A January 24th article in the Columbian hints at an unusual possibility for collecting tolls on a new bridge:
No tollbooths would be built. Instead, electronic transponders in each car would collect tolls. One-time users – tourists, for example – would be notified of the impending toll through signs on I-5 approaching the bridge and could buy toll cards at stores along the way.
In an earlier discussion here on PortlandTransport, commenter “lurker b” duly noted that the preliminary maps showing large and complex interchanges do not seem to include room for a toll plaza.
I’ve run this idea informally past a few friends, and the response curve was a bit narrow, ranging from shock and dismay on the mild end, to outrage on the intense end. But then that may just be reflective of my friends.
Speaking personally as someone who crosses the Columbia less than one day a month on average, I would not be likely to buy a permanent transponder. I would be quite happy to divert to a wayside toll booth and hand over some cash or swipe a credit card, but being forced to leave the freeway entirely, park, purchase a single-use pass at a store, get back on the freeway, etc. (or remember to stock up in advance) seems like an unprecedented break from tolling practice elsewhere.
Has this been tried in any metro area (especially in any region with a minimal set of facilities which are tolled)? What has been the public response in such scenarios?
53 responses to “Columbia River Crossing: No Toll Plaza?”
The 407 ETR in Toronto has been using a similar automated toll system for years, and actually dynamically calculates tolls based on your entry and exit points on the freeway for any given trip.
Compared to the card system you describe, the difference for one-time users is that if you don’t have a transponder, they will automatically mail you a bill based on video footage of your license plate.
they will automatically mail you a bill based on video footage of your license plate
That seems preferable to me. I wonder if the CRC considered (and rejected?) such a system.
…they will automatically mail you a bill…
What kind of enforcement does this have? Does someone come out and seize the vehicle if the driver doesn’t pay? This is the U.S., not Canada – if people can figure out a way to use something without paying, they will.
Alright, I visited their website, and they have a page about it here:
http://www.407etr.com/Products/collections.htm
Something tells me there’s many more resources devoted to enforcement and collections in the Province of Ontario than there is around here.
I have a transponder for my car here in the bay area. If for some reason it doesn’t work, which has happened, they take a picture of my license plate and bill my account. Basically what happens is you pay $25 in advance and they reduce from that. If you’re running low they deduct another $25 from your account automatically, kind of like paying a cable bill over the internet. Would it really be that hard to send a bill to someone’s house? I mean it’s done here when people don’t pay going through the tollbooth. If you don’t do it in time, a collections agency comes after you. I can’t imagine that being fun.
The license plate billing system couldn’t work in Oregon or Washington as the license plates typically go with the car, not the owner, and in order to legally collect the toll the company would need to prove that the registered owner was driving the vehicle through the toll plaza.
All someone would need to do to avoid the bill, and collections, is make a statement: “Someone else was driving the car.” It is not the owners obligation to prove he/she wasn’t driving the car, but the collector.
It is also very common in both Oregon and Washington for low income car buyers to pick up a beater with “good tags,” to avoid DEQ and insurance requirements. They will drive the car without registering it for an indefinite amount of time; usually until the car breaks down, and then go shopping for another beater with good tags. Many photo radar, red light, and parking tickets go unanswered due to this practice, and it can be reasonably assumed that tolls on these vehicles will be bypassed as well.
The plan is insane, and I doubt the federal government will give any funding for such a bad plan. This is not just a commuter route, in it’s federal funding pupose, it’s the major artery of the entire West Coast.
As a member of the CRC, I have heard this same story of electronic transponders, no toll booths and sending bills to those that don’t pay. The response back was that it is working well on the new Tacoma Narrows bridge project (although they do have a few toll booths), and the technology will dramatically improve by the 2015 when the new I-5 bridge would open. I pointed out that my estimate was the percentage of commuter or frequent users of the Narrows is probably much higher than I-5 in PDX/Vancouver. This would require spending more money on enforcing than could be recovered unless a very efficient billing system was in place.
What is news is the thought of having to purchase a one-time pass at the quickie mart near an exit ramp. I hadn’t heard of that before.
The following link http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/operations/tolling
includes this information on transponders:
“Q: What does it cost to establish a Good To Go! account?
A: Good To Go! requires a minimum prepaid toll payment of $30 for accounts with six or fewer vehicles. Prepaid toll payments can be made for amounts over $30. We recommend that frequent commuters and commercial accounts prepay at least one month of tolls to the Good To Go! account.
Q: How much does a Good To Go! transponder cost?
A: Effective September 15, 2007 the costs for all new and additional transponders (sales tax included) that are added to an account are:
# $12 for windshield (internal) mounted transponders
# $30 for license plate mounted (external) mounted transponders
# $30 for transponders distributed for motorcycles.”
Having said all that, I am waiting to find out exactly what the CRC has to decide on for this round versus give our preferences for a particular option in the future. We have not been asked our opinion about the transponder issue although I think there is general support for tolling to pay for the local match. I pushed on what it would cost to pay for the project in local gas tax increases, but neither DOT would bite. WSDOT thinks there is no way they would get another tax passed on top of the new nickel per gallon.
