Occasional Portland Transport contributor (and frequent commenter) Lenny Anderson had an excellent op-ed piece in Friday’s Tribune: “For change, reduce trips”
Occasional Portland Transport contributor (and frequent commenter) Lenny Anderson had an excellent op-ed piece in Friday’s Tribune: “For change, reduce trips”
64 responses to “Very Articulate CRC Dissent”
An excellent idea , I would add however that the
existing bridges are dangerous and obsolete. The
reason to build a new span , is to create Safer earthquake-proof spans.
Nice piece but my answer is always the same:
NO TO ANY TAXES OR FEE’S DISGUISED AS TAXES!
oops! sorry bout the caps!
or taxes disguised as fees!
or more precisely, anything that is increasing my costs to stay alive!
al m
Thanks for posting the article, it’s a good one.
Does anyone know where they propose to put the freeway that would connect with this new bridge? Last time I heard that topic addressed they were planning to run the new freeway through the present Washington/Forest Parks and then build some huge high-rise bridge structure at Vancouver Lake. I guess that might explain why none of these highway advocates seem to want to talk about what this new bridge might be connected to.
elee, the [seriously] proposed bridge is a replacement for the current I-5 bridge, so it would be right next to the current bridge, (which they’d then tear down after they finished construction…)
There are people that want to follow the route you are describing, (in addition to the current I-5 bridge) but there isn’t any [official] government support for it…
Last time I heard that topic addressed they were planning to run the new freeway through the present Washington/Forest Parks and then build some huge high-rise bridge structure at Vancouver Lake
That is a great idea and an ideal use of land used by vagrants and pot dealersl. It would make more sense to use for commercial activity instead of vagrancy. Don’t forget Portland used to have stands of beautiful douglas fir trees all over the present concrete buildings and parking structures which litter the landscape. The present day Pearl District was once a Lake (it’s where Balch creek emptied into) and there are numerous creeks that run beneath the city. Even the riverbanks of Portland are completely unnatural – they look like the L.A. river
Lenny Anderson is right on in his solution to the Columbia River crossing traffic congestion. Reduce trips with variable tolls on the existing bridges and use the revenue to improve other transportation options.
Another excuse used by the mega-bridge boosters is the need to eliminate traffic delays attributed to bridge lifts. This problem could easily be eliminated by replacing the opening span on the downstream railroad bridge with a new one that is better aligned with the “hump” in the existing freeway bridges. Almost all river traffic could then avoid the lifts.
What Lenny and those who agree with him continually get TOTALLY WRONG, is that the taxes charged are user taxes, NOT a socialistic means to dictate how people should travel. If user fees in the form of tolls or otherwise are charged to help pay for the for an upgraded Columbia Crossing, then the users of all modes of transport need to be charged a user fee to pay for the specific infrastructure for the mode used, and a proportionate share of the bridge superstructure. A simple way to charge transit users is to add a dollar amount to transit fares that use the crossing. A non-labor intensive way to tax what are now freeloading bicyclists is to put in turn styles at each end of the bicycle infrastructure that would hold only one bicycle plus rider, and then only could be turned when a debit, credit or pay card is swiped.
Furthermore, the overall purpose for a new crossing is to provide a solution to the worst congested area on the entire West Coast I-5 corridor, and to better connect Portland with Clark County, Washington. This applies to all modes of travel and freight mobility. By charging only one mode of transport extremist tolls, it defeats the purpose of bringing the two areas closer together and making better connections for all users, and is economically regressive for small businesses that need to make multiple daily motor vehicle crossings. Additionally, any form of congestion pricing only sets up a policy of discrimination between the affluent and the working classes. Taxing only one mode of transport user fees is tax discrimination. Therefore, if one mode of transport is charged, then all modes must be charged.
It should be noted that:
1. In Lenny’s piece he refuses to mention “busses” as a mode of mass transit.
2. In his comparison of London as a city that uses congestion pricing, London is a city that has heavily invested in bus service, including brand new double-decker and articulated busses. London operates 6,800 busses on 700 routes; its Mayor proposes a 40% increase in bus trips between 2001 and 2011, and has entire web pages on their website that clearly shows what London is doing to reduce emissions (including new bus technologies) and improvements to the bus network.
