Columbia Crossing Bad Economics?


Local economist Joe Cortright is interviewed in the Daily Journal of Commerce questioning the cost/benefit breakdown on the Columbia River Crossing.


46 responses to “Columbia Crossing Bad Economics?”

  1. In the article Joe said: “The bridge only makes economic sense if the benefits the users get from the new bridge exceed the costs of building it If you just look at the highway portion of the bridge, and ask how much it’s costing to provide for each additional trip, and you look at the very rough toll estimate of $2.50, which only covers a third of the cost, then the actual cost is about three times that. So a question we have to ask is whether having a new bridge is worth $7.50 for each trip.”

    The same criteria can also be used for transit: How much does it cost for each person trip? If the fare is $2.00 and the actual cost is four or more times that; the question must be asked is whether the service is worth a fare of S10.00 or more per trip.

    Joe also said: If the people who might use the bridge are unwilling to pay $7.50 per trip, then what that means is that people want a new bridge but only if someone else pays for it.

    This same principle can also be applied to bicycle infrastructure, the cost of which was hidden and buried in the highway cost estimates. If the bicyclists who might use it are unwilling to pay a toll that reflects the costs per trip of providing it, then what it means is that bicyclists want bicycle infrastructure but only if someone else pays for it.

    However, when it comes to the highway portion of the bridge, Joe’s assessment is flawed because the majority of the other two-thirds of the funding for the project will come from various funding methods including the Federal Highway Trust Fund that for the most part only motorists pay into. Therefore it is the transit and bicycle portions of the project that are being subsidized by non-users and therefore must be economically questioned.

  2. Praise for Joe Cortright! As I’ve said before: this thing is a subsidy for car-dependent Vancouverites. If that population wants another bridge, AND IF a bridge can be provided without intolerable impacts on our side of the river, then they should pay for it. Instead, it’s literally a free ride.

    As a potential choice rider, I sympathize somewhat with Terry’s reasoning about bus fares. Right now I could pay $1.75 for a bus ride, plus an entirely variable interval of standing in the rain getting splashed by buses that blow by. Auto parking costs $12 a day, plus a portion of the cost of maintaining the auto. If TriMet could RELIABLY get me to work in, say, 3X the amount of time the car takes me, I’d entertain paying $5.00 a ride. If the service offered is a ride for $1.75 that takes 6X as long as driving, I’m not buying, my time is worth more than that.

  3. Another way to look at the bike funding is this: would you, the car driver, give up 1% of road money if it would get 10% of the traffic off the road?

    Now that works out about right for bridges over the Willamette, but I seriously, SERIOUSLY doubt that 10% of commuters from Vancouver will ride bikes!

    I can’t see any financial sense to a new bridge from any viewpoint. Some of the money may be coming from “other sources”, but I suspect the back end of all those sources is eventually our collective wallets.

  4. I was more interested in his statement that the Federal Transportation Trust fund is bankrupt? Is this true?

    Here in DC, the feds just nixed a project to extend the subway out to Dulles Airport. This is a project that has been in the works for the past 20 years.

    I wonder if we are going to begin to see more and more transportation programs eliminated?

  5. PeteJacobsen Said: “Another way to look at the bike funding is this: would you, the car driver, give up 1% of road money if it would get 10% of the traffic off the road?”

    The car driver ought to receive a 10 percent reduction in auto related taxed paid and that 10 percent would then be picked up directly paid by bicyclists.

    PeteJacobsen also said: “Some of the money may be coming from “other sources”, but I suspect the back end of all those sources is eventually our collective wallets.”

    The majority of those “other sources” including local, State and Federal come from the taxes and fees only motorists and motor freight carriers pay See Erik Halstead’s post under the “Task Force Looks at Tolling I-5 Crossing” thread for an explanation.

  6. I was more interested in his statement that the Federal Transportation Trust fund is bankrupt? Is this true?

    There is no such thing as a Federal Transportation Trust Fund.