Some want to keep the toll as a congestion management tool or for maintenance after the bridge construction is paid off. I would support that only if we are doing that for other bridges in the region. Otherwise people are driving 14 miles out of the way to avoid paying the toll which causes unnecessary congestion and pollution.
The DEIS should be issued either Feb 29 or Mar 7.
Brad
Brad –
Thanks for all that info.
My own skepticism isn’t directed at automated transponder-based billing. That has been proven to work in many cities. (Hopefully a CRC system would be compatible with others on the west coast, especially ones in Washington.)
My skepticism is about the complete elimination of toll booths. This would seem to cause inconvenience to a large percentage of travelers who would only be crossing the bridge occasionally — especially travelers who are unaware of the need to purchase passes from a vendor.
My skepticism is about the complete elimination of toll booths.
Bob, I recall San Diego had to get a special permit to allow it to build HOT lanes that were only accessible to toll drivers with a transponder.
No 2 passengers, no transponder, can’t use it. But, there were still the original 4 general purpose lanes available to everyone else. That’s fair, since the 4 GP lanes were also improved.
If we want 60%, or 80%, or anything from federal sources, we can’t make it a total pain in the ass to get across it for out-of-towners. It has to be relatively free flowing, in that the bridge can’t require getting out of the car.
To toll, build one extra lane on each on-ramp in the project area. Charge a toll there, full charge if cash, or electronic (thus the two lanes, one is RFID tolling, one is cash), and pay off the whole project zone rather than charging a cross-state tax. With creative funding, it can be more fair for everyone and pay off the bridge faster.
Then users pay their fair share, and those who benefit from, for example, Jantzen Beach to Interstate Ave pay for the project also, at a lower rate than Vancouver to Jantzen Beach.
Look at the New York State Thruway’s tolling structure for a vague idea, and mix in some city-area toll bridges to really balance things.
Or, look at a more recent toll model of the Orange County Toll Roads. That was for a non-Interstate series of projects, but they’re mostly successful.
If there’s a reasonable toll bypass, even 2-3 lanes for cash transactions, and especially if there’s prepaid transponders available for high speed pass-through, it’ll work and not cost much more.
If space is the problem, stack the tolling facilities (double deck over the freeway) if needed for a cash-toll area and toll it for 5 more years to pay for the extra costs. Pass a law in OR and WA that if you skip the toll, you have 24 hours to pay by phone or you’re wanted to toll evasion. That would solve things more reasonably than a barely-enforcible honor system.
Tolling might work in Pierce Co., Washington, but this is Portland, not Pierce Co.
You might not hear much about them, however there is a growing crowd here that is leary of RFIDs and tolls for two reasons:
– Concerns over creation of an easily searchable government database of everywhere they’ve been in their vehicle (some of these people are even uncomfortable using pubic transit because of the camera systems).
– Infrastructure to create a travel-restricted police state (anyone else remember the TV show “Dark Angel?”).
No matter what, any system that doesn’t require someone to pay before use will always have theft associated with it (anyone else ever heard of “eat and run” or the similar phrase “dine and dash?”). Perhaps we should come to the grips that if we were to fully and fairly fund each and every thing and/or service people demanded from the government in this country we’d have a 100%+ income tax on both business and personal income in order to pay for it – and that probably doesn’t even cover the national debt.
It seems to me that all of the perceived problems can be dealt with adequately. Who really cares if someone crosses once and never pays?
Given the $2,000 or more cost per resident of this project, it will be much cheaper for those of us who seldom cross the bridge to pay a premium toll that covers the billing cost, than to subsidize a toll-free project with our general fund or gas tax money. That is one reason I support tolls.
One can easily imagine ways to make payment easier. One-time users could pay by credit card over the phone or Internet within 24 hours of crossing, and receive a discount for prompt payment.
Regarding transponders, the trick will be to have a small variety of transponders that can be used nation-wide, or at least within large regions. Why can’t we use the same ones as are being used in Tacoma?
I see nothing wrong with charging the registered owner of a vehicle, and in fact the cameras might help catch stolen cars if they can do real-time vehicle identification.
Tolls are not against Federal policy, and I agree we would need to toll the I-205 Bridge as well. Most peak hour traffic is local, and the peak is the problem. The obvious solution is tolls but no new bridge! Then, when Clark County wants light rail, work with them cooperatively to get it built at much less cost than this monster project.
The obvious solution is tolls but no new bridge!
That’s the thing. If we’re willing to look at tolls, we could build a new bridge and impose a very high toll charged 24 hours a day to pay for it. Or, we could impose a somewhat lower toll charged only at peak hours and manage the demand on the bridge that’s already there. Use the toll revenue for better maintenance and improvement on the existing bridges.
As for the bridge lift problem, it’s already been answered: put a lift span on the railroad bridge that lines up with the humps on the Interstate Bridge. It will cost a small fraction of the price of a new bridge, and eliminate most of the bridge lifts. I suspect peak hour tolls would pay the cost of that project over several years.
Congestion pricing solves most of the problems the mega-bridge is supposed to address, and we could do it this year.
