Oregonian Contrasts CRC Tolling Attitudes


We blogged about it last month, but Sunday’s O paints the stark contrast between attitudes about tolling the Columbia River Crossing on the Oregon side and on the Washington side.

Increasingly I’m hearing the buzz that the state legislatures may not be enthusiastic about putting gas tax dollars into the CRC, which would mean two primary funding sources: the Feds and TOLLS. In which case, tolling I-205 may not be just a policy move for a balanced system, it may be a financial necessity.

For my part, if the Oregon Legislature is going to finally manage a gas tax increase, I’d much rather they put it into maintenance…


0 responses to “Oregonian Contrasts CRC Tolling Attitudes”

  1. If the councils North of the Columbia River don’t like the roughly $5/day toll, they certainly wouldn’t like my husband’s idea. Another idea for congestion pricing, he thought pricing should start at $15 per vehicle and drop $5/person. Those vehicles with 4+ passengers would be exempt from the toll. This idea would of course require toll-booths or some other method to count passengers, nixing the “electronic” pass idea. But, it seems, from our end (in Portland) that it would help people rethink how to cross the river.

    On another note… what is being discussed regarding I-5/I-84 bottlenecks? How will opening the Interstate Bridge to 12 lanes relieve congestion downtown Portland during rush hours? Won’t the bottleneck just shift south?

  2. The difference of opinion on tolls can be contrasted in another way:

    The dictatorial politicians on the Oregon side are attempting to makeover the Columbia Crossing into a social engineering project to exercise control over the lifestyle, housing and transportation choices of the people. All have said as much including comments about how Clark County should grow. What they continue to ignore is that I-5 is also the West Coast international trade route highway. No place along this route are tolls currently collected.

    The politicians on the Washington side obviously believe in the principals of a free society and a democratic government – of the people, by the people, for the people – and are actually representing the people, in particular the working class. They want to bring the two sides of the river closer together, not farther apart, and they are right.

    Before there is any consideration of tolling, all other forms of funding must be explored and exhausted. This is a federal project being administered by the Oregon and Washington DOTs. The funding source for one mode of transport MUST NOT come from another mode of transport. Motorists MUST NOT become the cash cows for transit or the freeloading bicyclists. On the Oregon side, State Lottery Funds need to be part of on an equitable funding package that contributes money across the board to all modes transport, distributed equally based on the projected number of trips for each mode. If the legislature can find 250m in lottery money for a special interest bridge across the Willamette, they can also find three times that amount for the Columbia Crossing and removing the bottlenecks on I-5.

    IF tolls are truly needed to help pay for the local shares of the crossing, then tolls must be all encompassing. The users of all vehicle modes of transport MUST be required to pay a toll or user charge which would be used only to pay for the construction costs of the infrastructure for the mode being used. That includes bicyclists paying a toll to fund the bicycle infrastructure, and transit users paying a farebox surcharge to pay for the transit component including the total operation. When the bridge is paid off, so do the tolls come off. The Adams regime and the collective Metro government have no business dictating tolls for social engineering purposes. Tolling of the I-205 bridge needs to be taken completely off the table.

  3. The difference of opinion on tolls can be contrasted in another way:

    The dictatorial politicians on the Oregon side are attempting to makeover the Columbia Crossing into a social engineering project to exercise control over the lifestyle, housing and transportation choices of the people. All have said as much including comments about how Clark County should grow. What they continue to ignore is that I-5 is also the West Coast international trade route highway. No place along this route are tolls currently collected.

    ****I really have to wonder where you come up with this stuff, Terry. Dictatorial politicians? Are you kidding? The last time I checked all of Portland’s government was freely and fairly elected, therefore, they represent the majority of the citizens of the City of Portland and/or Metro. You are, of course, free to disagree with the policies of our government and/or run for office yourself. ****

    The politicians on the Washington side obviously believe in the principals of a free society and a democratic government – of the people, by the people, for the people – and are actually representing the people, in particular the working class. They want to bring the two sides of the river closer together, not farther apart, and they are right.

    ****So if Washington is such a worker’s paradise why do they keep coming over to Portland? Perhaps they are too free and need a little repression.****

    Before there is any consideration of tolling, all other forms of funding must be explored and exhausted.

    ***Why?***

    This is a federal project being administered by the Oregon and Washington DOTs. The funding source for one mode of transport MUST NOT come from another mode of transport. Motorists MUST NOT become the cash cows for transit or the freeloading bicyclists.

    ****I have come to the conclusion that you fundamentally misconstrue the nature of roads. A road is a surface improvement to a public “right of way”. This ROW is available to be used or not used by citizens and corporations within the guide lines of the law. How our various governments pay for this improvement is a basic part of their job. If they, as our representatives, choose to impose a tax on just one class of citizens (i.e. drivers) over others then that is the way it is going to be( this is an example of Representative Democracy-the chosen form of government in the U.S.). If you don’t like that you are free to cast your vote against them in the next election.***

    [Moderator: Italics Added]

  4. Something blew up when I posted a comment and I got a serious error message from your software. Now the three comments that preceded mine are invisible.

    Kablooie!

  5. The great irony in the toll issue is that if we put tolls on today…along with an HOV/Freight lane… the so-called congestion problem on the I-5 bridges would resolve itself in short order.
    People would find carpool partners, vanpools would form, some people would relocate to N. Portland, others find jobs in Clark county, freight would continue to move without difficulty in the non-peak hours, just as it does today.
    Nobody is forced to live in Clark county and work in Portland…it is their choice. If it becomes unpleasant, maybe they should adjust.