    There is a Highway Trust Fund (of which 20% is siphoned out for mass transit projects), an Airport & Airways Trust Fund

    The Highway Trust Fund is currently in the black but is projected to go into the red due to increasing outlays and decreasing revenues. (Just like the Social Security Trust Fund.) The Airport & Airways Trust Fund has for many years failed to spend anything close to its revenues and is well in the black.

  7. this thing is a subsidy for car-dependent Vancouverites

    And transit dependendent Vancouverites, and bike dependent Vancouverites…

    And truckers out of the Port of Portland who are shipping product to Washington, and to those outside of Vancouver but in Clark or Cowlitz Counties (or Skamania County), and Seattleites that come to Portland for a weekend…

    Bottom line is that the highway portion of the bridge is getting built with taxes that motorists paid – not by City of Portland property tax dollars. Say “no” to the bridge, and maybe WSDOT will ask for their federal dollars to help improve connections to Idaho, or to Vancouver, BC instead.

    The light rail/transit project will be funded through the mass transit fund, which is funded out of the 20% of the Highway Trust Fund that is paid into through gas taxes. So immediately, no matter how you look at it, transit is subsidized by road users. PERIOD. (If you don’t believe me, then try building this project without federal dollars – oops! Now it’s subsidized by property owners regardless of their transit use!) So why are highway subsidies a problem (never mind that 85% of trips are highway based) but transit subsidies a free ticket?

    The bicycle/pedestrian portion is also funded through highway dollars.

    So just who is subsidizing who? If the argument is that Portland is subsidizing Vancouver – fine. Then stop collecting taxes from Vancouver residents who come into Portland, as well as taxes derived from economic activity created by Vancouver residents (i.e. no longer collect property taxes from stores that do business with Vancouver residents, no longer collect income taxes from revenue obtained through Vancouver residents, etc.)

    What is the economic impact of Washington residents that are performing work in Oregon? I see that question is largely ignored… What would be the impact if those Washington residents no longer worked in Portland; or if Portland businesses could no longer do business north of the River? Fred Meyer and Safeway would have to shift distribution work north of the river, and Fred Meyer (one of the largest container shippers in the Port of Portland) would have to receive its containers in Vancouver or even Tacoma. Honda and Toyota would no longer be able to use Portland effectively as an import port. Many of the elective surgeries in Oregon are on Washington patients – now they will go to Washington hospitals. Or Washington residents who will no longer be able to use PDX and will either ask for their own airport, or will use Sea-Tac instead? What about Jantzen Beach and Cascade Station?

    The list just goes on and on…

  8. What the article misses is that these existing spans are dangerously obsolete. Tne No-Build
    option is not an option. Did we all forget the Bridge Disaster in the Mid-West. The Sellwood
    Bridge and The Sauvies Island Bridge are perfect
    examples of obsolete infrastructue being properly
    replaced.

  9. If that population wants another bridge, AND IF a bridge can be provided without intolerable impacts on our side of the river, then they should pay for it. Instead, it’s literally a free ride.

    What about the people who get items that were on a truck that went over the bridge? What about the jobs created by people crossing the bridge from WA to OR to buy goods tax-free here? Maybe we should make employees at Jantzen Beach pay for part of the bridge, since their jobs would be less useful without it there.

    How about the people who won’t get stuck in North Portland backups because the bottleneck will be moved to the north in the afternoon? How about the potentially lowered emissions along Interstate Ave and MLK? Can we bill home owners for getting better air to help fund the bridge?

    Us and Them is never a great idea for basing an argument like this, since usually Us and Them are contributing. Plenty of people are effected by this, and convincing enough of them it is unneeded will be a tough sell.

  10. the bottleneck will be moved to the north in the afternoon?

    And to the south in the morning, along with increased emissions. Are North Portlanders being asked to trade one problem for another of a similar magnitude? I don’t count myself among the “us vs. them” crowd (if there is one), but I think the benefits to North Portlanders are being oversold and the risks under-examined.