Tolls are not against Federal policy, and I agree we would need to toll the I-205 Bridge as well.
They are explicitly forbidden to be added to existing Interstates without any upgrades happening. Not that a waiver is impossible to get, just nobody has ever gotten one yet. Plenty have been refused as well though…
The computer generated images of the new crossing actually show three replacement bridges; one each northbound highway structure, southbound highway structure and combined light rail/bicycle/ped structure. Drivers who do not frequent the bridge should not have to use up fuel and/or go looking for a way to pay a toll. There needs to be a turn off toll booth lane adjacent to the freeway just before the crossing in each direction.
Furthermore, if motorists pay tolls, then so should all other users. With three separate bridge structures, the costs for each structure can easily be separated out with motorist and freight tolls only going to help pay the local match for the two highway structures. That still leaves a need to find the best method to charge transit passengers, bicyclists and pedestrians for the local match costs of the third structure. Surcharges on transit fares and one-way turnstiles on the bicycle/ped path at each end that require swiping a bank or prepayment card to make turn would be the most fitting and fair.
[Snarky remark regarding Terry’s comments self-censored in the spirit of moderation.]
Bob R. Says:
Bob, while Terry sometimes repeats himself, on this topic it is a fair issue of discussion, and I for one appreciate your restraint.
If the bridge costs $4.5 billion, why should the tolls pay the local match for all three spans? If only two are for roads, and alternate source should be found for the third span.
Maybe TriMet and C-Tran can split the cost?
Maybe if we expect drivers to get off the road and get a pass, we can expect pedestrians and bicyclists to do the same? And we can charge a Transit CRC Fee for the buses and trains, right?
A third span is a lot more than an extra three feet of ROW or throwing wood chips or gravel along said path. This is a third project that occupies real estate, takes massive financial resources to construct, and yet it’s attacked that the users of the third span should pay for it.
I think Terry is spot on for this topic. In this case, I want to know how the third span is paid for.
At the same time, I won’t support the project without it; I just want to make sure drivers don’t have to specifically finance a transit/pedestrian project as a type of sin tax.
Oh, to clarify, over 30 years as a per acre property tax, it’s $300/year to have only Portland pay 1/2 that third span’s costs for 1/2 the bridge, at $750m for half the span. Portland-Vancouver Metro over 30 years would cost $347.22/year per acre (at 600 sq miles) for a $4m bridge. (Don’t forget, you may have already paid a chunk of that in gas taxes, Federal taxes, WA state sales tax, and OR income taxes.)
What’s the economic value to the region of removing some emissions from the air, gas use, and wasted time? Adding mobility to North Portland, Downtown Vancouver, and Jantzen Beach?
Maybe we can strong-arm Clark County into some better growth planning to encourage density near the light rail, but it’s not totally necessary. There’s good potential now, but downtown ‘Couv is kind of cut off. Better access to transit and roads can help it build up.
If you haven’t been there lately, it’s not all bad. There’s some up-and-coming places, and Esther Short Park is a great lunch spot. Maybe if it was just a MAX ride away?
If I’m for this because I use it, I guess I should be opposed to any un-tolled work on 205, 217, 26, and the Green Line because I don’t/won’t use them.
Then again, I reverse-commute the Interstate Bridge, and it’s still often a rather nerve-wracking bottleneck as-is. I’m so glad I’m trying to get to PDX in the evening, not leave it.
My primary issue with Terry’s comments is not whether other modes should be required to pay a fair share (we can argue about fairness and equality and what bicycles and pedestrians genuinely contribute as a side topic.)
The thing which I find bothersome is that Terry’s remarks always tend toward the draconian and intrusive… in the past it has been license plates and large fees for bicycle registration, this time it’s “one way turnstiles” which require a bank card.
It is quite appropriate to bring up issues of equity regarding transportation, but Terry’s comments above seem to have leaped past asking questions to demanding a very specific and uncompromising (in a bad way) solution.
By the way Terry, it is not necessary to have toll plazas on both sides of the river as you suggest.
The overwhelming majority of trips are round-trips eventually. Most toll bridges currently in existence only toll in one direction. (Take a look at all the Bay Area toll bridges around San Francisco, for example.) This helps with efficiency (no need to stop _twice_ in your round trip to pay a toll) and lowers the infrastructure and collection costs.
There will be a very, very small minority of travelers who will wind up paying a round-trip toll for a one-way trip, but in the grand scheme of things these travelers will probably eventually encounter a reverse-direction advantage on some other toll facility, evening out the overage.
The entire reason that there is even talk of a new bridge is due to the fact that commuters in the peak hours choose to clog I-5 in their single occupancy vehicles. The problem would go away…a la ’97…if we tolled SOV trips and offered some good alternatives, reliable transit, safe bike/ped and free HOV lanes. The last thing you want to do is penalize people who are leaving their vehicles home and biking, taking transit or sharing a ride. That is nuts.
The discussion of “fairness” in tolling peds, cyclists, and transit users really ignores reality in our society.