  6. August 11, 2008 9:15 AM
    Terry Parker Says:

    Hey Terry,
    Since you are so into user pays how about this: When drivers start footing the bill for the entire cost of the Iraq war then cyclists can pay some portion of the CRC. And while we’re at it, drivers ought to foot the bill for increased cancer rates in the I5 corridor for N. Portland too. Oh, drivers also ought to foot the medical bills for the 100s of thousands of deaths and injuries on our streets and highways every year. And we won’t even talk about pollution…

  7. Terry Parker Says:

    What they continue to ignore is that I-5 is also the West Coast international trade route highway. No place along this route are tolls currently collected.

    I’ve driven virtually the entire length of I-5 at one time or another, and I can’t remember a single location where anyone would collect tolls. I double-checked on a map and still can’t find any place where I-5 crosses a major river — except the Columbia. So the “no tolls collected” issue is rendered moot, I think.

  8. What they continue to ignore is that I-5 is also the West Coast international trade route highway. No place along this route are tolls currently collected.

    That argument is specious at best. All major interstate highways are major trade routes, I-80 and I-90 both run the length of the country, there is major freight traffic that connect international seaports (in Seattle, the Bay area, Milwaukee, Chicago, Cleveland, New York and Boston, Buffalo, Rochester, and others)… on both highways there exist significant portions that are tolled. Is I-5 somehow different than these major highways?

  9. On much of the east coast you are lucky if you find a major highway or bridge that isn’t tolled. I just don’t get what all the hubbub is about. In Philly, you pay to get into the city, but going to Jersey is free. That always cracked me up.

  10. “…but going to Jersey is free. That always cracked me up.”

    People pay what it’s worth.

    /rimshot

  11. People pay what it’s worth.

    I know you were cracking wise, but there’s more than a kernel of truth in there. The demand is largely to travel into Philly. Same condition exists here. Most people are traveling to Portland from Clark Co., then returning home. There’s much less demand from Portlanders to travel to Clark Co.

  12. Grant Says:

    On much of the east coast you are lucky if you find a major highway or bridge that isn’t tolled. I just don’t get what all the hubbub is about. In Philly, you pay to get into the city, but going to Jersey is free. That always cracked me up.

    I was in DC, Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania a couple of years ago, and I was amazed at how many tolls we had to pay as we traveled. You can travel without paying tolls, to some extent, but you’d have to stick to surface streets for the most part. Out West, though, we’ve had “free”ways for so long that it has become second nature.

  13. Smooth Operator has suggested that because those who hold office were elected, the majority of citizens support tolling. If that were the case, the Adams regime and the Metro cartel should have no problem backing that up by placing it on the ballot and having the electorate vote on it. I think it would go down in flames, particularly if added to a similar vote in Clark County.

    Jeff suggested the Columbia River is the only major river crossed by I-5 (US border to US border). I guess the Sacramento and American Rivers must then not be significant, or even the crossing of Shasta Lake which is a two level freeway-railroad bridge. There are probably others too including those in Southern California that dry up to a puddle in the summer time, but can be a real wash when it rains.

    A couple of other notes;

    One estimate has the cost to have Max cross the Columbia at $10.00 per passenger trip. Therefore, if the states are to pick up one third of the costs, a non-subsidized per passenger toll or surcharge per crossing on Max would be over $3.00 per ride that needs to be added to the regular fare.

    Undoubtedly, because the projected number of bicycle trips using the crossing can not demonstrate that any pedal pusher infrastructure will even come close to being cost effective with the cost per user trip far more expensive than for either the highway portion or the transit component, the cost of bicycle infrastructure and the number of projected bicyclist trips has so far been conveniently concealed from the public and not officially disclosed.

    In other words, the most cost effective portion of the Columbia River Crossing Project is the freeway portion. Therefore it ought to be the other modes of transport that are heavily tolled instead of subsidized.

  14. Lenny Anderson Says:
    “if we put tolls on today…along with an HOV/Freight lane… the so-called congestion problem would resolve itself in short order.”

    Wow. The congestion is only so-called? Not real?

    Then we could just toll every other gridlocked corridor and region wide so-called congestion would resovle itself too?
    If it becomes unpleasant, maybe they should adjust?

  15. Another way to interpret that is that the word “problem” is so-called, because as Lenny points out, tolls would be a simple and obvious solution. (That doesn’t mean I don’t think upgrades are in order, especially to interchanges, and the missing local arterial crossing). But the “problem” is only still a “problem” because so many potential solutions have been flatly omitted from the discussion early on.

  16. The solution to light rail funding is to just charge higher fares to cover the costs of construction the systems. The solution to funding bicycle infrastructure is a bicycle tax. Lenny’s so-called solution is to charge somebody else for the infrastructure he wants to use either at a discounted price or for free. Lenny’s so-called solution is also cost prohibitive as it will only harm the regional small business economy.

  17. That is an interpretation. It’s spin.

    Tolls a simple and obvious solution?

    Not hardly. No more than any other of the misery solutions the anti-car regime advocates.

    And my larger point was if tolls are such a simple and ovious soluition why not toll all of our corridors?
    I think we need upgrades all over the region and Lenyy thinks tolls will do?