And that’s just the urban network, not including the regional bus system.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/environment/2017.aspx
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/environment/2011.aspx
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/environment/2019.aspx
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/6364.aspx
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/6416.aspx
In other words, Lenny’s opinion is simply “let’s tax Vancouver drivers to pay for a light rail system”, albeit disguised as a way to fund transportation projects as a whole but with zero intent on doing anything but building another light rail line.
And of course, continue to ignore the bus network.
In Lenny’s piece he refuses to mention “busses” as a mode of mass transit.
Did he refuse? Were you standing there observing? Or did he simply not use the word, and you equate that with outright “refusal”?
Lenny’s editorial includes the word “transit” twice. Last time I checked, “transit” includes buses. Lenny also specifically mentioned “vanpools”. Last time I checked as well, vanpools are not trains.
Lenny did not mention motorcycles. Do you feel that this means that Lenny refuses to mention them?
In other words, Lenny’s opinion is simply “let’s tax Vancouver drivers to pay for a light rail system”
In other words, that’s Erik’s opinion of Lenny’s opinion.
Why don’t you ask Lenny about it directly? After all, he’s here.
“Reduce trips with variable tolls”?
Why would there be a reduction in trips?
Would people stop going to work or shopping.
They would find another way to get ther? Light rail? So light rail reduces car trips?
Is that what happened with existing MAX?
Does it matter how many? Should it be noticable?
“use the revenue to improve other transportation options”
It seems to me this is really what the idea of tolls and other new taxes is all about. Not reducing trips or congestion.
The idea that an Interstate freeway bridge would be taxed to pay for local rail transit seems pretty far fetched and not likely to happen.
I mean if that is such a good idea why not advocate tolling the Glenn Jackson right away?
Of course this isn’t a good diea and is no more than attempting to tax more the cost of driving for all reasons. Taxing more on top of the gas tax which already charges more for more driving
and spending as much as possible on non driving improvements.
IMO that’s the opposite direction needed.
Milwaukie Light Rail and CRC light rail should be abandoned. As well as any streetcar extensions. That’s a $1 Billion dollar windfall savings from Miulwaukie Light rail alone. Another from CRC light rail and probable another from streetcars.
With that revenue and using more of our existing gas tax revenue we could have a far better regionwide bus transit system serving far more people from their own neighborhoods and pay for the desperately needed road maintenance and expansions for rising traffic.
Rising traffic which Lenny and others mistakenly think our planners are,,,, reducing somehow????
Lenny, do you really think even one Washington resident will support this? Give them no new service, but add a fee for something that’s already built and paid for?
First, that’s illegal under federal highway funding rules. To toll a structure, you have to spend money improving it first.
Second, we need Washington on board as well. How does this idea do that at all? What does it offer them? An additional fee with no additional service? Do they have any incentive to support it?
This is a divisive non-solution that will not go anywhere.
Um, Dave, why do we need Washington on board as well? We see what sorts of choices and priorities we can expect from Washington, just by watching Vancouver govern itself—it votes against MAX, uncouples its transit system from ours, actively encourages auto-dependent sprawl, does everything that Oregon aspires not to do. Portland is our city. If Vancouverites don’t want to pay toll, they can find jobs at home. Except of course they can’t; last time I looked, the mills and the shipyards over there weren’t doing so well.
So why do they get to force us to subisidize their auto dependence? Come to think of it, if they’re willing to sit in their cars for two hours a day to avoid Oregon property taxes, that might be their private busines…..except of course they’re gassing our airshed in the process, so I guess tolls become a sort of self-defense for Portland…..
elee: It’s a federally funded Interstate Highway. It’s not the city’s bridge. We can’t just throw a toll on it without all concerned parties having a say.
Dave, I’m not an expert on federal highway law, but I know there are bridges in all sorts of similar situations that collect tolls—-like the ones from, say, NYC to New Jersey, or from Philadelphia to New Jersey….so it must be possible. If you know more about these nuances, please share….meanwhile I can’t see anything but more of the same from any consultation with Washington, or at any rate, Washington local governments in our metro area.
= So why do they get to force us to subisidize their auto dependence? Come to think of it, if they’re willing to sit in their cars for two hours a day to avoid Oregon property taxes, that might be their private busines…..except of course they’re gassing our airshed in the process, so I guess tolls become a sort of self-defense for Portland=
Well Elee, Portland employers have two choices if they can’t find suitable employees from Portland Oregon:
1-Residents of Washington State;
2-Residents of the Country of Mexico
Say no to new taxes (also called fee’s by unscrupulous politicians)
Well, my guess is that from time to time they hire someone from, oh, say, Gresham…..
but more to the point, things (and services) cost money, whether one purchases them from the government or from a private party….like, for example, a bus ride. Would you advocate making all transit free, so as to avoid taxing the bus and trolley riders of the world? And whose taxes would you increase to pay for the free buses?