Since WWII, we have focused our resources on auto-only infrastructure, and as a result, built car-oriented cities. Only recently have we committed any significant resources to making travel by modes besides autos remotely competitive. It is a given that travel by car is often the fastest and cheapest way, but our investment in a single-mode transportation system means that other modes are relatively uncomfortable and even unsafe. The problems this inevitably creates are widespread, including economically inefficient cities, pollution, health problems, and safety problems. Another result, which occurs no matter how extensively roads are built, is traffic congestion.
Providing certain advantages, however slight, to those using other modes of travel offsets some of the many disadvantages that exist thanks to the near-exclusive investments in auto infrastructure. To further discourage such users, who are already sacrificing their time and energy to reduce traffic congestion, by tolling is exorbitantly counter-productive.
An analogy might be an agency wishing for individuals to volunteer time. The organization receiving the charitable contribution has costs for administering the program, but could discourage such volunteerism by actually passing those costs along. We, as a region, have made a policy decision that it is important to provide safe and comfortable facilities for peds, cyclists, and transit users. Tolling them is a great way to undermine such efforts entirely. Which is really Terry’s point in the first place.
Unit, and others; the purpose of tolling is to help cover some of the costs of the bridge. The auto and truck users are already paying for the bulk cost of the bridge with gasoline tax [both federal and state], as well as licensing and registration fees. What you are essentially asking these drivers to do, is make up the remaining costs of the bridge with tolls PLUS cover alternative modes of transportation. Fact is; without the elaborate bike path and light rail line, we could save almost a third of the cost of the entire project…and that could go a long way in improving the freeways and roadways further.
To ask us to do something like that, the least you can do is provide some type of benefit breakdown of what we would be getting for our money.
Before you do that, let me point out a few well known facts:
We know that light rail, trolleys, trams, or bike paths, have no positive measurable effect on traffic congestion.
We know that rail transit is one of the most expensive and inflexible ways to move people.
We know that following the construction of rail transit will come huge development subsidies for high density apartments.
We know that with the rail and the highly subsidized apartment complexes in place that crime around those neighborhoods will increase exponentially.
We know that bus service will be rerouted to force users on to rail. We also know that bus funds will be diverted into rail operations. This, in turn, will “force” many people into driving.
So please, someone, explain to us WHY auto/truck users would, or should, completely subsidize the bike/rail portion of this project. Bonus points if you can make a reasonable argument without using the buzz words “global warming,” “sustainable,” “future generations,” “peak oil,” “george bush,” “iraq,” “middle east,” “war,” “gas guzzling,” or “green.”
Thanks!
Anthony: If I don’t care/worry about what happens next month, I could max out my credit cards and throw a big party. And as long as I don’t believe that I have to pay the money back eventually or the fact that I have to make interest payments on the debt at all, then it does indeed look like a good idea to throw a big party today, and quit my job so I’ll have time to attend and plan it. And in fact, it is, of course, possible (but not very likely) that my credit card company would forget that I owed them the money, or that I’d die before the bill came, or that my company would keep direct depositing money into my bank account or something like that, but the first and third cases isn’t very likely, and I rather hope to avoid the second, so I think I’m going to have to go with the logic that what I do today might have an impact later in life, and act accordingly…
And that is kind of the point: I think if you don’t care/worry about “future generations” then you don’t need to worry about “sustainability” and therefore “peak oil”, “global warming” or “war” in the “middle east,” in which case there isn’t an argument for why automobile drivers should pay for anything other than what they use, or indeed why this thing should be built to last until 2050 since a lot of us will be dead by then anyways…
It should also be pointed out that a lot of the cost of the bridge isn’t just the structures over the river, but all the interchanges that have to be rebuilt. If transit/bike/peds have to pay 1/3rd of the cost, they better be getting fancy on-offramps that they can use at 60 mph all the way up to SR-500, and not just being dumped onto a bike lane at the end of the bridge…
Matthew; I think you just pointed out the cost effectiveness of the whole “3rd span” for bikes/rail.
1/3 of the ENTIRE PROJECT COST would be to extend RAIL and a BIKE PATH over the river and not more then 2 miles of rail. This figure doesn’t even include the Interstate light rail extension built without voter approval–its sole intent was to creep into Vancouver [like the expo center is even a destination].
At the same time, automobiles and trucks would be getting a brand new bridge, several new interchanges with braided merge/weave ramps and flyovers. The auto/truck costs are justified because there is both a demand and a funding mechanism.
Of course you still couldn’t explain to me why auto/truck users should also be paying the bike/rail portion without using emotion provoking buzz words– because thats what they are– ways of arguing your point without any real facts to back your argument.
Why wouldn’t the bike/transit/ped group be covering the bridge on their own? How about they pick up the tab on that PLUS cover the automobile related improvements as well? Would that be fair?
Bob,
It seems that you want to keep any discussion of issues strictly one sided. Bringing up the fairness principal that if tolls are charged for motor vehicles to use the Columbia Crossing, then all users must pay is very much the flip side to the rhetorical broken record that motorist paid tolls will be poached (my word) to subsidize the costs to accommodate other modes of transport on the crossing. The CRC has not had an open conversation or even polled the public on this issue. In other words, a form of discrimination is taking place when it comes to discussing equity in tolling across all modes of transport. Obviously your opinion is to keep any dialogue of this matter off the table so you can continue with a free ride. Bicyclists continually want more of their own specialized infrastructure built as long as somebody else pays for it. Motorists ought not
to be subsidizing transit users either. This is where a paradigm shift is needed both on your part and on the part of the CRC.
