The Oregonian is reporting that that Metro Councilors Liberty, Collette and Hosticka are set to introduce a resolution calling for tolling the I-5 Columbia Crossing before before building a new bridge.
“That would give us the information we don’t have right now, which is how would people react to having to pay for the project?” said Carlotta Collette, one of the three councilors opposing a new bridge.
0 responses to “Three Metro Councilors Suggest Tolling CRC FIRST”
Finally comes the voice of reason.
It’s also interesting to look at old photos to see how the original interstate bridges were tolled. If my memory serves me correctly, that ODOT building on Jantzen Beach was build for the toll booths that were originally there.
I think if we were to toll, then use that money to completely redo the short on/off ramps on Hayden Island (and maybe the other ones too), along with providing a way for bikes and pedestrians to get from one bridge to the other without crossing the roads in between, we would see almost the same traffic reduction and safety results that we were looking for in the first place.
Then the only thing left to do is seismically retrofit the existing spans and string a MAX line across and we’ll call it mission accomplished.
finally an intelligent voice of reason, but better yet just leave things as they are for now.
Or consider a tube such as the Holland Tunnel etc. in about twenty years…
Thankfully, not every elected official is in on the fix. This resolution makes all kinds of sense. And, IIRC, we can impose congestion pricing (as opposed to 24-hour tolling) on an existing facility under existing law.
Control rush hour demand with higher prices for cars, plus enhanced transit options, provide improved bicycle and pedestrian crossing with wider sidewalks (as on the Hawthorne Bridge) when the bridges are seismically improved, and we may be able to achieve 80-90% of the promised SuperBridge benefits at little or no cost to regional taxpayers.
This plan won’t pay for light rail into Vancouver … but then, we could probably get very similar benefits by Tri-Met extending light rail to Jantzen Beach, and C-Trans sending a number of its buses across the bridge to end at the Jantzen Beach light rail station (one extra stop past Seventh Street Transit Center). Even if the “extended trips” were only at rush hour, they would provide a one-transfer trip to downtown Portland for many Vancouver commuters.
Of course, the fact that this could work is exactly why the project champions will be so pissed off about it.
Best idea I’ve heard in weeks.
It’s great to see that these councilors are paying attention and calling for the considerate discussion that it warrants. This project has been running on a dead-end track for some time now, and it’s going to be a big effort to back up and get it on the right track. But, the councilors’ proposal is reasonable; it will put us as a region in a better position to discuss a *reasonable* improvement (as opposed to a MegaBridge), and presumably we can put together a project that solves more problems, has fewer drawbacks, and costs a lot less.
The problem I see with tolling or computerized congestion pricing is that sets in place the impetus for approving the project. I suppose a bridge replacement is inevitable, but which option is still the main question. I’m supporting the supplementary bridge with light rail, mainly because light rail will reduce the number of cars on I-5 and bring jobs to Vancouver, two goals that absolutely determine future demand.
It’s a dubious assumption that in 2030 there’ll be 40% more traffic. If the big wigs eliminate light rail, it’s all the more likely we’ll get that much more traffic.
I’m still uncertain about that 6th lane. Is it for an HOV lane? If so, I object to an HOV lane because motorists navigating Hayden Island and Marine Drive exit/entrance ramps should not have to deal with speeding HOV lane motorists trying to make the same exits and merging from the entrances to the HOV lane.
6th lane….not HOV. The claim is that 3 added lanes in each direction are needed to allow the weaving to/from exit/entry ramps. Of course, this also conveniently supports the future widening of I-5 thru N Portland, which will no doubt be the next demand of Clark Co if this 12-lane bridge is ever completed.
Unit’s analysis is correct. Don’t forget, 7 lanes of highway traffic feed into the bridge from the Washington side already. Those “weaving/merge” lanes can easily be converted into general purpose lanes.
The problem I see with tolling or computerized congestion pricing is that sets in place the impetus for approving the project. I suppose a bridge replacement is inevitable, but which option is still the main question.
I see it just in reverse. If we put computerized congestion pricing in place and it effectively controls peak use, we significantly undercut the case for the SuperBridge.
If we use the congestion pricing money for bridge improvements — seismic strengthening, intercepting runoff, a wider bike and pedestrian path — that helps.
If we can figure out how to fund a lift span on the railroad bridge that lets barge traffic use the hump and cut bridge lifts to a few midnights each month, that helps even more.
If we can then work out a way to fund light rail from Expo Center to Seventh Street Transit Center as a separate project (say, 20% from Tri-Met, Metro, City of Portland and/or State of Oregon; 20% from City of Vancouver, C-Tran, State of Washington; 60% from the federal government), that could pretty much kill it.