    But THE “problem” will always be a problem because the Lenny’s named Rex, Sam and Earl think congestion is good and added capacity is flatly omitted from any outcome.

  18. Terry Parker Says:

    What they continue to ignore is that I-5 is also the West Coast international trade route highway.

    and later:

    The solution to light rail funding is to just charge higher fares to cover the costs of construction the systems. The solution to funding bicycle infrastructure is a bicycle tax. Lenny’s so-called solution is to charge somebody else for the infrastructure he wants to use either at a discounted price or for free.

    If the solution is to impose higher fares or taxes on the biggest users, doesn’t the first paragraph imply that the biggest users are freight vehicles? We certainly know which of the potential users does the most highway damage.

  19. Same condition exists here. Most people are traveling to Portland from Clark Co., then returning home. There’s much less demand from Portlanders to travel to Clark Co.

    I so wish that was true. I really do. I live in Portland, and work in Vancouver, and apparently you have no idea how often I get stuck in traffic trying to go I-5 South in the evening.

    Delta Park is the biggest problem, but so is the insane Going St/I-5/Fremont Bridge interchange. If Portland wanted to help I-5 South traffic a bit, they’d rebuild the Alberta St onramp to join the Going St onramp. That one change would improve flow at the Rose Quarter (at least to the Fremont) significantly.

    For the Rose Quarter I-5 side, there are 2 overpasses that would need rebuilding, and the I-84 interchange to improve things a bit.

    I-84 would like be a $1+ billion project, given the number of aerial ramps that would need to be replaced. The rest of opening I-5 on the east side would be relatively cheap, but probably for half the CRC’s financial cost we could re-do the “Rose Quarter” bottleneck.

    But to get to my point, how do we charge tolls there?

  20. But the “problem” is only still a “problem” because so many potential solutions have been flatly omitted from the discussion early on.

    Bob, I had an old load of the page or I’d have addressed this (yet again) before.

    We need to massively change federal law to do minor improvements to the Interstate Bridge. Let me repeat. We need to massively change federal law to do minor improvements to the Interstate Bridge.

    The current Interstate Bridge fails in several regards. It has insufficient shoulders, it has unsuitable grades for an Interstate Higheway, also short onramps, poor merge areas, insufficient deceleration lanes, too many interchanges, traffic lights for the lift span, etc.

    To get federal funding under current federal law, all those issues need to be addressed. The problem is that interchange improvements don’t add shoulders without reducing lanes (also not allowed) they can’t increase the shoulders.

    They can’t remove the lift span. That’s the biggest failure. And before anyone says Pearson, remember PDX is half the problem also.

    The only way we can get the federal funding, which will pay for 50-80% of the project, is to meet their needs or change them. Typically the rest of the US won’t choose to change them to suit on community’s needs.

    Is good enough an option? What about building locally built and owned toll bridges? Can we pay for them with the “free” Interstate Highways as alternates?

    Everyone’s answer to this is to change the laws, but that is a national change. Do we as Portland really have the power to make that change?

  21. Terry said:
    “The solution to funding bicycle infrastructure is a bicycle tax. . . . Lenny’s so-called solution is also cost prohibitive as it will only harm the regional small business economy.”

    What about the small businesses that are bicycle related? How can you argue that a road toll, (which some companies are actually for because it will reduce congestion, and many of the other companies don’t think congestion is that bad in the first place,) is bad for those small businesses, but a bicycle tax wouldn’t harm the bicycle related businesses? This really sounds like social engineering…

  22. John E. says:
    And my larger point was if tolls are such a simple and ovious(sp) soluition(sp) why not toll all of our corridors?

    Wow, what an excellent, rather progressive idea.

    It gets my vote.

  23. I so wish that was true. I really do. I live in Portland, and work in Vancouver, and apparently you have no idea how often I get stuck in traffic trying to go I-5 South in the evening.

    Dave, I don’t doubt that you hit traffic congestion on your Vancouver to Portland evening commute. That, however, is not the point. Look at the Census data, which will show you that far more people are commuting from Clark Co. to jobs in Clackamas, Columbia, Marion, Multnomah, Washington and Yamhill counties than the opposite. 11,815 commute to Clark Co. from these counties. 51,294 commute from Clark Co.

  24. Congestion on I-5 at the Columbia River is now about 5 plus hours per weekday, both directions, or 30 hours per week. There are 336 hours in a week, so we have no problem for over 90% of the operational time of the freeway. Not bad.
    People who choose to live in one state and work in another should not drive transportation policy and spending, unless they want to pay. Shippers who cannot adjust to take advantage of the fact that I-5 is fine 90% of the time, should be in another business…and will be shortly. If things are so bad why are half the freight trips thru the region using I-5 instead of the available bypass, I-205.
    The CRC has overstated the problem and understated the impact of their massive $4 Billion “solution” from the start.

  25. Lenny said; “People who choose to live in one state and work in another should not drive transportation policy and spending, unless they want to pay.”

    They already do pay in the form of Oregon income taxes, and should get something for it, such as a higher capacity highway bridge without tolls that brings the two sides of the river closer together, instead of further apart.