As for using turnstiles to collect tolls for bicyclists and pedestrians: it makes far better sense than paying a person to sit at each end of the bridge collecting dollar bills in a toll shack. Just having a lift gate such as is used at motor vehicle toll booths and in parking lots would allow bicyclists and pedestrians to crawl underneath and avoid paying the toll – and bicyclists would do just that to get out of paying. The turnstiles with a tall row of horizontal bars would be similar to those in use at many fair ground entrances, but large enough to accommodate one bicycle with rider. Swiping a bank or pay card would release the turnstile to rotate enough for one only bike and rider to pass through coming on to the bridge. The turnstile exiting the bridge would rotate freely but only in one direction so it could not be used to enter the bridge. The turnstiles could also be set up to accept dollar bills, but that might pose a security risk where people would be trying to break into the payment machines. Using turnstiles for the bike/ped path would also keep the majority of riffraff off the long crossing and make it safer for all users.
Additionally, any toll booth for motorists could undoubtedly be set up similarly in an auxiliary lane in that swiping a bank or pay card would raise the gate and let the vehicle pass.
Terry wrote, among other things:
It seems that you want to keep any discussion of issues strictly one sided.
How so? Was your comment censored?
Obviously your opinion is to keep any dialogue of this matter off the table so you can continue with a free ride.
What on earth are you talking about? Your dialogue has been _very_ on-the-table on this web site.
You have over 550 published posts on this site, in just under 20 months, averaging just under one post per day. You are easily within our top-10 commenters, and that includes all our regular posters, admins/moderators, etc.
Your viewpoint is well known here!
(As well as numerous other venues, like over on CommissionerSam where you’ve posted in over 1,200 topics, and that’s not counting multiple posts in the same topic…)
As for using turnstiles to collect tolls for bicyclists and pedestrians: it makes far better sense than paying a person to sit at each end of the bridge collecting dollar bills in a toll shack.
Guess what Terry, if you have turnstiles, you _must_ have permanent staff. Turnstiles fail, fare payment machines fail, and you mustn’t create barriers to users with mobility devices. If there are barriers, there must be on-site staff to make sure that everything is functional and to handle issues which will come up on a regular basis.
It’s really sad you want to squeeze pedestrians through a big cage just to cross a bridge. I encourage you to create some 3D renderings and bring them round to a few public meetings, though.
Additionally, any toll booth for motorists could undoubtedly be set up similarly in an auxiliary lane in that swiping a bank or pay card would raise the gate and let the vehicle pass.
And if the gate fails to read someone’s credit card or accept their bill, and 20 cars are lined up behind them, who is going to come fix the problem?
Where you have barriers, you must have staff nearby. Period.
Even the Portland Airport with it’s automated parking payment system (with which I have a few complaints, but that’s another topic) has multiple staff at the final exit gate to deal with problems with payment which arise every few minutes.
Guess what Terry, if you have turnstiles, you _must_ have permanent staff. Turnstiles fail, fare payment machines fail, and you mustn’t create barriers to users with mobility devices. If there are barriers, there must be on-site staff to make sure that everything is functional and to handle issues which will come up on a regular basis.
If this is true, then:
1. There should be NO FURTHER DISCUSSION of any form of a toll road that is 100% electronic tolling. Just as “turnstiles fail”, why should someone who does not live in the area – or infrequently uses the Interstate Bridge – be effectively DENIED ACCESS to this highway for the simple lack of an ability to pay a toll?
I have no problem with electronic tolls PLUS tollbooths, but there MUST be a way for people to pay a cash fare if they don’t have an electronic transponder. Given I cross the bridge MAYBE once a month, does it make sense for the powers that be that want me to be “green” to travel out of way (thus resulting in increased miles travelled and tailpipe emissions) to get to I-205?
2. I demand that TriMet immediately cease and desist its deployment of “credit/debit card only” TVMs, including EVERY MACHINE scheduled to be installed on the WES line. Every TriMet fare location (yes, even onboard busses and on Streetcar) should accept coins, bills, and credit/debit cards.
Why should someone who doesn’t have a credit/debit card effectively be denied boarding on WES? The last time I checked, riding TriMet doesn’t require a credit check. I don’t believe TriMet can guarantee that an independent ticket vending location can be open and fully accessible, and within 250 feet of a WES platform, but it’s entirely within TriMet’s control to give ALL passengers EQUAL ACCESS to purchase a fare without discrimination on the platform.
If credit/debit card machines are fully acceptable to TriMet, than an unstaffed pedestrian/bike turnstile is acceptable in my eyes. Gate breaks? Well, what happens when a cash-only passenger boards a WES train and is completely unable to buy a ticket? Does he/she get a free ride from a Fare Inspector?