  11. “What the article misses is that these existing spans are dangerously obsolete. Tne No-Build
    option is not an option. Did we all forget the Bridge Disaster in the Mid-West. The Sellwood
    Bridge and The Sauvies Island Bridge are perfect
    examples of obsolete infrastructue being properly
    replaced.”

    By that reckoning, so is the Golden Gate Bridge. In the last earthqaukes in California it has been the concrete structures that have failed. The steel truss bridges have held up, except where burdened by heavy concrete decks that gave out. They also are situated on wood pilings, as are the I-5 bridges.

    But you are right: There is considerable obsolescence in much of our transportation infrastructure. But there is also a dearth of available money to accomplish everything that we want. AND did you know, that when we start building big projects like bridges and highways there is always a certain incidence of death and serious injuries during the construction process. These stories don’t make the news–but cause a lot more fatalities than the sum total of bridges which have collapsed within the US. However, if your point is that we need to replace death trap structures, I agree.

    So because we can not afford to do every project that planners (or citizens) might like we need to pick and choose. Trying to cram more traffic–proportionate to the expected growth of our area–on to only two bridges no matter how much we improve them is a poor choice compared to using that same money to open up another route. What if there were only two bridges connecting East and West Portland? How inconvenient would that be?

    Plus, I don’t know what was wrong with the Sauvies Island Bridge. It never did carry a great amount of traffic. I know a lot about the Sellwood Bridge; having crossed it for thirty five years. The Ross Island Bridge, by comparison–which is twice as large as Sellwood was rehabbed for less than $40 million. But some people would like to spend ten times that amount on the Sellwood. And no matter what they spend it won’t actually solve the deeper issue in this part of the METRO area:i.e., no bridge further south of Sellwood, until you get to Oregon City! This causes a huge amount of wasted mileage.

    billb: Have you ever heard of corrupt, inefficient government. Or did you think Portland would escape?

  12. Columbia Crossing is a boondoggle. Joe’s great at pointing that out. The process has been pretty much this: decide what your dream project would be, regardless of cost. Eliminate all alternatives that don’t meet all your goals. Then find people to subsidize that project. It’s a ridiculous charade.

  13. Hmmm?

    Milwaukie light rail is a boondoggle. Evan’s great at pointing that out. The process has been pretty much this: decide what your dream project would be, regardless of cost. Eliminate all alternatives that don’t meet all your goals. [avoid public votes] Then find people to subsidize that project. It’s a ridiculous charade.

  14. John E. must have missed all the community meetings where citizens demanded that light rail be studied as an option for this corridor. A very different kettle of fish. Earlier ODOT had tried to get 99E widened thru SE Portland, and citizens killed it. Citizens will kill the CRC, Columbia River Catastrophe too.

  15. I think Lenny may be right that citizens will kill this project. Which IMO is too bad, because there are some aspects of the project that are worth completing. Like addressing the lack of ramp merge lanes, the existence of only two metro-area Columbia bridges, and the improvement of non-SOV alternatives. But the designers are doing as Evan said, pressing ahead with the original idea, in all 12 lanes of glory, and in doing so, may have made the project unpalatable.

  16. They already HAVE a rail bridge across the Willamette. They need to learn to better utilize what they already have before spending so lavishly on a new gargantuan project. I think this will evolve into yet another Portland boondoggle just like the tram. How much have they already spent on focus groups and “studying” it? If Oregon’s land use laws weren’t so stupid, people would build south, east and west of the Portland area and the “need” for this bridge would be minimized.

  17. But the designers are doing as Evan said, pressing ahead with the original idea, in all 12 lanes of glory, and in doing so, may have made the project unpalatable.

    12 is misconstruing the project. It’s 3 through lanes, each way, in the way people know lanes. That’s in addition to 2 auxiliary lanes to merge Mill Plain/4th Plain (downtown/uptown Vancouver) connecting to Jantzen Beach, Marine Dr, and Interstate Ave.