  26. They already do pay in the form of Oregon income taxes, and should get something for it, such as a higher capacity highway bridge without tolls

    Wait, now it’s OK for non-users to pay for something, or for infrastructure to be funded through indirect taxation? I thought you rejected the “bicyclists pay taxes, too” argument in the past? Using Oregon state income taxes to bring bring “two sides of the river closer together” (a laudable concept independent of funding concerns) sounds like Social Engineering to me. :-)

  27. “Wait, now it’s OK for non-users to pay for something, or for infrastructure to be funded through indirect taxation?”

    Do you honestly expect consistent logic from someone whose position is “Democracy = policies I personally agree with, Dictatorship = policies I personally disagree with”

    ?

  28. The “Vancouver residents pay Oregon incomes taxes so they should have a say” argument is really dumb once you think about it. If you look at the official unemployment numbers for Portland, (or go read the comments on the Trib,) you’ll note that there seems to be a surplus of people in this area for the number of jobs available. And I’m fairly sure if the people that living in Vancouver stopped taking the jobs that people of Portland wanted, we could solve that problem. Sure, there may be a few very specialized people in a few key industries that we’d need to continue to let in for a little while, but it isn’t the 50,000 employees that come across the bridge right now…

    The state of Oregon would collect exactly the same amount of taxes too, it would just be from people that are currently not paying any taxes because they are unemployed. And when those people suddenly had jobs, they’d no longer qualify for welfare/unemployment/food stamps/etc, and so not only would the state collect exactly the same amount of money, but they’d also have to spend less of it benefits, (before you even count the bridge.)

  29. Matthew writes: “The ‘Vancouver residents pay Oregon incomes taxes so they should have a say’ argument is really dumb once you think about it.”

    Matthew apparently there are a lot of Portland city, Oregon state and federal employees who live in Vancouver. From the comments of Mayor Potter one might get the idea that a large number of Portland police and fireman live there. Of course they may live there because the costs of living in Portland is way too much for their families on what they make.

    We also have to deal with the inadequate public transit in Portland, which could be improved by opening in the market, but that’s another story.

    There are people who work at such places as the Rivergate Industrial Park who are paying Oregon income tax. Their employers pay Trimet taxes, which should properly be referred to as deferred income of the employees to begin with. Yet these people have little or no transit services available to them. So maybe they should ride the proposed light rail across the bridge and then walk to maybe Oregon Steel Mills, or the docks?

    Let’s ask them. How about that? From what I can see this is more of the screw the working people campaign

    MHW

  30. Let’s not label an argument “really dumb” — savage it with your own logic if you like, but the label gets a bit personal.

    As for Vancouverites working in Portland, I say everyone is welcome. And everyone can have “a say”, in that it’s important to hear all opinions. But what Vancouverites should avoid is expectations that Oregonians should automatically foot the bill for a disproportionate share of the costs of this project (or that this project should even proceed as proposed.)

  31. Bob: Sorry, the “really dumb” isn’t directed at Terry. I’ve just heard the income tax argument many times from many people and it just doesn’t actually make any sense. (And no, I don’t think that we actually SHOULD ban people from Vancouver from working in Portland,) but my point is that if we did, it would actually be a good thing for the state coffers…

    MHW: You are right, the transit in the Rivergate area is awful, it really sounds like we need someone like Lenny Anderson to make a Rivergate TMA and get better public transit to the area. I suspect that Lenny hasn’t made $4B in his life, (and certainly not at the Swan Island TMA,) though, so it might be cheaper to do that than build a new bridge…

    I don’t have the numbers for how many Portland Firemen live in Vancouver, so I’m not sure how big of a deal that is really, (vs how many Mayor Potter has talked to: If 3 of them complained to Mayor Potter, he might mention it, but if it was the only 3 fireman that live in Vancouver, it is actually a very minor problem…) I can tell you that 5% of the downtown employees live in Clark Country, (compared to to Clackamas at 9% and Washington at 14%,) and that the chief of police in Vancouver quit a few years ago and moved to Portland, so, again, you haven’t convinced me that this is really a big deal.

  32. Bob said: “Wait, now it’s OK for non-users to pay for something, or for infrastructure to be funded through indirect taxation? I thought you rejected the “bicyclists pay taxes, too” argument in the past?”

    Bob, the point I was making is that people who live in Washington and work in Oregon receive little or no benefit from the Oregon income taxes they pay. Moreover, the Adams regime and the Metro cartel want to use tolling for more than just paying for the bridge. Both want to use tolling for social engineering purposes. In other words, my point is that people from the Washington should not have to pay a social engineering charge to access their jobs that require they pay Oregon income taxes. Additionally, all motorists from both sids of the river are already financially contributing to the crossing through the Federal, state and local gas taxes they are paying, of which, part of the Federal portion (as much as 20 percent) will also be helping to pay for the transit component, possibly to a larger degree than even the highway portion, and for bicycle infrastructure for the freeloaders.

    Furthermore, I could say you got me a little bit even though I am sure you are keenly aware of the point I was making. However, I can say I got you too since you expect motorists to pay through a direct taxation, the gas tax and tolls for their portion of the bridge, and then claim bicyclists transit users already pay indirect taxes and should not be charged a toll or user fee for their proportionate share of the crossing infrastructure and superstructure even though you expect motorist tolling to subsidize those portions.