Oh, by the way, “barriers to mobility devices?” Let’s see – how many HIGH FLOOR busses does TriMet have????? It is becoming more and more accepted that a lift is a barrier to access (because it segregates people with disabilities).
1. There should be NO FURTHER DISCUSSION of any form of a toll road that is 100% electronic tolling. Just as “turnstiles fail”, why should someone who does not live in the area – or infrequently uses the Interstate Bridge – be effectively DENIED ACCESS to this highway for the simple lack of an ability to pay a toll?
***I do not recall anyone in this discussion advocating 100% E-tolling. There was some talk of drivers having to purchase a single use E-toll “pass” BEFORE attempting to cross the CRC….As for the comments by Bob R. I believe that he was responding to Terry’s usual assertion that ALL taxes _must_ be applied to all users equally. In my opinion Terry’s standard argument that other forms of transportation must be taxed equally to cars is silly and goes against the founding principals of our country. ***
2. I demand that TriMet immediately cease and desist its deployment of “credit/debit card only” TVMs, including EVERY MACHINE scheduled to be installed on the WES line. Every TriMet fare location (yes, even onboard busses and on Streetcar) should accept coins, bills, and credit/debit cards.
***Huh? What does this comment have to do with toll booths on the CRC? This looks to me to be you just taking the opportunity to get a dig in on TriMet… Pitiful…
Oh, by the way, “barriers to mobility devices?” Let’s see – how many HIGH FLOOR busses does TriMet have????? It is becoming more and more accepted that a lift is a barrier to access (because it segregates people with disabilities).
***Eric, this comment is so far off topic that you need a passport to even look at it!***
[Moderator: Italics added for clarity.]
As mentioned earlier, Terry wrote, referring to me: “It seems that you want to keep any discussion of issues strictly one sided.”
Later, Erik said: “There should be NO FURTHER DISCUSSION of any form of a toll road that is 100% electronic tolling.”
It would seem that Erik is the one explicitly wanting to limit the discussion at this point.
Bob said: “It’s really sad you want to squeeze pedestrians through a big cage just to cross a bridge.”
It is also extremely sad a toll is even being considered to drive across a bridge that is intended to better connect the communities on the two sides of the river. The planned tolling of motorists on this bridge no matter how it is collected is a discriminatory socialistic designed barrier that should not exist.
The planned tolling of motorists on this bridge no matter how it is collected is a discriminatory socialistic designed barrier that should not exist.
Huh? What is this supposed to mean? Are you calling it a “socialistic designed barrier” because it doesn’t agree with your communistic views of taxation–or is there some other reason? IIRC, our system of government is based on_representation_(think:no taxation without representation). So the way I see it as long as I am represented by a person that has been fairly elected, then how we as a community are taxed is fair. If I do not like what my Rep. is doing I am free to run for office against them, vote against them, campaign against them, etc. As I have said before it is a system that has work quite well for over 200 years.
If the object is to give freight a lift and make the roadway work more effectively, we should be paying folks to bike, use transit and join car/van pools, not the reverse. It really is a no-brainer. Again, the problem is excessive SOVs in the peak hours; otherwise the bridges are fine.
And in fact, it is, of course, possible (but not very likely)…that I’d die before the bill came
This actually shouldn’t be that unlikely if you throw a good enough party!
Using turnstiles for the bike/ped path would also keep the majority of riffraff off the long crossing and make it safer for all users.
The crap you spew out just gets better and better, TP. In crotchety lonely old-man voice: I know I for one have always wished we could keep that riffraff also known as our children from being able to cross our bridges to be able to see the river. No, those bridges were paid for (mostly) by motorists, and dadgummit, until those freeloading, gas-tax-poaching, Lionel-train-set-riding whippersnappers turn 16 and start paying their way in gas taxes, why, they ought to be kept off our motorist-paid infrastructure entirely. They can see pictures of the river on TV and in their school books, which is what they should be studying, anyway!
“The planned tolling of motorists on this bridge no matter how it is collected is a discriminatory socialistic designed barrier that should not exist.”
You have that reversed: If the bridge was “socialistic designed” it would have no toll. If the bridge was “capitalistic designed” it would be built by private money, and entirely funded by tolls.
And it pretty much throws everything you’ve ever said out the window, cause that idea isn’t about “fairness” or any of the other buzz words you like use, but simply on the fact that you like cars and don’t like bikes or pedestrians…
It would seem that Erik is the one explicitly wanting to limit the discussion at this point.
OK, Bob, let’s ask a question and please, pretty please, let’s try to answer it without ANY personally directed comments. Can we please do that?
What is the benefit of denying access to this bridge to anyone without an electronic transponder?
If the object is to give freight a lift and make the roadway work more effectively, we should be paying folks to bike, use transit and join car/van pools, not the reverse. It really is a no-brainer. Again, the problem is excessive SOVs in the peak hours; otherwise the bridges are fine.
Lenny, please refer to the Oregon Constitution, Article IX, Section 3a, part 3.