    Yes, with transit, it’s six directional lanes each way. Five for SOV’s, two of which serve local traffic, three of which are I-5.

    The bridge will smooth out traffic, and allow better flow, in addition to improving safety (merge SR-14 to I-5 and see what I mean). It will add LRT to the Couv, let people out of Portland faster in the evening, allow travel at lunchtime between states without worrying about a lift, be up to modern design standards, improve river traffic, and overall improve connectivity in a major metropolitan region.

    Besides, the Willamette has way more lanes each direction across. St. Johns (2), Freemont (4), Broadway (2), Steel (2), Burnside (2/3), Morrison (3), Hawthorne (2), Marquam (4), Ross Island (2), Sellwood (1), I-205 (3). I’ll stop there, 27 so far for SOV’s. Is I-5 (5) and I-205 (4) so bad for connecting across the Columbia? It’s only 9.

    No, it’s not cheap, but it’s probably a pretty good investment for the total return on it.

  18. I don’t see any “community” that is begging to kill the CRC, except for those who are adamently opposed to anything involving roads under the guise of “you can’t build your way out of construction”, but then naming a construction project they do support (building MAX).

    Meanwhile, the “community” that is begging for the Newberg-Dundee Bypass has all but been squashed after it has become realized that the demand to build a bypass would result in a massively expensive project that would discriminate against those who live in McMinnville and its surrounding communities. And note that eight months have gone by, traffic still sucks, because a rogue group of citizens have hijacked the public process involving all stakeholders.

    There are a number of sections of 99E/McLoughlin Boulevard that have been upgraded (or in typical “anti-road speak, “widened” or “built”) – including a massive project underway right now to rebuild the viaduct over the Union Pacific mainline near OMSI at the Grand/MLK split. The only other segment that is left to be widened is the area through Westmoreland Park, which understandably passes along a popular city park and next to a protected wetland. (It’s also one area that is limited access and doesn’t actually pose a major problem, except that it lacks adequate shoulders and bike lanes – although since it passes by a park, bikes can travel through the park, or use the Springwater Trail to the west.) So I’m not sure of which “community” killed widening 99E, because large portions of it are already widened.

    Meanwhile in Tigard there is a “community” that wants 99W to be widened to three plus lanes in each direction from I-5 to downtown Tigard. But I presume that that “community” can be ignored, because they don’t support light rail? (Note that Metro, the regional transportation planning agency, is all but silent on widening this widely used highway that carries over 50,000 vehicles per day…)

    By the way – where are those statistics that show (or don’t show) the economic benefit that Washington state residents provide to the Portland metropolitan area? Since we are now requiring actual data and not “antedocal evidence” anymore…?

  19. Besides, the Willamette has way more lanes each direction across.

    I think this is the basis of a lot of people’s skepticism about the CRC project.

    What would Portland look like if there were no local bridges, but ONLY the Marquam and the Fremont? What would the approaches to those bridges look like? What effect would it have on local travel and commerce?

    That’s what we’re faced with regarding the Columbia: We have two large freeway bridge sets, and no arterial crossings.

    When the CRC project is finished, we’ll still have no arterial crossings.

    Instead of linking the communities together in a local, grid-oriented way, we’re putting everything into a mega-bridge project.

    I’m a supporter of Light Rail to Vancouver someday, but inclusion of light rail in this project isn’t much of a deal-sweetener to me. I’d rather see a series of smaller-scale projects which link Clark County and the rest of the Portland Metro Area in a multi-faceted way.

    What’s being proposed here is more of what we have already, just bigger and more seismically sound, and shifting the bottlenecks outward from the bridge area just a bit. It may indeed solve some traffic problems, but will it solve billions of dollars worth of traffic problems, in a way which smaller alternative projects cannot hope to accomplish?