  33. I think the foolishness of this CRC project is now evidenced when sponsor agencies like METRO want it, but want to restrict the number of lanes to what we have now. This seems to be an 11th hour gamble that any increased traffic will go over to the MAX line,—or alternatively, pay dearly to get from state to state. We are going to tear down 6 perfectly functional traffic lanes, spend $3 Billion or more and have—-just six lanes, again. And hope any extra goes into the MAX?

    I just read a report that predicts DOUBLED truck traffic by 2035 in this area. That alone would leave room for very few cars. And they also predict 1.5 to 2 million newcomers, regionally, by 2050? At this rate they will have to pass a law that cars go piggy-back.

    This is why we need a new, third River crossing that handles the traffic going from Clark County to Portland’s western suburbs. Twenty years ago there was no nightmarish, afternoon congestion on the Interstate Bridge. But that was before the “Silicon Forest” contributed thousands of jobs. That was before the entire route of US 26 all the way to Hillsboro turned into a new suburban community. That was before housing tracts grew up the sides of the Tualatin Mountains. We are in a different era now—and now have a need to accommodate that growth and if people want to live in Clark County and commute so be it. I don’t doubt that MAX can help out with this new commuting paradigm ……but just as the other routes have shown (I-84 and US 26) the vehicular traffic also tends to grow very fast.

    I don’t accept the arguments that the Interstate Bridge is too old and inadequately constructed:
    1. It rests on nine massive 150 ft long reinforced concrete piers that actually link both structures together.
    2. There is no evidence of any seismic damage to even the older bridge
    3. The seismic event that everyone seems to fear happens on average every 500 years and the last event was about 300 years ago. Furthermore the epicenter is likely to be centered a good distance off the coast since the fault line is nearly 800 miles long, The greatest seismic activity from it recently has been near Brookings, 400 miles from here.
    4. The CRC proposal, involving ten times the number of pilings, seems to me to present that much more exposure to an event. Instead of being vulnerable to soil liquefaction in the half mile stretch of the Columbia it is vulnerable to liquefaction or sideslip movement over about two miles of length.
    5. The interruption from lifting the span is negligible and perhaps could be regulated. Big sailboats with tall masts could be informed that there will be no lifts after 6 am.

    Every quadrant of the Portland area is served by major highways with River crossings —except the NW quadrant. There already is significant road capacity such as I-405, Hwy 30, Front Ave and Yeon Ave. We just need to make those acceptable for interstate commuters and put a new bridge in for them—instead of blowing up a perfectly usable and historic structure.

  34. I just read a report that predicts DOUBLED truck traffic by 2035 in this area. That alone would leave room for very few cars. And they also predict
    1.5 to 2 million newcomers, regionally, by 2050? At this rate they will have to pass a law that cars go piggy-back.

    Why? Truck traffic is about 7% of vehicles on the bridge. If it doubles to 14%, that still leaves 85% of the vehicle capacity for autos!

  35. Why? Well, trucks do take up a lot more room. At these slow crawls of 10 mph they take up about twice as much; and at faster rates, like 50 mph, they need a lot more stopping distance.

    Chris, I’m sort of being facetious, but if they comprise only 7 percent of the vehicular traffic now–that might translate into fifteen or twenty percent of the road space. And then double that by 2035.

  36. “that still leaves 85% of the vehicle capacity for autos!”

    Perfect. 85% of today’s capacity for tomorrow’s 1.5 to 2 million newcomers and doubled traffic.

    Planning at it’s best.

    Planning with plans that have develop no plans for anything.

    As Lenny said, “people will have to adjust”.

  37. Bob said: “Hey, I’ll take what I can get. :-)”

    Like bicycle infrastructure – as long as somebody else pays for it! Right? (Chuckle chuckle)

    Ron Swaren said: “I think the foolishness of this CRC project is now evidenced when sponsor agencies like METRO want it, but want to restrict the number of lanes to what we have now. This seems to be an 11th hour gamble that any increased traffic will go over to the MAX line,—or alternatively, pay dearly to get from state to state. We are going to tear down 6 perfectly functional traffic lanes, spend $3 Billion or more and have—-just six lanes, again. And hope any extra goes into the MAX?”

    Ron, I more or less agree with you on some of your major points. It is foolishness wasteful spending to replace a six lane bridge with another six lane bridge. Expecting Max and bicycle infrastructure to pick up the increase in the number of crossings is ignorant foolishness for dreamers. I also do not buy the argument the current historical Interstate Bridge is too old and inadequately constructed. Therefore I agree with you on points 1, 2, and 3. However I disagree with you on point 5 because of the traffic safety issues of having to stop a high volume of traffic to raise a lift span on an Interstate Highway.

    Moreover, there is a definite value in retaining the existing bridges especially when it will cost almost as much to take them down as to upgrade them for continual use. This is why I came to the conclusion the best possible and least costly alternative for the highway, bike and ped components of the Columbia River Crossing would be to build a new six lane freeway bridge for through traffic while retaining the existing bridges with improvements for local and interchange traffic including Hayden Island access from Clark County, the bike and ped crossing, and possibly for the chosen high capacity transit mode. Designed right, this could be the best of all worlds at the least possible cost for taxpayers. This is why I submitted testimony to the DEIS suggesting this type of an alternative.

    Furthermore, and to your point, this is not to say a third bridge further down river is not needed, because with population growth, it too will become necessary to bring the two sides of the river closer together.