Or would you drive bus for free, to show your commitment to not taking taxes or fees from anyone for any government activity?
We are discussing roads and bridges, which are paid for by our taxes.
So they want taxes to build it and then taxes to drive it?
FORGET IT!
We can’t get so provincial in our thinking.
Portland is better than Vancouver hence we should tax those folks for the privilege of coming over “our” bridge to “our” lovely Portland.
If Oregon paid for the bridge I could see that. But it was paid for by both states tax payers.
You mean I should pay taxes so Trimet can buy a bus, and then pay a tax deceptively called a fee just so I can ride around on the same bus?
Next thing you know they’ll want me to pay taxes to build a bridge, and then pay some more taxes to maintain it!
Well elee,
I see your getting almost as good as some of the other posters here at obscuring the point that I am trying to make with inane logic and twisted arguments!
KUDO’S!
I now nominate you into the pin head hall of fame!
(only kidding!)
Al M, my friend, can you print that on a T-shirt?
I refer you back to your post of 11:57 yesterday—you’d prefer not to pay anything that increases your cost of living, however or whatever you call it…..
I submit that everyone would agree with you there. Problem is we don’t all get to have our way on this one, now, do we? Or if we did, we’d be replicating economic conditions from 1929 to 1941, otherwise known as The Great Depression, when sure enough everything cost less with every new month and year….and somehow the result was not universal happiness.
“No new taxes (fee=tax)” works much better as a bumpersticker than as a serious proposal to run much of anything…..including the infrastructure of a modern metropolitan area……
But hang in there anyway. I wish I could find some way to agree with you and Dave about involving Washington….but Washington’s got no stake in our city, they use our roads &c for free and take their earnings across the river and act like they have no stake in Portland….maybe a toll might wake a few of them up…..?????
NOW YOU INVOKE THE GREAT DEPRESSION?
You are now inducted into the pin head hall of fame!
~
Happy new year ELEE!
=^..^=
If you want to reduce the trips taken to work, just mandate a 40 hour week with a 10 hour work day. That alone, with some variables, would be a 20% reduction. However it might be wiser to find a way to encourage a reduction in trips. Like getting businesses to move their employees to stores closer to where they live. That is Safeway worker living in Beaverton should be able to work at Safeway stores in Beaverton instead of driving across town. Seattle once had a program like this.
MW
“In Lenny’s piece he refuses to mention “busses” as a mode of mass transit.”
>>>> That’s because Lenny has a personal dislike of buses, and has stated it in the past. Therefore, one must take his opinions with a grain of salt.
The dislike of buses is also a feeling of a lot of doctrinaire ‘railfans’ I have known.
Nick said
>>>> That’s because Lenny has a personal dislike of buses, and has stated it in the past. Therefore, one must take his opinions with a grain of salt.
The dislike of buses is also a feeling of a lot of doctrinaire ‘railfans’ I have known.
Nick, how about the doctrinaire busfans, some of whom make no secret of their dislike for rail transit? Should we also take their opinions with a grain of salt?
In my opinion, we should consider all opinions in the context of those who hold those opinions. If they’re just opinions, and not well-supported with facts, of course they’re biased, that’s what opinions are.
So take all opinions with a grain of salt, except mine of course, which are obviously true.:-)
Mike
I need somebody to help me interpret this:
http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/BAM/docs/Publications/GRB0507/A6-AllFunds.pdf
When they say total resource are:
$91,962 MILLION, what exactly does that mean?
does that mean 91 million or 9.1 billion.
This is why we can never trust the government.
They cant even be truthful in how they represent their budgets!
$91,962 MILLION, what exactly does that mean?
It means ninety one thousand nine hundred and sixty two million, which can also be read as 91.962 billion dollars.
They cant even be truthful in how they represent their budgets!
There’s nothing false about how it is represented, it’s just that the numbers are very big and it can be confusing if one isn’t used to reading them that way.
91 billion?
bob, what do you mean there is nothing false about that?
why dont they just say 91 billion then?
why dont they just say 91 billion then?