I think a modest toll–say, $2–would promote usage of a new bridge in the BNSF corridor, once it is built. That route can provide an alternative to the overused I-5 route for many Clark County commuters, and if it is NOT tolled, but a reasonable toll is implemented on the I-5, that provides a good incentive.
I see it just in reverse. If we put computerized congestion pricing in place and it effectively controls peak use, we significantly undercut the case for the SuperBridge.
I don’t see a legal way we can both toll the bridge and plan to not improve it. WA will never support such a plan, and I doubt OR would either. Tolls on half the metro corridors between WA and OR will not do anything other than encourage toll cheats if there’s no long-term plan.
I don’t see a legal way we can both toll the bridge and plan to not improve it. WA will never support such a plan, and I doubt OR would either.
One more vote on the Metro council and Oregon will be supporting that plan…
“Tolls on half the metro corridors between WA and OR will not do anything other than encourage toll cheats if there’s no long-term plan.”
If a toll on I-5 makes traffic on I-205 worse but makes I-5 better, then I think it makes a very good case to people about how the CRC is going to require tolling I-205 too. And that discussion hasn’t been happening so far, but it certainly needs to. There is no point in building a 12 lane bridge to “relieve congestion” when the toll by itself simply moves all the traffic over to the 8 lane bridge upriver.
If we can then work out a way to fund light rail from Expo Center to Seventh Street Transit Center as a separate project…
Just wanted to point out one technicality… 7th St. Transit Center in downtown Vancouver closed at the end of C-TRAN service on Nov. 17th, 2007. 7th has since been reopened to all vehicle traffic and all the transit center fixtures have been removed. The only thing remaining is remnants of the old bus bays, and the C-TRAN Customer Service Office, which may close and/or relocate to elsewhere in Downtown Vancouver in the future (as I understand).
One more vote on the Metro council and Oregon will be supporting that plan…
That must be insulting to everyone who doesn’t live in the Tri-County Area, eh? But, what could they matter?
Stripping HOV lanes N and S bound from 99th to Going Street would solve this problem tonight.
Transit would improve immediately, especially were C-Tran to run a 99th Limited to the Yellow Line at Delta/Vanport.
There is a ton of unused capacity in the passenger and back seats of almost every vehicle that crosses the bridges. A full HOV system would immediately boost the usage of that capacity.
Give freight exclusive use of the HOV lanes in non-peak hours to guarantee their 21 hours per day.
We know how to do this…check out the ’97 bridge closure; if things are so bad out there now, let’s give it a try while we hash this thing out.
Paint is so cheap.
Dave,
It shouldn’t be insulting to the rest of the state. It would be presumptuous for Portland to tell Eugene what their portion of I-5 should look like, and the reverse is true as well. This is a Portland-Vancouver Metro area discussion first, with the underlying recognition that I-5 is an interregional and interstate corridor as well. I don’t think anyone is denying its importance, simply that the solution proposed is a poor one.
Frequently on trips to Ft. Lewis I head up US 30 to Longview and cross over into Washington on Longview Bridge, a pretty trip, but slightly slower than using I-5 freeway, would do it again regularly if Portland-Vancouver Bridges become tolled…
I head up US 30 to Longview and cross over into Washington on Longview Bridge…, would do it again regularly if Portland-Vancouver Bridges become tolled…
This is exactly why the Lewis & Clark Bridge should be tolled as well, and for the exact reason! I don’t mean to brag, but I’ve been saying this for some time now:
http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2006/12/columbia_crossi_4.html#c90005
Jason,
Forgive me for my “denseness” but I don’t understand why this is a valid reason to toll the bridge at Rainer / Longview. Isn’t one of the main purposes of tolling I-5 to bridge to REDUCE traffic on the bridge either by eliminating said traffic or diverting to other routes? Seems like this goal is accomplished if people take Hwy 30 instead.
By the way, I think people tend to forget that having tolls on bridges between Washington and Oregon is not unheard of in today’s Northwest living. It is not just an “East Coast thing.”
Those of us that spend any time in the gorge often pay the toll to cross over from Hood River, Oregon to Bingen Washington.
Those of us that spend any time in the gorge often pay the toll to cross over from Hood River, Oregon to Bingen Washington.
Neither the Hood River Bridge nor the Bridge of the Gods are NHS component (read: federal funding eligible) highways. The two bridges are owned, operated and maintained by the Ports of Hood River and Cascade Locks, respectively.
The Interstate (and Glenn Jackson) Bridges are owned 50/50 by ODOT and WSDOT, and both are NHS component roads meaning that tolling must follow state and federal laws.
This resolution to place a motorist toll on the existing Interstate bridges only demonstrates that Metro is part of the problem, not part of the solution. This is a kill the economy type of agenda. The final chosen project must be one that that brings the two sides of the river closer together, not farther apart. That requires if any tolling is done, it be equitably collected from the users of all vehicular modes of transport, including transit passengers and freeloading bicyclists, not just motorists.