  20. I don’t see any “community” that is begging to kill the CRC, except for those who are adamently opposed to anything involving roads

    Once again you’ve completely mischaracterized those whom you perceive to be opposed to your ideas. If you go back over the comments left here for many months, you’ll see that most people opposed-to or skeptical about the CRC project have proposed other arterial-based alternatives.

    The last time I checked, arterial roads were, in fact, “roads” and involved “roads” and people driving on “roads”.

    “Adamantly opposed” indeed.

  21. Once again you’ve completely mischaracterized those whom you perceive to be opposed to your ideas. If you go back over the comments left here for many months, you’ll see that most people opposed-to or skeptical about the CRC project have proposed other arterial-based alternatives.

    I have seen quite a few posts that supported the “no build” or “transit only” option.

  22. Do the “quite a few” posts you mention come from people who have not expressed support of an arterial crossing option? Do the “quite a few” posts represent a majority of the commenters?

  23. Instead of linking the communities together in a local, grid-oriented way, we’re putting everything into a mega-bridge project.

    Fair enough, but the cost vs value is significantly less on most arterial bridges as I understand it. Less value is less support, and they’re still very expensive, and an alternate arterial bridge doesn’t solve any current I-5 problems, unless we remove ramps from I-5 as it stands.

    I don’t know that the current design is best, personally I like a 3 lane freeway bridge with 3 local/arterial lanes, with a one lane of access from the freeway and local lanes. Consolidate Mill and Fourth Plain with SR-14, and Jantzen beach, and MLK, and Interstate.

    Basically, put a freeway-in-a-freeway from Interstate to Fourth Plain, add LRT, and yep, we spent a bit, but it’s a connecting route that would provide much better connectivity than the current problem.

    And likely it’s cheaper than an arterial bridge and modifying the rail bridge to keep the current Interstate Bridge and solve the river traffic and bridge area problems.

  24. Dave, the cost of fixing the railroad bridge is about $50M. The cost of a new 4 lane arterial bridge would be in the 1/4 to 1/2 Billion range, (artery bridges don’t require rebuilding freeway interchanges, which is one of the big costs of the CRC project.) And keep in mind that the mega-bridge doesn’t add that much capacity, since they destroy the 6 lanes that are there right now. So for $4.2M, we could get somewhere between 8 and 16 artery bridges in addition to I-5 and I-205.

    Erik, I support the no-build option over the other option (Mega-bridge) that is on the table right now. Of all the possible solutions though, the best one in my mind would involve a couple of arteries, (8-16 would probably be excessive, at least at the moment.)

  25. “The bridge only makes economic sense if the benefits the users get from the new bridge exceed the costs of building it…”

    This statement applies to MAX as well. MAX hasn’t reduced congestion and only spurs development along the line with an added subsidy. It has cost billions through massive subsidies with little benefit. MAX fares don’t even cover operating costs, much less costs of construction.

    At the very least, the bridge will serve more people and businesses than MAX ever will.

  26. Thanks for pointing out that MAX is a money loser. Huzzah!

    Money-losers like police and schools and libraries and fire departments and roads and sidewalks and streetlights and parks and playgrounds and courts? Point being?

    If you believe that there should be no public transportation, or that public transportation should only be implemented where it can be revenue-neutral, that’s fine, just say so. But “MAX is a money-loser” is a silly argument because nobody in government ever argued that MAX is a profit center. People already know that public transportation is subsidized.

  27. “People already know that public transportation is subsidized…”

    So what’s the point of the article? Does it contend that every public service or project should be subsidized except for a new bridge that will make life easier on thousands of people every day? If so, that’s one stupid argument.

    BTW, other than public schools (another duscussion entirely), the cost-to-benefit ratio of police and fire departments, sidewalks and streetlights as basically 1:1.

    What exactly is the benefit of light rail when it doesn’t reduce congestion, barely reduces pollution and doesn’t spur dense development (if you can call that a benefit)?