  38. And people and businesses will adjust…that’s what s so great about humans. Not just a dumb molecule, but something with brain that can look at a map, do some calcuations and figure out their best alternative.
    Across I-5 there is NO alternative today; you must get on the freeway, even if you just want a drink at Shenanigan’s. Is that dumb or what?
    Let’s give folks alternatives…high capacity transit (LRT), an arterial bridge (The Broadway), inviting bike/ped promanade with river views, and many will choose NOT to get on I-5…leaving plenty of lane space for those who do.
    Meanwhile, remember that half the freight now on I-5 has no O. or D. in the greater Portland/Vancouver area, its just passing thru, and I-5, despite all the hand wringing, is faster and more direct than the bypass, I-205.
    There is a peak hour problem, particularly northbound for a couple of hours IF you can’t find someone to share the ride. The HOV lanes make that trip a piece of cake. Hardly worth $4Billion.
    Let’s spend more on education, not transportation and dump the idea of a new -5 bridge, AKA “PrevariGate,” an idea built on lies all the way down to bedrock.

  39. With a bicycle taxes and tolls assessed to bicycling, and transit fares that better reflect the true financial cost of providing the service including a surcharge that and helps pay for the crossing, bicyclists and transit riders will not only adjust, but also become more financially responsible as consumers for what they use.

  40. Terry, I still don’t understand what you think is the vast investment we’re making for bicycles. Bike boxes? A few bike lanes and designated parking areas?

    Consider that every person one a bicycle is one less person fighting you for space in traffic with a car. And one less person competing with you for fuel and driving up the price. And consider that bicycles create essentially no damage to roadways, unlike cars and trucks.

    You apparently fail to see the benefits to you from people using transit, as well, but this thing you have with bicycles just baffles me.

  41. Jeff F. wrote: Consider that every person one a bicycle is one less person fighting you for space in traffic with a car. And one less person competing with you for fuel and driving up the price. And consider that bicycles create essentially no damage to roadways, unlike cars and trucks.

    Let’s see, what happened to that “a dollar for MAX doesn’t mean a dollar taken from bus?” argument?

    Just because someone is on a bike does not automatically mean they aren’t a single occupant motorist.

    They could carpool.

    They could walk.

    They could ride a bus. Or MAX. Or a Streetcar. Or a C-Tran bus.

    They would telecommute.

    So is that “one less person fighting you for space in traffic with a car?” Maybe, maybe not. Is that “one less person competing with you for fuel and driving up the price?” Maybe, maybe not – what if that person is a City of Portland police officer or a TriMet bus driver or a UPS delivery driver – they might be riding their bike to work, only to get behind the wheel of a car and driving all day long.

    As for the argument that “bicycles create essentially no damage to roadways, unlike cars and trucks” – so is the basis of every argument to negate any capital costs associated with it, and only focus on ongoing maintenance concerns? If that is the case, then we have a serious problem with our public transit policy – MAX, for example, requires extensive maintenance that isn’t shared with anything else. So maybe we need to reconsider our public transit policy based upon the needs for TriMet to employ a large number of employees to do nothing but track and overhead wire maintenance. Whereas, busses might do damage to the roads, but busses are very seldom the cause of road damage except for at bus stops, and there are ways to mitigate that (which requires capital expense to improve bus stops with concrete pads). Either way, TriMet does not employ roadway maintenance personnel, and even if we were to require TriMet busses to pay for roadway damage, the cost would be less than a nickel per originating ride to cover TriMet’s weight-mile tax bill.

    As for the investment in bikeways, it’s a known fact that the City spends money on bike improvements – some of the projects have come at the expense of motorists who actually funded the projects (i.e. reduced travel lanes/roadway capacity, reduced parking spaces).

    I am not suggesting that I agree or disagree with the investment, but to badmouth someone for pointing out facts while providing a symbolic argument that, when applied to another mode of transport is dismissed by the same individual, makes no sense whatsoever. If one wants to suggest that bike investments do not detract from the other modes, then one is free to demonstrate the origin of the monies used for bike/bikeway improvements, and identify how much of that money came from bike related revenue (of which there isn’t any).

    And, for the record, I do support licensing and registration of bicyclists and bicycles. It would provide a revenue source for bike related improvements, as well as taking a step to ensure that bicyclists who ride on public roads understand the laws that affect them (just as what is expected of me as a motorist).

  42. Erik:

    I am not suggesting that I agree or disagree with the investment, but to badmouth someone for pointing out facts while providing a symbolic argument that, when applied to another mode of transport is dismissed by the same individual, makes no sense whatsoever. If one wants to suggest that bike investments do not detract from the other modes, then one is free to demonstrate the origin of the monies used for bike/bikeway improvements, and identify how much of that money came from bike related revenue (of which there isn’t any).

    First of all, I didn’t “badmouth” anyone. Secondly, it’s obvious that not everyone on a bike would be a SOV, but it is equally obvious that the benefits to auto drivers when a large percentage of other commuters choose a bicycle continue to be either discounted or ignored repeatedly in these “freeloading bicycle” arguments. Cycling policemen and firemen are all very clever, but scarcely make a dent in the population, Erik.

    As for the argument that “bicycles create essentially no damage to roadways, unlike cars and trucks” – so is the basis of every argument to negate any capital costs associated with it, and only focus on ongoing maintenance concerns?