If the resolution was to increase or add a surcharge to transit fares to pay for expanding light rail, or tax the freeloading bicyclists to pay their own way for bicycle infrastructure instead of poaching the funding from other sources, the resolution would make sense.
The argument that we should charge bicyclists and transit users a toll to be fair- as if this is some kind of civil rights issue- is absurd. Nevermind, that most people who bike and use transit own cars and ARE paying for the transportation system through gas taxes that mostly go to fund the federal highway system.
The point of congestion pricing is to manage demand and encourage off-peak travel or to encourage more biking, walking, and transit use that frees up road capacity for drivers and freight. In addition to making more room for drivers, non-drivers are not freeloading on the capacity of our atmosphere to be a pollutant sink and should not be charged for doing us that favor.
In short, we will all benefit from more people biking, walking, and or using transit to cross the Columbia River because this will save all of us the monetary, social, and environmental costs of building and maintaining whatever freeway bridge we end up with.
Jim Labbe
Jim,
I understand your points, but why not just increase the gas tax? It would serve the same purpose to everyone equally. If you don’t drive, you’ll pay more for local deliveries. If you drive, it’s almost a tax on vehicle weight.
Then we’re not just targeting the problem of the CRC, but we’re possibly funding either alternatives to driving, or more efficient ways to move the cars people drive. Hopefully both.
If the funding meant better opportunities for people all across Oregon to move effectively, we might be able to discourage driving and get a CRC (and many other projects) built more easily.
If you doubt finding a slowly scaled way to increase the gas tax wouldn’t help, you haven’t driven in the past few weeks. Traffic is lighter each day than it was the day before.
As a strange side note, I’m getting significantly better gas mileage with the higher prices, because there are less morons on the road doing random things that waste their gas as well as mine. Stopping at every cross street because you don’t know where you’re going, for example. I’m over my EPA rating for my car for the first time in Portland; near 42 mpg last tank.
I love these less congested roads from the price increases, I drive about 7500-8000 miles per year, and get over 40 mpg. Even at $4/gal, that’s only $800/year. A $.25/gal tax would only be $50 more for me a year, or about $4.16 a month. At that kind of tax increase we could build everything everyone hates.
Nevermind, that most people who bike and use transit own cars and ARE paying for the transportation system through gas taxes that mostly go to fund the federal highway system.
Why are bicyclists somehow above the rest of us, and are magically entitled to reallocate a tax that they voluntarily paid for use of the roads (by paying for fuel in their own personal vehicle, intended for driving on the same road system that is funded by the gas tax) towards a purpose of their own choosing?
Am I entitled the same, equal treatment, by suggesting that while I have an annual pass and pay (directly or indirectly) various taxes that fund TriMet, that I can demand that the taxes that TriMet receives from me towards providing transit services be reallocated to a greater purpose by only my mere definition?
After all, I feel there is a greater benefit towards having the Oregon Zoo here in Portland; therefore I’d like my TriMet revenue stream reallocated 100% to the Oregon Zoo. The Zoo, not TriMet, deserves to get the $836 cost of my annual pass, plus the $450 or so in TriMet payroll taxes that are paid on my and my wife’s behalf, plus the $18 or so in property tax paid to TriMet. Surely a MAX or Portland Streetcar rider has no problem paying for my bus ride, right? Maybe even picking up some new busses with air conditioning now that summer is approaching so I don’t have to ride a 1700 in the morning and a 1400 in the afternoon?
If there is such objection towards those who use the service to pay for it, then maybe the gas tax needs to be absolished as well. If there is objection towards bicyclists paying for bike trails, there ought to be equal objection for road users to pay for roads. What is the real motiviation to tax road users – is it to reduce pollution? (A carbon tax makes more sense – it would also tax high energy consumers.) A congestion tax? (It would need be assessed on anyone who travels, regardless of mode, during peak travel hours – and could be assessed upon employers and other traffic generators like stores and hotels.) A land use tax which includes impact for road use? (This would be a form of a property tax, based upon use and square footage of land owned.) A “roadway capacity” tax based upon single occupant motorists? (Shouldn’t a bicyclist also be charged; after all a bike uses three plus more times space as a pedestrian.)
If the real incentive is to eliminate publicly owned roads and right-of-ways, then a more appropriate tax is going to be based upon the total use of said road/right-of-way by the property owner, not solely based upon the use of a motor vehicle. A Pearl District restaurant, for example, has a far greater reliance on a public road for customers, employees, and deliveries; therefore I shouldn’t be called upon to subsidize their tax abated property.