Because most of the rest of the budget (look for some of the complete documents) is expressed in millions. It’s most likely for the sake of consistency.
It is not at all uncommon to express figures which enter the billions in this manner, and it isn’t limited to government. This is a standard accounting practice.
– Bob R.
GETTOUTTA HERE BOB!
Standard account practice my arse!
Al –
As an example of this practice, look at this SEC Filing from Apple Computer (PDF), at the bottom of Page 35. (Page 36 of the PDF).
The figures in the table are expressed in MILLIONS, such as Net Sales of 24,006. That’s 24,006 MILLION, or 24.006 BILLION.
It is perfectly reasonable to do this, especially when there are numbers in the table which would otherwise be expressed as fractions. For example, Net Income back in 2003 was only 57 Million. If the table were expressed in Billions, this column would read .057 Billion, which is even more confusing than reading everything out in Millions.
Just get used to it.
just get used to it?
you used to be such a nice guy?
what happened to you?
:-)x
what happened to you?
I got old and cranky at an accelerated rate.
Did ya party too much last night?
I bet ya did, so now your cranky.
Why don’t you ask Lenny about it directly? After all, he’s here.
Well, Lenny has had ample opportunity to address my concerns, and he has chosen not to.
The question was asked: “Or would you drive bus for free, to show your commitment to not taking taxes or fees from anyone for any government activity?”
That is a good question that brings about yet another question; Would Lenny (who authored the opinion) continue to show his commitment and manage the Swan Island Transportation Management Association that sets up and manages subsidized van pools to and from Swan Island if he did NOT receive taxpayer money from Metro and had to do the task for free?
erik get your mail again
ok, back to my original point:
this is what the feds do with our taxes:
* $586.1 billion (+7.0%) – Social Security
* $548.8 billion (+9.0%) – Defense[2]
* $394.5 billion (+12.4%) – Medicare
* $367.0 billion (+2.0%) – Unemployment and welfare
* $276.4 billion (+2.9%) – Medicaid and other health related
* $243.7 billion (+13.4%) – Interest on debt
* $89.9 billion (+1.3%) – Education and training
* $76.9 billion (+8.1%) – Transportation
* $72.6 billion (+5.8%) – Veterans’ benefits
* $43.5 billion (+9.2%) – Administration of justice
* $33.1 billion (+5.7%) – Natural resources and environment
* $32.5 billion (+15.4%) – Foreign affairs
* $27.0 billion (+3.7%) – Agriculture
* $26.8 billion (+28.7%) – Community and regional development
* $25.0 billion (+4.0%) – Science and technology
* $23.5 billion (+0.0%) – Energy
* $20.1 billion (+11.4%) – General government
SO HOW MANY BILLION IS THAT?
ADD TO IT CITY OF PORTLAND BILLIONS=The City’s budget for 07-08 is $3.05 billion
ADD TO THAT STATE OF OREGON BILLIONS $92 billion
and you guys are gonna tell me that I should pay to drive over some bridge..
I SAY NUTS TO YOU!
like the ones from, say, NYC to New Jersey, or from Philadelphia to New Jersey….so it must be possible.
Those bridges were built by the localities, then included in the Interstate Highway system. The New York State Thruway was considered in large part a model for the IHS, but still is able to operate as a toll road system for it’s length because it was grandfathered in.
To add a toll to an existing roadway, the only options that is typically allowed is a major reconstruction project, in which case the toll is removed after the construction costs are paid for.
The other very rare method is HOT lanes, where the existing lanes must be preserved, but the new lanes can be made into high occupancy/toll roads allowing vehicles with multiple occupants, or those willing to pay, a way around the traffic.
The only examples of HOT lanes that I know of are on I-15 in San Diego and CA-91 in Riverside County, but they seemed successful in those areas. On the I-5 corridor, they would be fairly pointless without extending a HOT network at least to downtown along I-5 or I-405, as well as into Washington to SR-500 or so.
Really, HOT lanes could be a decent solution for I-5 through Portland, since it allows for buses and carpools to move unimpeded, as well as has the benefit of paying it’s own construction bonds off if there’s enough toll-user demand.
The downside is nearly the entire route would likely have to be elevated above I-5 due to space constraints through North Portland, which would probably get it eliminated as an option from the start.
Thanks for all the comments.