(3) Revenues described in subsection (1) of this section that are generated by taxes or excises imposed by the state shall be generated in a manner that ensures that the share of revenues paid for the use of light vehicles, including cars, and the share of revenues paid for the use of heavy vehicles, including trucks, is fair and proportionate to the costs incurred for the highway system because of each class of vehicle. The Legislative Assembly shall provide for a biennial review and, if necessary, adjustment, of revenue sources to ensure fairness and proportionality. [Created through S.J.R. 7, 1979, and adopted by the people May 20, 1980 (this section and section 3 adopted in lieu of former section 3 of this Article); Amendment proposed by S.J.R. 44, 1999, and adopted by the people Nov. 2, 1999; Amendment proposed by S.J.R. 14, 2003, and adopted by the people Nov. 2, 2004]
Unfortunately the voters of Oregon disagree with the opinion that private auto users should bear the full cost of roadways.
What is the benefit of denying access to this bridge to anyone without an electronic transponder?
That’s what we’d all like to know. So far, there haven’t been any proponents of such a policy commenting in this thread.
Lenny, please refer to the Oregon Constitution, Article IX, Section 3a, part 3.
Although Lenny said “we should be paying folks”, he did not say that funds for that had to come from state-collected gas taxes or motor vehicle fees. Unless that’s what Lenny is proposing (he hasn’t said), Article IX may not come into it.
So far, there haven’t been any proponents of such a policy commenting in this thread.
So why do the politicians keep bringing it up like it’s a magicial solution to our problem (when it fact it not only does not “solve” the problem but creates brand new problems that do not exist today in any form today)? Does it make sense to waste money discussing programs that are discriminatory in nature, when that same time, effort and money could be going towards a solution? (Hence my comment that we (in general, not this forum, which Bob so pointed out) should stop discussion of it.)
Personally, I’d like to see my planning dollars work.
Although Lenny said “we should be paying folks”, he did not say that funds for that had to come from state-collected gas taxes or motor vehicle fees.
And you are welcome to create your own “carbon offset” program which is entirely voluntary so people who WANT to pay a self-imposed tax upon themselves for driving can voluntarily pay others to ride their bike or take mass transit.
I do not think that such a forced tax will go over well; and a forced tax would likely be tied to a gas tax – which would require a new constitutional amendment to implement.
Disclaimer: I speak as someone who would likely benefit from “payments”, AND I already participate in two carbon offset programs. However I still understand the need for effective transportation projects, even if it means expansion of services (because Portland refuses to fix the housing problem).
Lenny said “we should be paying folks to bike, use transit and join car/van pools”
while Matthew said: “If the bridge was “socialistic designed” it would have no toll”
Socialism is an act of government that attempts to control the actions of the people in ways that go beyond what is considered normal and equitable. One way of enacting socialism is through the tax codes either by paying/subsidizing somebody for their choice or by taxing their choice. An example of socialism would be to pay somebody to ride a bicycle rather than driving a car. Not directly taxing bicyclists for the costs of bicycle infrastructure while directly taxing motorists with gas taxes, registration and license fees to pay for roads (and also to subsidize bicycle infrastructure) is another form of inequality and act of socialism. Therefore, if tolls are being used as a “divisive” way to control the way people use the crossing, then tolls are socialistic in design. If tolls were simply a method to pay for only the specific bridge and infrastructure being used with the users of all modes of transport being charged to use the crossing whereby those charges also only apply to the specific bridge costs and infrastructure being used, then tolling would not be socialistic. However, since the CRC is currently only discussing/studying tolls for the highway users and not having an open public discussion about tolls and/or user charges for the users of transit and the users of the wide super-sized bicycle/ped path, the tolls being suggested are imposing socialism on the public.
Socialism is an act of government that attempts to control the actions of the people in ways that go beyond what is considered normal and equitable.
Terry, while that may be your personal editorial view, I’ve looked in a number of references including various encyclopedias and 5 dictionaries and none of them define “socialism” that way, with most focusing on various degrees public ownership or control of the means of production.
Now, it may be your opinion that any public influence over the economic system amounts to going “beyond what is considered normal and equitable” (by whom, incidentally?), and that’s fine, you’re welcome to that opinion.
But the debates we have around here would go a whole lot better if people would stick to normal and conventional definitions of well-established words. (I guess this is consistent with how you refuse to use common industry-wide terms for car size classes which have been standardized for over 30 years.)
According to this Daily Journal of Commerce article, the tolling system being considered would not require drivers without transponders to leave the freeway. Instead, their plates would be automatically photographed and the vehicle owner would receive a bill in the mail. (I believe an earlier commenter remarked that this may not be legally possible under current Oregon law.)
This transponder idea is completely ludacris! If I am ever to go visit Seattle I will take Hwy. 30 to Longview and go that way instead. If they want to push Orwellianism further, then maybe its time to start putting RFID in TriMet and Streetcar riders, too, so we can monitor their movements also??
RE: Photo Enforcement.
This is what London does with their congestion charge. Because they took an entire section of town, installing tollbooths simply was not feasible. So they use enforcement vans (not unlike photo radar vans here in Portland and Beaverton) that snap photographs, and compare them to people who have already paid the congestion charge (or paid it after they use). You can pay anytime the day of travel, the following day (for a two pound surcharge) – afterwards you are subject to penalty (fine).
