is many people are not willing to pay for new roads on top of their operating costs. They aren’t even willing to pay the full cost of properly maintaining the roads we already have.

  6. On the federal side, the Highway Trust Fund is currently running a profit (taking in more than it spends).

    Further, the concept that “motorists refuse to pay more” – should be that light rail/mass transit advocates refuse to pay more, and insist that someone else pays for their ride. Fully 16% of the revenue from gasoline taxes goes to the mass transit account – 16 cents of every $1.00 doesn’t even go to highways, it goes to projects like MAX.

    Finally, a lot of the revolt in paying more in taxes is directly corelated in whether any of the funds “for highway purposes” are spent on other than highways. Washington voted down its MVET (which funded everything under the sun, including Puget Sound area mass transit projects), but then passed a five cent increase on its gas tax after the tax was legislatively restricted to highway spending.

    I am fairly confident that if Oregon asked voters for an increase in the gas tax – as long as the money could ONLY be used for roadway maintenance, it would pass. If the words/phrases “TriMet”, “mass transit”, “public transit”, “light rail”, “streetcar”, “bikeways”, or anything similiar was in the measure – yes, it would fail.

  7. “I am fairly confident that if Oregon asked voters for an increase in the gas tax”

    The Oregon gas tax is already constitutionally dedicated to roads, and the last time a statewide gas tax was on the ballot, it went down in flames.

    Granted, the ballot measure was also combined with a pretty drastic change in how trucks paid taxes, which bothered a lot of voters.

    By all means put it up for a vote again, this time as a stand-alone measure.

    …”should be that light rail/mass transit advocates refuse to pay more, and insist that someone else pays for their ride.”

    Erik, aren’t you a mass transit advocate? Didn’t you complain on occasion about TriMet’s fare increases?

    – Bob R.

  8. Yet they don’t seem to have enough money to fix the roadways?

    What’s wrong with this picture?

    Part of the problem is that “they” are spending some of the money they get building more roads instead of maintaining the existing ones. The result is more costly repairs that add to the financial problems.

    But the real problem is roads cost a lot of money. More than we as users are willing to pay for them.

  9. Al wrote: “The gov’t collects 42 cents per gallon via the gas tax,”“Yet they don’t seem to have enough money to fix the roadways?”

    Al,

    According to the link you provided, Oregon drivers pay a combined state and federal gas tax of 42.4 cents.

    As an example, a 2008 Chevy Suburban gets 16MPG combined fuel economy (that’s for the 2WD model with the smaller of the V8 engines). The vehicle weighs 7,400lbs.

    The driver of that vehicle is going to be paying more than average per mile in gas taxes, but still only 2.65 cents per mile.

    Setting aside the cost of building the road in the first place and patrolling the road for safety, the cost of lighting and traffic signals, signage, etc… are you certain that those 2.65 cents per mile are a sufficient contribution to road maintenance from a 7400lb vehicle? And that means all roadway portions including bridges, tunnels, and mountain roads — not just flat, easy to maintain stretches.

    Commissioner Adams’ proposed 3 cent per gallon gas tax would add less than 2 tenths of one cent per mile in the above example.

    Other lighter, higher MPG vehicles cause less damage but pay in the range of 1 to 2 cents per mile.

    How much more per mile to users of studded tires pay? (I’m not going to debate whether and when to use the tires, but it is well established that they contribute to rutting and other problems.)

    Does the gas tax begin to cover other externalized costs, such as air pollution and ensuring our supply chain of foreign oil is protected?

    Perhaps those lobbying for increasing the gas tax to cover maintenance (count me in) should frame the argument not in terms of pennies per gallon, but instead in terms of fractions of a penny per mile. In the case of the SUV example, Commissioner Adams’ proposal would be a tax increase of 1 cent for every 5.3 miles. For the highest MPG cars, the tax would be one cent for every 15 miles.

    – Bob R.

  10. Al –

    I see that Chris has an unpublished entry in the works about the very topic you just linked to… so I’m sure we’ll all get to have a fiery discussion about it shortly. :-)

    – Bob R.

  11. Part of the problem is that “they” are spending some of the money they get building more roads instead of maintaining the existing ones. The result is more costly repairs that add to the financial problems.

    Ross, once again show me a NEW ROAD.

    Just one.