    Ongoing maintenance is huge and has been ignored to our detriment for years. Other than new construction, what else accounts for highway costs, Erik? And you skipped this:

    Terry, I still don’t understand what you think is the vast investment we’re making for bicycles. Bike boxes? A few bike lanes and designated parking areas?

    What is the vast capital investment for bicycles, particularly expressed as a percentage of the investment for highway maintenance? Painting bike boxes and bicycle lanes, dedicating former auto parking to bicycle parking . . . those are the primary capital investments I’ve seen here in town and they don’t even qualify as “capital”, for the most part.

    I actually support the licensing of bicycles as well; I agree that cyclists should prove they understand the rules of the road — and they should be fined when they violate those rules. When I was a little kid in Hillsboro, many years ago, all our bikes were licensed, which also meant they could be recovered when stolen — as mine was, before I even knew it was gone. I would think the bike community would approve of a system that registered bicycle frame numbers for this very reason. But as a source of revenue? I’m still waiting to hear what that huge capital expense has been.

  43. Oh, and please, Erik, let’s avoid strawLRVs. I don’t need to defend arguments I never made and they do clutter up the text field.

  44. We license motor vehicles and their operators because they are deadly…witness the recent deaths in Pacific City. Bicycles are hardly that, so why would a sane person go to the trouble; the most likely potential victim of a bicycle is the rider, not the other guy.
    re I-5 congestion…the problem is too many SOVs in the peak hours, hence bicycle commuters are part of the solution and should be PAID accordingly, not charged a toll.

  45. The ratio of fault for the bicycle-motor vehicle crashes that occur in Portland is about equally split per mode. Therefore bicyclists, especially those who arrogantly ignore traffic laws or are too literate to read STOP signs need to be protected from themselves through licensing and registration fees..

    Moreover, any bicycle infrastructure constructed on the Columbia River Crossing will not be cost effective. There is no doubt this is the reason the projected costs and projected number of bicycle crossings have been concealed from the public and not published in any of the CRC information. It would be far less expensive for taxpayers as a whole to require bicyclists to use and pay transit fares to cross the Columbia. If bicyclists want their own specialized right-of-way, then need to pay for it themselves, Therefore, if tolling is part of the funding package fro the CRC, then all users including the freeloading pedal pushing bicyclists need to pay the tolls. When it comes to victims, the only victims are the taxpayers that continue to subsidize these freeloaders.

  46. “The ratio of fault for the bicycle-motor vehicle crashes that occur in Portland is about equally split per mode.”

    Thank you for admitting it. For all the complaints about bicycles running stop signs and everything, it turns out that motorists are breaking traffic laws and causing collisions in about equal numbers as cyclists. This statistic is amazing when you think about it, because there is no license on bicycles: People that have had 20 DUIs can not drive a car (legally,) but they can ride a bicycle, and therefore the number of drunk bicyclist should be higher than the number of drunk drivers. People that are 5 years old can’t drive a car, and don’t know the rules of the road, where as everyone that is driving has passed a test and is over 15 and they do know the rules of the road.

    Yes, there are a lot of cyclists on the road that have drivers licenses too, but really one should expect cyclists to be at fault a disproportional share of the time, and it turns out that they aren’t any worse than car drivers.

  47. Paris started to become the city that all the world loves in the late 16th century when the Pont Neuff bridge was built with a large promanade that allowed citizens to enjoy the views of the city and the river.
    Any new bridge across the Columbia built in the 21st century should be similarly equipped with a very wide promanade for the public to walk and bike and take in the view of the “Great River of the West.” We can do no less.
    re cyclists at fault…keep in mind that when same runs a stop sign and a crash occurs, the cyclist pays with life or limb, but when a motorist does the same, it is still the cyclist that pays. I guess the difference between 1.5 tons and 150 pounds is too much for some to comprehend.
    And until riding legally is safe in Portland, the smart cyclist will ride safely by whatever means necessary, traffic laws notwithstanding.

  48. [Moderator: Personally directed remarks removed. There was an argument in there somewhere, please re-state it without boldfacing someone’s name repeatedly. There’s nothing wrong with including someone’s name in a sentence when addressing their comments, but no need to go around shouting it.]

  49. Lenny Anderson wrote: We license motor vehicles and their operators because they are deadly

    Motor vehicles are not deadly. They are what are known as “inanimate objects”; they cannot do anything without operator input. Standing next to a motor vehicle is quite safe, unless someone engages that motor vehicle to perform a mechanical action which makes it unsafe.

    As for the Operators, let’s see some of the kinds of people that we also demand licenses for in Oregon:

    (In fact, there’s even a handy dandy website: http://licenseinfo.oregon.gov )

    Business Name Renewal: How is changing a business name “deadly”?
    Boat Title Renewal: Again, how is a boat, as an inanimate object, deadly?
    Consumer Finance: How is giving a loan “deadly”?
    Corporations Renewal: How is registering a business “deadly”?
    Insurance Producers: How is selling insurance “deadly”?
    Landscape Contractors: Yes, you could make a mistake on this job, but I can make the same mistakes in a number of non-licensed jobs. How many landscape contractors kill someone each year?
    Mortgage Lenders: Deadly?
    Plumbers: Deadly? Spilling raw sewage is gross, disgusting and unsanitary, but generally not deadly (for a short period, anyways)
    Collection Agencies: Annoying, but not deadly. (Do we count inducing suicides?)
    Cosmetologists: Wow, since when was makeup deadly? Do we require cosmetic sellers, like Freddy’s and Target, to have licenses to dispense cosmetics, and require proof of ID to sell?
    Recreational Fishing: Well, fish die. But to humans, is that deadly?
    Marriage and birth certificates: Why do we need a license to marry someone, that isn’t deadly.
    Vehicle Sales Dealer: Selling a car isn’t deadly.