Curious, but no one has much to say about congestion pricing as a way to address global warming. If you are outside the international concensus on this, you’ve no worries, but if you are serious about addressing GW, then you cannot proceed in a business as usual kind of way on this project. Time to walk the talk.
The real issue is how to get more people across the Columbia River, and the good news is, as someone else once pointed out, there is a ton of capacity in the passenger seats of most the vehicles now making the trip. Congestion pricing…where carpools (driver +2) go free…would begin to make use of that excess capacity. Or you could dodge the tolls by using transit, joining a vanpool, working 4 tens…the usual suspects.
Why would Clark county residents support this? Because it would provide “overnight relief”, ie. less congested bridges a lot sooner than a mega project, saving serious time for the cost of a Latte.
And it would provide an income stream to increase incident management…incidents account for 50% of the congestion on the bridges.
That income stream could be used as local match or be bonded to do a bunch of projects…fix the rail bridge, retrofit the Interstate spans, build an arterial bridge with light rail, remove the substandard on ramps, etc. etc. All these can be done without any disruption on the existing spans.
The variable toll redistributes use into more of the 90% of the time that the bridges work fine.
Federal law does not allow tolls?…get Congress to pass a waiver; its done all the time. I think we did something like that in the 70’s when freeway funds were transfered to arterial projects and light rail.
The options for Clark county commuters are put variable tolls in effect now for immediate relief or wait ten or so years (and endure massive construction delays) for tolls on a big bridge that will be full the day it opens. Why wait?
PS re “transit”…across the Columbia, MAX is a no-brainer, but I’ve nothing against buses. I ride one every day and had a hand in starting three different routes in the last dozen years. I’m almost an expert on the subjec.
Lenny, the biggest concern I have with tolling the existing bridges is that’s it really seems to be changing the rules on people who are locked into mortgages and can’t just pack up and move.
Without having a full fledged plan in place, and getting tools in place to move people across the bridge, it would just be another fee. I don’t think it really would reduce congestion that much since usually tolls push traffic to other routes. In this case, it’s just a direct fee targeted at people entering the state.
Also, I’m curious where they’d fit the toll booths. South of the Jantzen Beach exits is the only area I can think of, but should people in Jantzen Beach be forced to pay to get off their island to the rest of the state?
Increased traffic is a risk that Clark County commuters should have been aware of when they bought, tolling their route to work without providing them with any better options is just extortion though.
Let’s got other options in place (arterial bridge, maybe tolled, MAX, better bus service, etc) before we go adding a toll.
Dave, I agree that assessing a toll on the existing bridges without giving people options to mitigate the impact is poor public policy.
But I think that the larger issue is that our means of paying for transportation projects has been broken for a long time. No one – transit users, bicyclists, motorists – really pays what it actually costs to build and maintain a transportation system. We’re going to have to – at some point – begin paying more than we currently do for transportation. AND, we need to pay for the IMPACTS of our transportation mode choice. The transition will be painful for everyone, regardless of how and when it happens, but it’s inevitable.
Variable tolls will incent people to find carpool partners, shift trip times, buy a transit pass, join a vanpool. Commuters in SOVs are a very elastic group. We learned in ’97 that if the options are out there people will use them. Traffic on I-5 went from 120K to something like 30K. True, it was just a week, but we only have to get it down to 100K and better manage incidents and the benefits will be clear.
So why wait ten years for relief when you can have it this afternoon? OK, in a few months. $5 (two way toll in the peak) is not much if you save 10-20 minutes.
But I expect many, if not most, Clark county residents will hold out for a big bridge with no tolls…not likely to happen…in part because congestion is really not that bad. We still see log trucks blasting thru the heart of Portland on I-5, the delay at the bridge is just a few minutes, and I note from truck analysis from Cambridge Systematics that half the the heavy duty trucks on I-5 between the I-205 split and merge are just passing thru. Why are they not on I-205? because I-5 is still faster and more direct.
Lenny makes an excellent case, for all the right reasons.
The most cogent argument against his proposal seems to be that it changes the rules for those who chose to live in Washington and work in Oregon. However, this is similar to the argument advanced by all polluters, that they should be grandfathered in. The ethical argument for doing so is pretty weak.
In terms of actual cost, if a straight toll of $2 were charged each direction (electronically), typical commuters would be charged $1000 a year. Given that they are probably burning 300 gallons or more of gas per year on that commute, they have already taken on a significant risk due to price changes. They would have the option of reducing their toll costs by carpooling or taking transit, whereas they have no control over the price of gas.