    On the other hand, what you have stated has been proven with TriMet – TriMet’s construction of two new light rail lines have directly degraded service throughout its service territory, and TriMet has forced its bus system to take the brunt of the cuts which maintaining/improving/increasing light rail service. Maybe we should follow your logic, and stop expanding light rail service to MAINTAIN WHAT WE HAVE (namely eliminating the 1400s, 1600s, 1700s, 1800s and 1900s, and replacing them with a fleet of hybrid-electric, energy efficient, less-polluting, modern busses with air conditioning, as well as a fleet of 100 articulated busses to replace the old 700s that were never adequately replaced).

    But that just isn’t true with the roadway system. In all of Oregon I can only count one new state-funded highway in the last 24 years, and that’s the Bend Bypass. (25 years ago? I-205 north of Powell/Division.)

    Washington County has built a whole whopping TWO roads – the Forest Grove bypass (north section) and Roy Rogers Road, and both of those were VOTER APPROVED through the VOTER APPROVED MSTIP. (Unlike Interstate MAX, Airport MAX, I-205/Portland Mall MAX, the Streetcar and the Tram.)

  12. Well maybe we should really look at ripping out the highway thru the valley and improving the one thru Bend and calling it I-5. Then if need be we can run a dirt road up the valley and bring back the old stagecoach line. Locally we might want to use a few bicycle carts to haul the freight in from elsewhere and do away with any crossing of the Columbia River except for maybe a ferry. We could have school kids with dog carts available for local work. That should cut down on juvenile delinquency and toughen them up for the all important football games each Friday. That should make a lot of people happy.

    I wonder if you can power a computer by candlelight?

  13. Eric,

    I just want to address your continuing comments about Trimet’s older busses. A new contract has been signed for 40 new busses per year for 5 years-i.e. 200 new busses by 2012. This will replace ALL 1400,1700,1800, and 2100 series busses (There is no such thing as a 1900). If all goes well, Trimet plans to make 40 per year a perminet part of their budget. It is my guess as an operator that the “Artics” will never be replaced-they are too much trouble for their worth (i.e. special maintainence and handling, and too many accidents). They also do not fit in with the overall planning for the region. For better or worse this area’s governing bodies (Metro, Trimet, city, state and county goverments) have chosen rail based transit as our mode for big “people movers”.

    Washington County has built a whole whopping TWO roads – the Forest Grove bypass (north section) and Roy Rogers Road, and both of those were VOTER APPROVED through the VOTER APPROVED MSTIP. (Unlike Interstate MAX, Airport MAX, I-205/Portland Mall MAX, the Streetcar and the Tram.)

    The above statement by you is just flat out wrong. Of the projects that you have listed only the streetcar was not VOTER APPROVED. It was funded by city council vote (i.e. ELECTED OFFICIALS). So indirectly that was voted on also.

    As to the original topic I think that transportation as an issue will be a major topic for canidates in the coming years. It has already been stated that the state gas tax wasn’t been changed since 1993. It needs to be. As the state continues to grow-especially since the passage of Measure 37-the need for more road funds is going to become critical. I am glad to see that this issue has come up so early in the Wilsonville race as well as Comissoner Adams proposal for the Portland region. Hopefully, this will lead to an intelligent public conversation on the need for new and improved roads in Portland.

    [Moderator: Italics added for clarity. Duplicate post removed. B.R.]

  14. “It is my guess as an operator that”

    We have another TRIMET operator? Good deal, but let’s see who you are, at least use your first name. This blog is high on credibility basically because people are not afraid to identify themselves.

  15. The reason I ask people who represent themselves as TRIMET operators to identify themselves is because of the incident involving the 2 teenage lesbians that mushroomed into a huge international affair which even got me sucked into it as I ended up in the PORTLAND MERCURY making disparaging remarks about those girls and ended up having to disconnect my telephone because I was actually getting calls from TV STATIONS who wanted me to appear! (I am not joking about this)

    Somebody who represented themselves as a TRIMET operator, who never was actually identified, got that ball rolling and the ball ended up in my court!

    Obviously I am sensitive to people who say they are TRIMET employees but don’t want to use their real names.

  16. Ross, once again show me a NEW ROAD.

    Why? You have demanded that answer several times and you just ignore it when you get it. The Bend bypass is just one of many examples where money has been spent on new capacity.