  28. “the cost-to-benefit ratio of police and fire departments, sidewalks and streetlights as basically 1:1.”

    I don’t know if you’ve ever compared your insurance bill to someone that doesn’t have fire department coverage, but the cost to benefit ratio is about 1:10. The first fire departments were set up by insurance companies for exactly that reason, and I imagine that if the city stopped providing it, the insurers would probably step up and fill the gap, (although letting the people without coverage’s houses burn down, which is the reason the cities took it over in the first place: they thought that was cruel.)

    The benefits of this bridge however, (“make life easier on thousands of people every day,”) can be gotten for less money in other ways, and that is the point. At a cost of $7.50/trip, that is $3900/year/commuter, which if it was the payment on a mortgage would buy $65,000 (actually, more now that interest rates are down) more house. If you told the average Washington state resident that worked in Oregon that they could either get this bridge, or $65,000 off a house on the Oregon side of the river, I’m fairly sure that most of them would choose the house… Yes, some would still want to live in Washington, but enough would move to make the current bridge more than adequate…

    The same argument can be made about Light Rail: Except that as a 14 cent/ride subsidy it is only $72/year, so moving only would be worth $1,200, which isn’t going to get very many takers…

  29. Bob R. Says: MAX fares don’t even cover operating costs. True, but MAX does pretty well:

    Operating Costs/Boarding Ride: Bus $2.66, Rail $1.48
    Passenger Rev./Boarding Ride: Bus $0.72, Rail $0.86
    Subsidy/Boarding Ride: Bus $1.94, Rail $0.61

    JK:How about construction cost? I put it at 70 cents a passenger mile for rail. What is that, about $4 per Boarding ride? That puts the subsidies as follows: Bus $1.94, Rail $4.61.

    Then there is the real point of transit: Moving people (not boardings).
    Lets see your numbers for cost per passenger-mile
    Here is what I get:
    Lowest cost bus line:…$0.34 (includes right of way)
    Average Light Rail:…..$0.434 (ignores about 2 BILLION right of way cost)
    Average bus …………….$0.835 (includes right of way)

    What is your version of these numbers?

    Thanks
    JK

  30. Matthew, fire departments are the construct of a century’s old need for preventing episodes like the great Chicago fire and SF fire after the quake. That said, we pretty much get what we pay for when it comes to public safety. However, if I had my druthers, police and fire would be paid for by service fees.

    And I don’t know where you got your mass transit numbers from, but you’re way off. The total subsidy for mass transit (operation, maintenance and operation) is well over $10 per ride. Using your logic, that’s $4680 per rider per year — a pretty hefty mortgage at that.

  31. With all this rancor over the bridge to Vancouver I’m very surprised that the 1000 fiends of Oregon haven’t tried to sue to put a stop to it like they do all other projects.

    [Moderator: Off-topic portion removed.]

  32. Dave said:
    12 is misconstruing the project. It’s 3 through lanes, each way, in the way people know lanes. That’s in addition to 2 auxiliary lanes to merge Mill Plain/4th Plain (downtown/uptown Vancouver) connecting to Jantzen Beach, Marine Dr, and Interstate Ave. Yes, with transit, it’s six directional lanes each way. Five for SOV’s, two of which serve local traffic, three of which are I-5.

    Ahhh, Dave, if only it were so, it might be within reach of reason. However, my understanding is 12 is the proposal. I doubt it will survive as 12, but that’s what is on the table. For example, check out document reference here (see pages 4 and 5).

    This is a bloated project, and it’s a testament to the bias of the task force that others have referenced in the past. Minor bridge improvements + transit + new bridge(s) would be a rational choice, instead we’re concentrating traffic on a single mega-bridge. Looks a lot like highway planning right out of the 50’s to me.

    And don’t even get me started about why we’re concentrating all this investment and traffic on a route with such critical deficiencies (downtown, T-curves) just a few miles away. I-205 is a much better through route and where we ought to be sending the truckloads of cash that are apparently headed this way.