However we are talking about one road – the Interstate Bridge. What is the benefit of photo enforcement, when it will require the same or more people (labor expense) to sit in an office all day, look at photographs of license plates, pull up a database of the registered owner of the plate, determine if a toll was paid (or mail a bill) – I just don’t see where the cost savings is, as opposed to having a toll booth that doesn’t even have to be manned (using exact change only coin collectors, and even toll machines not unlike a TriMet ticket vending machine)?
Obiviously frequent users will opt for the RFID transponder which will let them sail past the tollbooth without stopping. Infrequent users won’t have to remember how to pay a toll. Transient users (i.e. out of state/out of region drivers) won’t get caught off guard. (Welcome to Oregon/Washington, here’s a $50 toll evasion ticket because you didn’t know how to pay a toll!)
This is just another complicated “solution” that creates more problems.
Here’s a simple solution: You have two or three lanes for cars with transponders. You have a few toll booths to the right. At least one tollbooth is manned 24/7. The rest if unmanned will have toll machines that at a minimum take coin and dollar bills. Use photo enforcement for vehicles that don’t pay the toll at all.
I think the big savings come:
1. for drivers, in that there is no tollbooth to potentially cause traffic congestion
2. for project cost, in that there is no land acquisition and construction for a toll plaza
3. no tollboth operator salaries – these are spent instead on salaries to operate the collection/enforcement system
And is it really a big deal if one-time offenders slide? The costs of letting a few freeloaders go pale in comparison to the costs of installing a toll plaza and the delays and emissions that come with it.
And you need a free lane for HOVs. There is a ton of excess capacity across the River in all those passenger seats, not to mention back seats.
So I was standing on the Ainsworth overpass during the afternoon rush hour a few days ago looking at the freeway traffic. There was almost nobody in the HOV lane, there were quite a few times that I couldn’t see a car in it at all… But when I could:
Only about half the cars had two people in the front seat. Now I realize that some of the cars might have had children in the rear seats or something, but as I’m standing there in my yellow bicycling jacket and my yellow helmet, one of the drivers in the HOV lane looks up and makes eye contact with me, and then slows down and merges back into the regular lanes…
They really need some enforcement on the carpool lane.
1. for drivers, in that there is no tollbooth to potentially cause traffic congestion
I don’t think you understand how it would work. In every modern toll system that requires a combination of manned tollbooths as well as electronic toll collection, toll booths are separated so that those who have electronic transponders are NOT IMPACTED by the tollbooths. So there is ABSOLUTELY NO CONGESTION issue.
2. for project cost, in that there is no land acquisition and construction for a toll plaza
This is about the only savings. If designed properly these costs could be minimized.
3. no tollboth operator salaries – these are spent instead on salaries to operate the collection/enforcement system
There is no savings, and in fact electronic enforcement could actually require MORE, not fewer, personnel (how much time does it take for a human to simply collect a fare and press a button to open an electric gate, versus a human to pull up a computer generated photograph, zoom in to the license plate, record the license plate information, review to see if the owner of the vehicle paid a toll electronically, if not locate the vehicle owner’s information and create an evasion summons)? Further it requires an enforcement bureau with clerks, hearings officers (judges) and everything that a court needs, plus attorneys who represent the toll road owner to defend citations.
If we remove the transportation aspect and look at government as a whole – would you rather have your tax dollars going towards public services – education, libraries, parks, arts, transportation, universities, etc.? Or would you rather your tax dollars go strictly towards police, court system and jails/prisons?
They really need some enforcement on the carpool lane.
The Oregonian reported a few weeks ago that there is zero freeway enforcement in the Portland Metropolitan Area.
Zero.
State Police is too stretched to provide metro area patrols – most of their Portland area officers patrol the rural highways (i.e. I-84, Mt. Hood Highway). And State Police has several hours each day with zero coverage statewide.
Portland Police is too stretched to maintain its own jurisdiction that it doesn’t patrol state jurisdiction highways.
Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office…well…let’s just say they can’t do it.
As far as I’m concerned, they might as well remove the carpool lane. WSDOT did after they decided that it was a failure in Vancouver (despite that HOV lanes continue to be maintained and well used in Spokane and Seattle).
…versus a human to pull up a computer generated photograph, zoom in to the license plate, record the license plate information, review to see if the owner of the vehicle paid a toll electronically, if not locate the vehicle owner’s information and create an evasion summons)?
Many of these steps could be automated, like ID’ing the plate # (if colors match in the plate to OR or WA), reviewing for electronic tolling, and locating information. All those steps could be automated, with human oversight.
The cost problem I see is that a lot of these people could likely challenge their tolls, and not need to pay based on not being the driver.
Oh, and things like rental cars, shared company vehicles, vehicles with no plates, dirty plates, etc would probably outweigh the honor system.
I knew enough people who took the Orange County Toll Roads with no/dirty plates, knowing they would never be caught for $3.50 or $4.00 to think this is a good idea. (Then again the 73, where people would do that, is the one unprofitable toll road in the OC system.)