The real issue is about tax fairness in paying for a replacement crossing. The bottom line remains, if user fees are charged, tolls or otherwise, to any mode of transport, then the users of all modes of transport must also pay an equitable user fee.
Terry,
Could you please explain why you think that all users of a new bridge MUST be taxed equally? You have mentioned the notion of socialism in previous posts yet the US is a representative republic with some democratic overtones-not socialist. Nor is our system based on “fairness”, but majority rule. The person that gets the most votes wins the whole thing…period. The same thing goes for the local funding for the CRC–if the majority of our representatives(local,state and federal) approve a tax/fee structure that favors bikes/mass transit over SOV’s–so be it. Again I say that if our local reps. choose to tell that Feds to keep their money and build a third span for mass transit and local access only, that is fine by me. If I don’t like that I can take it out on them in the next election! That is our system at work. And it has been working just fine for over 200 years.
Lenny,
As for your editorial, I do like the idea of congestion pricing to encourage carpooling, mass transit, etc. But I also think that a new CRC is needed to replace the aging Interstate Bridges. Furthermore, I can see that if the region is going to replace those bridges that we should build the best possible bridge that we can. It needs to have as much capacity of all types as we can reasonably afford-mainly so that we do not need to revisit this issue in the next 50 years or so. Also, I agree that if this bridge is built that it would just move the traffic pressure “down the road” to the Rose Quarter area. Do you know if there are any realistic plans to widen or replace that section of I-5? I have seen some sites that show some pretty outlandish ideas. What is your take?
Doug,
I do have to question one aspect of your proposal. Why is it more fair for us to choose to discriminate against the commuter from Clark County, yet not the commuter from Washington, Clackamas, Cowlitz, Yamhill, etc?
Why should we choose one single group to target with the toll? Because they’re out of state, and can’t complain as effectively? Or is it because they’re the ones worst served for SOV usage, so we want to punish them?
We have over twenty directional lanes across the Willamette, yet the Columbia is the one we want to toll? It seems like a choice being made to just screw over those who want to commute from a place we don’t have control over, and nothing more.
If it’s really about those who drive too far and hurt the environment, why not tax gas? Or does that not work, since we don’t exercise complete control over them?
TSO: Improving the Rose Quarter would take one or two relatively easy fixes. Neither would make for a massive difference, but they would smooth things out a bit.
The first is to close the ramp southbound from Alberta, and merge it with the southbound Going ramp. This would reduce the braking/slowing in the leftmost lane from the current quick-merge that’s forced into the third lane of the freeway.
Also, for minimal cost a southbound offramp to Interstate Ave could be added from the I-405 ramp, reducing the backup at the Rose Quarter on I-5 by providing and alternate route.
That, or connect to the Freemont Bridge (northbound) to reduce pressure on the RQ interchange. With a Northbound I-5 ramp, the interchange could reasonably improve RQ access without major neighborhood disruptions.
With more effort and cash, widening from Rosa Parks to I-405, southbound only, to create 2 lanes to I-5 and 2 to I-405 would improve flow quite a bit, but isn’t likely in this city.
“I do have to question one aspect of your proposal. Why is it more fair for us to choose to discriminate against the commuter from Clark County, yet not the commuter from Washington, Clackamas, Cowlitz, Yamhill, etc?”
Because those roads aren’t as jammed up…
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not opposed to a congestion charge on 26 (at the tunnel probably,) and 84 (between I205 and I5,) and I5 (at the curves,) and on 217 (anywhere,) but they aren’t as jammed up, so there is less need…
“We have over twenty directional lanes across the Willamette, yet the Columbia is the one we want to toll?”
It doesn’t cost $4.2B to add 4 lanes over the Willamette. The Sellwood bridge is in the $250M range for 2-4 lanes, (right now it has more width dedicated to peds and bikes than actual road,) including a temporary replacement bridge while the project is under construction. If someone can show how we can add lanes over the Columbia in that price range, (hint: it is very possible, they just aren’t freeway lanes, don’t involve major interchange rework at the ends, and therefore aren’t likely to be built by WSDOT, so aren’t being studied,) then the congestion charges wouldn’t make as much sense. But congestion charges are a cheaper and easier way to solve the congestion problem on the Interstate bridge than a $4.2B project…
Actually Clark county commuters are the beneficiaries of congestion pricing. For the cost of a latte they save time and have more reliability. Many will find carpool partners and dodge the toll all together. Others can’t wait to use light rail.