  33. We are now on comment #35, and not one person has been able to answer my question regarding the economic impact that Oregon is granted by having both Washington residents be able to come to Oregon to work and to contribute to Oregon’s economy; as well as Oregon businesses doing business in Washington but bringing the profits back south of the Columbia (because they are based in Oregon).

    I believe it was a Metro Councilor that said years ago that Light Rail for the Portland region was a bad deal when viewed at by itself; but when the value of the “associated” development was included, Light Rail all of a sudden became a good deal. I believe the CRC must be viewed in the same manner – CRC, by itself, might not be a good deal (who’d want to spend $4B on a chunk of metal in the middle of a river?), but the benefit that it brings – jobs, business, tax revenue – I believe the CRC does make sense.

  34. Erik –

    Personally, I don’t doubt that there are great benefits to better connectivity (including by private auto) between Clark County and the rest of the Portland metro area.

    The question is, is this project the correct scope and cost to realize that benefit, and have less costly but equally beneficial alternatives been marginalized?

  35. The question is, is this project the correct scope and cost to realize that benefit, and have less costly but equally beneficial alternatives been marginalized?

    Well, since we are being denied the actual data and must rely on “antedocal evidence” I do not believe that there is a serious attempt to actually quantify the value of the bridge, but rather to simply perpetuate the notion that a select few people do not want highways and want more light rail and that those individuals are given a louder voice in the discussions despite the lack of concrete and scientific data presented before a board of people who carry no bias into the room (namely the Metro Council).

  36. Erik,
    I’m not sure the tools exist to produce an unbiased value of the project. Certainly, it is apparent that it is good economically (for both Portland and Van) to have mobility in the region, certainly the bridge is a subsidy for certain people (as are most transportation projects), certainly decent transportation is necessary to freight movement and the regional economy. How to quantify all those in an unbiased manner? I don’t know that anyone has the right answer to that. In the absence of that, we must rely to a certain extent on anecdotal evidence.

  37. Ahhh, Dave, if only it were so, it might be within reach of reason.

    Unit, I understand the points you made, but from a traffic flow point of view, the project introduces safe and effective bottlenecks instead of the current dangerous SR-14 merge, the downtown Couv ramp shared with SR-14, the sudden lack of shoulders mixed with short onramps, etc.

    At each end, it’s three through lanes. It gets wider, but that’s how you solve a bottleneck problem effectively where you have massive amounts of road traffic entering and exiting near each other.

    I do see after another post Bob made that the bridge seems biased towards building in WA but making us all pay equal. I don’t think it should go past 4th Plane, this is the first I knew it did. Building a full SR-500 interchange is going way too far for the scope of the project.

    Build the LRT to accommodate, but don’t pay to build the freeway part. That’s WA’s problem.

  38. Build the LRT to accommodate, but don’t pay to build the freeway part. That’s WA’s problem.

    Why is building out MAX to Vancouver reasonable but not a freeway bridge?

    MAX is paid for by local taxes – TriMet income and property taxes. Not Washington, not Oregon, not federal.

    I-5 is paid for by FEDERAL gas taxes. Even the “state” expenses are covered by the federal government. SR 14 is also a National Highway System component highway; and even (West) Marine Drive is too. So is SR 501 to the Port of Vancouver. And SR 500/503 is also a NHS component highway.

    (By the way, here’s the proof that my statement is not antedocal evidence: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/nhs/maps/or/portland_or.pdf)

    So the argument is:

    TriMet residents should subsidize a massive and expensive expansion of its light rail/transit system into Vancouver without C-Tran covering the costs of this expansion, despite that the expansion exists nearly 100% to support C-Tran. (Even if the federal government pays 60% of the expansion costs, the feds don’t cover operating costs for local transit.)