“Why are bicyclists somehow above the rest of us…”
Whenever I read a comment like this, first thing that comes to mind is…
A) idealogue
B) you are missing the opportunity to hop on your bike
…and then I ignore the rest of your comment because you probably aren’t getting the message. So much for thinking outside the box, eh?
Case in point: bike infrastructure is the absolute cheapest money can buy, for its bang. All you need, really, is a bark mulch path through the park. Or a tiny bit of pavement for a nice ‘bike-freeway.’
Why are bicyclists somehow above the rest of us, and are magically entitled to reallocate a tax that they voluntarily paid for use of the roads towards a purpose of their own choosing?
Please. They are not….
Bicyclists are not above anyone. Neither are drivers. Trying to make certain mode of transportation (biking, walking or driving) into an aggrieved group that is being cheated or victimized by another group characterized by a different transportation mode is just plain ludicrous. It is divisive polemics meant to rile people up and force them into artificial camps as if this some sort of civil rights issue. It is sooo not a civil rights issue.
Most bicyclists are drivers and many drivers are bicyclists or else know, love, and care about the safety of another person who bicycles.
The real question is how we invest in a more efficient, more balanced, less polluting and less land-intensive transportation system that gives people more choices.
Jim
Driver, biker, pedestrian, transit user
Tolling I-5 makes sense because it has congestion troubles in less than 10% of its operation (30 hours out of 336 per week).
An even simpler and less costly solution (that we could do tonight) would be to stripe HOV/Freight lanes in both directions across the bridge, giving priority to carpools, vanpools and transit in the peaks and to freight in the non-peaks.
It worked in ’97, it will work today.
Dave, I think your reasoning is sound. The biggest problem with the gas tax seems to be that people today don’t want to pay for what they use. It’s a sense of entitlement that makes gas tax hikes political suicide. The result, of course, is paralysis.
The irony is that the high gas taxes in Europe have made the increased oil prices less painful, since real oil price is a smaller component of the price they pay. Their economies will be harmed less by the increases as a result.
“The biggest problem with the gas tax seems to be that people today don’t want to pay for what they use. It’s a sense of entitlement that makes gas tax hikes political suicide. The result, of course, is paralysis.”
They actually did some polling for Safe Sound and Green that said that people would rather pay an extra $4.50/month on their water bills than an extra $.03/gallon gas tax, even though $4.50/month is about 4 times as much money as the $.03/gallon for the average driver…
I agree that they should raise the gasoline tax, but the devil’s advocate side of that argument is that many trips, “can’t be made by anything but a car because they are too far too bike and transit doesn’t serve them.” So a toll on a trip that can be made by transit/bicycle is much easier to justify than raising the costs of all automobile trips… My response to that is that is the fault of the person that lives/works/shops/whatever in a place that you can only access by car, and the sooner we raise the gasoline tax, the sooner people will stop making that choice…
I agree that they should raise the gasoline tax, but the devil’s advocate side of that argument is that many trips, “can’t be made by anything but a car because they are too far too bike and transit doesn’t serve them.”
The additional gas tax could be used to offset those problems to a degree. Maybe offer a shared shuttle service using vans that could be coordinated to get those who want the help to their buses. Expand bus service, maybe even mandating that regional agencies work cooperatively with neighboring regional agencies to better serve the vast rural parts of the state.
Maybe we do it as a $.01 tax the first year, $.025 the next year, $.04 the third, and scale up at a 1.5 to 2 cent per year rate. It would take a bit of the sting off up front, and eventually add up to a decent revenue stream.
Fighting congestion and adding safety with roadway projects (statewide, again, not just to fund the CRC or Sellwood) and providing other options (again, statewide, not just to fund MAX) would be a good use of an increased gas tax, but on top of it there are few situations that are unchangeable. If an extra $.25 to go 20-35 miles makes the trip not worth it, was it really worth it before?
Many people I’d never have expected are going out of their way by carpooling, trading cars with their spouse so the one with the longer commute gets the better gas mileage, taking buses (which is a shock to most, it’s not that bad!), or planning their trips better.
Haven’t you noticed I-5 hasn’t been that bad the past few afternoons? The patterns are shifting, fewer people want to drive, we may be at the point people will give a little to get a lot. Plus, with the cost already so high, what’s another penny?
Zifondel: Whenever I read a comment like this, first thing that comes to mind is…
A) idealogue
I believe that calling someone an “idealouge”, and making a comment about one’s comment, falls into the definition of a “personally directed comment”, Mr. Bob?
I would continue with an appropriate, on-topic discussion, but seeing as we have now entered the attack mode, we can pretty well assume that this topic is no longer worth anything.
Without directing this at any particular person: The constant whining to the moderators is quite fitting to an elementary school classroom – Not so much to an adult forum for discussing transportation policy. To anyone who has whined to a moderator – Just STFU!