  17. Al, nobody is screening your posts. Your comment from about 2 hours ago went into the moderation queue because it flagged some criteria in the system, not because anyone singled it out. I have just published it.

  18. Al, it’s hard to say. The anti-spam system is something of a ‘black box’, so I don’t know what triggered it. Often the inclusion of lots of links will do it, but that obviously wasn’t the issue with your comment.

  19. People want to be anonymous that’s fine, but don’t say “I am a Trimet operator” because if you want to speak as being from a specific agency, YOU CANNOT BE ANONYMOUS!

    Trimet is not run by evil monsters intent on screwing over the operators. I just got done putting out 45 You Tube videos half of which were Trimet spoofs and made the company look pretty silly. I didn’t get fired! (the videos were removed however)

    Trimet does not penalize people for speaking their mind, I know, I work there!

    I have an issue with this and I explained that in the post that got screened out.

  20. al,
    Chill…Please! Has it occurred to you that my wishing to use a nom de plume has nothing to do with my employment at Trimet? I choose to remain anon. and that is my business. PERIOD. You apparent upset over so small a thing as my name is embarassing–you are a co-worker after all!

    Regards,

  21. what criteria?

    It looks like the phrase “teenage lesbians” had something to do with it.

    Some of the defaults in the Movable Type spam filter seem a bit unenlightened but then again, a lot of spam has keywords like that.

    Unfortunately there can be hundreds of attempted spam posts here in a single day… you rarely see them get through anymore because of the various filters that are in place, but it also means that occasionally somebody’s legitimate post gets eaten. I know I’ve had to go in a rescue a few of mine (and probably this one, for repeating those keywords again.)

    – Bob R.

  22. OK smooth,

    I wouldn’t want you to be embarrassed!

    I never cause anybody any embarrassment do i?

    I’m a very dignified blogger am I not?

    :-&

  23. I just want to address your continuing comments about Trimet’s older busses. A new contract has been signed for 40 new busses per year for 5 years-i.e. 200 new busses by 2012. This will replace ALL 1400,1700,1800, and 2100 series busses (There is no such thing as a 1900).

    You must not work out of Merlo. A 1900 is a 30′ Flxible Metro, 1901-1910 (yes, only ten of them). They are nearly guaranteed to operate the 63-Washington Park route, as well as any of the neighborhood routes out of Merlo like the 60-Leahy Road, the 4X series routes between Tanasbourne and Hillsboro, the 89-Tanasbourne.

    They almost NEVER go downtown, again except on the 63 line. All of the other lower-capacity routes will use a 1600 (a 30′ Gillig Phantom; I believe there are something like 40-50 of them – and they are older than the 1900s!)

    As for the new purchase schedule, I have a copy of TriMet’s FY2007 budget – there is NOT any mention of bus replacements. (Plenty of mention of new ATP vehicles, 41 of them to be exact.)

    Further, the TIP for FY2008 clearly states no new busses.

    Finally, I have a copy of TriMet’s “FY2007 Financial Issues Report #1”, that states:

    Bus and communications systems replacement would not be financially feasible without issuing revenue bonds to pay for the projects over time. To offset the costs of the $41 million communications systems replacement, bus purchases are reduced to 40 per year, increasing the maximum age at retirement to between 17-20 years old throgh FY2013.

    Page 20 of the same document reads:

    No bus replacement in FY07, FY08. Bus replacement resumes in FY09, with the replacement of 40 buses per year through 2012 and 63 in 2013 (paid for by issuing bonds) and 60 in 2014 that are not funded with bonds. This is 81 fewer bus replacements compared to last year’s forecast and has been necessary due to the cost of the replacement of the LIFT, Bus and LRT communications system, a total of $41 million in the same period (also paid for by issuing bonds).

    I don’t have two years to wait for decent, quality bus service – or fifteen years to wait for a MAX train. I have until 8:00 AM tomorrow morning to get to work. But instead of using my payroll tax share, my property tax revenue, and my fare to improve transit, I get fed a B.S. line of a “communications system upgrade” that is utterly vague; and am told that we need to issue bonds for existing service but that we can BUILD NEW INFRASTRUCTURE within our current means.

    If TriMet were a household, that would be akin to using the food budget to build an expansion onto the home or buy a recreational vehicle, and then asking for a mortgage to feed the family; further telling the family to starve for two years because it can’t ask for a loan until then.

Leave a Reply to Chris Smith Cancel reply

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