    However, we should deny federal funding to support federally-designated highways that are used not only by local (Portland/Vancouver) residents but also by out-of-region residents (especially on I-5) and by important freight movement (especially on Marine Drive, SR 14 and SR 501). (The federal government does pay for maintenance costs on NHS component highways which are then maintained by ODOT and WSDOT, and in the case of Marine Drive west of North Portland Highway, the City of Portland.

    Makes absolutely no sense…

  39. Erik, I phrased that terribly. I didn’t mean build the LRT past 500, I meant end the project at SR-500 for both, including the SR-500 stop (at E 33rd). Anything north of E 33rd seems far into WA enough that either they should handle it themselves, or we should get more out of the project on this side also.

  40. IMO, TriMet’s involvement with MAX should end at Hayden Island – and frankly extending MAX to Hayden Island makes no sense (there isn’t enough transit potential on the island to warrant an expansion, given it would require a bridge over North Portland Harbor.)

    When TriMet ran the 5-Interstate, and later the 6-MLK busses, into Vancouver it was because C-Tran paid TriMet to run the busses into downtown Vancouver. Frankly, I would continue to support it because that came at a very low cost to TriMet. But to build a new MAX line any further north than the Expo Center (or from Hayden Island) should be 100% paid for by C-Tran. Just as ODOT does not pay one penny towards the I-5/SR 14 interchange – ODOT’s involvement with I-5 ends at the end of the Interstate Bridge (because ODOT is charged with maintaining the bridge, although the actual operating costs are split 50/50 between ODOT and WSDOT, and remember that ultimately the money comes from the federal government no matter what.)

    If TriMet pays for a MAX line into Vancouver, then TriMet is subsidizing Vancouver passengers as Vancouver will receive a benefit that TriMet district residents and employers pay for, but receive little if any benefit from. And as we know with TriMet’s history, this will only result in a continued failure of TriMet to fully support, fund and operate its BUS operations. If the argument (which is the basic premise of the argument AGAINST the CRC) is not to support an unfair subsidy of Vancouver residents, then this argument MUST extend to transit supporters who must likewise demand that TriMet and Metro disengage in any financial backing of this project, and that C-Tran must fully fund any MAX extension north of the Expo Center, as well as shared costs that result from operations of C-Tran operated trains on TriMet owned, maintained and dispatched infrastructure.

  41. If TriMet pays for a MAX line into Vancouver…

    I’m fine with each side paying their own costs, but in a project of this scope that can be difficult to calculate exactly (especially with the bridge itself, since some structures on the land on each side are still needed to keep the over-water parts standing). A very easy possibility is to make sure that the project limits aren’t excessively favored to one side, and covering all the way to SR-500 seems like it will be viewed as too much on the WA side.

    If they provide cost estimates per section I’d guess the SR-500 interchange is one of the more expensive parts of this project. 5 new bridges, 3 tunnels, it looks like it’s far enough from the bridge, and going to be costly enough it probably should be broken out as a separate WA-only funded project, which could be built in conjunction with the CRC.

    And yep, C-Tran should pay for operations on their side, or pay TriMet if they want TriMet to operate it for them.

  42. I’m fine with each side paying their own costs, but in a project of this scope that can be difficult to calculate exactly (especially with the bridge itself, since some structures on the land on each side are still needed to keep the over-water parts standing).

    Since TriMet’s responsibility is to its district, and Hayden Island is obiviously part of the TriMet district, TriMet can pay for service up to the island. Because TriMet has zero responsibility beyond its district, and the sole purpose of the Columbia River bridge is to serve C-Tran’s district, anything NORTH of the north edge of the Hayden Island/Jantzen Beach station is C-Tran’s responsibility.

  43. …anything NORTH of the north edge of the Hayden Island/Jantzen Beach station is C-Tran’s responsibility.

    Uh, no. That’s not how it works, at all. If we want federal funding, we have to think bigger.

  44. Maybe it’s time Clark County become part of Tri-Met…Quad-Met? It most likely will never happen but Dave did say to think big.

Leave a Reply to Dave Cancel reply

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