Meanwhile we can look to invest $4 billion in education which is what really drives economic development.
“Actually Clark county commuters are the beneficiaries of congestion pricing.”
I don’t understand that at all?
I bet ya if we implemented your idea that it would hardly make a dent in the traffic flow.
People would just pay the fee and continue to drive.
This is America, not Europe.
I’ve worked on Swan Island for over 20 years with lots of Clark county commuters. Many of them do not want to drive, do not want to be on the freeway and can’t wait for MAX. But we give them no choice. Check out what happened in ’97.
“Many of them do not want to drive, do not want to be on the freeway and can’t wait for MAX.”
I would imagine that you are indeed correct on that subject!
Actually Clark county commuters are the beneficiaries of congestion pricing.
It’s a better idea to get MAX across the river, then see what the perspective of a Clark County commuter will be than to try to force it before they’ve got any alternates available.
Without any perceived benefits to the tolling, it’s just another tax on WA state residents by OR. It’s not needed unless we’ve got a clear way of spending the money that benefits the payers to make it worthwhile.
Spend the money to build MAX across the river.
What you “buy” in the meantime is a shorter commute for those who pay as other commuters form carpools, join vanpools, work 4 tens and even try out the new C-Tran service to the Yellow Line.
Do you want relief sooner or later? Either way you will pay.
“Many of them do not want to drive, do not want to be on the freeway and can’t wait for MAX.”
“I would imagine that you are indeed correct on that subject!”
““““““““““
I was thinking about this further, AND, if that was indeed true then why did Vancouverites vote no on building the rail?
I was thinking about this further, AND, if that was indeed true then why did Vancouverites vote no on building the rail?
I suspect there are multiple factors.
For one, “Many” doesn’t necessarily mean “Most”, the vote was years ago, rails weren’t beckoning from the Expo center, people didn’t know what to expect, Vancouver (city of) doesn’t necessarily view this the same as Clark County as a whole, etc.
With the Yellow Line now in place, proponents will be able to say: “This is where it goes, this is how long it takes to travel, and this is what it will cost”. (And the cost factor will be a bit more reliable than charting out an entire multi-state line from scratch.)
I think too, that people these days are inclined to vote against any type of cost increase. People don’t like increased gas taxes, don’t like paying tolls…and they don’t like traffic congestion either. I would venture a guess that if a CRC project writ large, went to a vote of the people, with the price tag and toll amount known, it would fail.
That’s why I think a pricing/alternatives/arterial/light rail strategy has a better chance of gaining public support, as opposed to a uber-bridge strategy. Simply because it would be a smaller, more incremental project.
The ’95 vote was basically for a blank check funded by a sales tax increase with no project specifics. Demographics over there have changed a lot in the last dozen years.
The virtue of paying for MAX with variable tolls on the River crossings is that those who benefit…future riders and non-riders alike… share in the cost while those who live, work and shop in WA are off the hook.
“Terry, Could you please explain why you think that all users of a new bridge MUST be taxed equally?”
Equally taxed does not necessarily mean that the users of various modes should pay the same price/user fee for using the crossing. However, it is a matter of equity and tax fairness that if one mode is charged, then all modes need to be charged. In other words, the user fees one mode pays should not be used to subsidize another mode. That is where the socialists play their little game.
What needs to happen is a breakdown separation of costs that relate to each mode of transport, and a separating out of the combined bridge superstructure cost. Then each mode of transport would pay a user fee that only applies to the infrastructure for the mode of transport used, and a proportionate percentage of the bridge superstructure. Therefore, a crossing is constructed that only accommodates bikes and transit, only bicyclists and transit riders, NOT motorists, MUST pay for it.
The bottom line is the political powers running the government in a democratic society ought not to be dictating (through tax codes or otherwise) what mode of transport people use to travel. The job of the government is to supply the services required for a freedom of choice with reasonable user fees only based on the cost of providing the function.
A Quinnipiac University poll released yesterday indicated that 60 percent of New York City voters would support congestion pricing in Manhattan…IF the revenue is used to improve mass transit options.
Otherwise, 58 percent of them oppose the idea.
Lenny’s op-ed piece must have convinced them! :)
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1302.xml?ReleaseID=1132