    So, if we only demand a license based upon whether someone can be “killed” due to the actions of carelessness by someone, then Oregon needs to eliminate a lot of the required licenses in effect today.

    hence bicycle commuters are part of the solution and should be PAID accordingly, not charged a toll.

    Please tell me where and how I can submit a bill to you, so that I may receive prompt monthly payment for not driving my car as a SOV. Maybe this could be a “cap and trade” program – those who are SOV drivers pay, and those who aren’t get a check back.

    I would like back payment since 2003 as well.

  50. Light rail and Streetcar advocates likewise refuse to pay the costs of their trains, instead insisting on broad-based taxation of residents in the area, regardless of their ability to use MAX or Streetcar. I live some five miles from a Streetcar line, and slightly further away from a MAX line – yet I pay taxes for these two modes of transport – why?

    You’re right, we should make all bus routes pay their own way as well. We can also attach GPS devices to pedometers to tax sidewalk usage as well.

    I can choose not to fund highways by not driving – and my household owns one motor vehicle for three occupants, and we’ve cut back our driving from prior years.

    You still help fund roads, unless you source everything you buy and/or use within walking distance. A truck is used to delivery nearly every product you buy. You indirectly cause someone else to pay the fuel tax.

    For every service you use, every piece of mail you receive, watching television, using the internet, etc, you’re indirectly funding others payments of those taxes whether you want to or not.

    That’s why the sum of the parts is the transportation network. All parts end up indirectly effecting the others, regardless of desire to do so.

  51. Erik wrote: Motor vehicles are not deadly. They are what are known as “inanimate objects”; they cannot do anything without operator input.

    Well, OK then. By that standard, nothing in the world is deadly except clouds of poison gas that move on the wind, earthquakes, tsunamis, asteroids, and tornadoes/hurricanes. After all, if you just sit still, nothing else can harm you without operator intervention. QED.

    What was the point of that little logical/semantic diversion? Do you deny that motor vehicles are more potentially deadly to others (when operated) than bicycles? That was Lenny’s point, after all.

  52. Bob R. Says:

    What was the point of that little logical/semantic diversion? Do you deny that motor vehicles are more potentially deadly to others (when operated) than bicycles? That was Lenny’s point, after all.

    Actually, it sounded like Lenny’s point was that cars required licensing because they were deadly. And I think that Erik’s point was that a lot of licenses are issued for other reasons than whether or not something “deadly” is involved.

    I think Lenny is heading in the right direction, but overstated the case. We require people who operate autos to be licensed in part because they’re potentially deadly, but even in lesser cases they have the potential to cause a lot of damage.

    That’s actually why the state licenses a lot of occupations, which is where Erik seemed to be going. But “deadly” isn’t a criterion. “Damage” is. Licensees can damage property or person through malfeasance or ignorance. The result doesn’t need to be “deadly”, it just needs to be serious.

    The references to marriage and fishing licenses, on the other hand, are simply absurd. But in the case of the latter, the funds gathered are specifically targeted at supporting wildlife. The first? Definitely a revenue stream, and they get you coming and going.

  53. “The references to marriage and fishing licenses, on the other hand, are simply absurd.”

    Damage is a great criteria, and those licenses do prevent damage:

    For a fishing license, the point is generally to keep people from overfishing. The license doesn’t involve testing to tell if you are actually going to be able to catch anything, the point of the license is to make you pick up the piece of paper with the season and quantitysize limits on it, and to go pick up that piece of paper every year because they change. If they didn’t make you do that, people would remember that 30 years ago the limit on trout was 20, and [try to] catch 20, even though the limit is 5 or something now. (I really think they should retest people when they renew their drivers licenses, because the driving laws change too, and right now the biggest “test” for renewal is bringing the right IDs with you…)

    For marriage license, it was probably originally designed to keep people from marrying their sisters, (which tends to result in children with birth defects,) which probably happened a lot more often back when the state was formed. It also made it a lot easier to deal with the property, (since that is what marriage is really about,) if the state had some records of the marriages…

    And about half the population thinks marriage licenses are what keeps the world from ending, (or whatever people are claiming would happen if gays could get married in this state.)

  54. Way back in the beginning, this post was about tolling and the CRC…

    On that topic, here’s something to consider. Perhaps the disagreement about tolling will ultimately be the ‘fatal flaw’ that kills the project. The states won’t cancel other project and won’t raise fuel taxes devoted exclusively to CRC to fund their share. Drivers won’t pay a high enough toll to cover the gap. Poof! No money. No Bridge. It happened to the Newberg-Dundee bypass.

  55. Jeff F. wrote: That’s actually why the state licenses a lot of occupations, which is where Erik seemed to be going.

    Right now, I can cause a lot of damage to a lot of people’s homes. In some cases, I could even kill someone based upon the actions I could take at my workplace.

    All without a license.

    So under the rule of “damages”, should my job also require a license by the State of Oregon?

  56. Bob R. wrote: except clouds of poison gas that move on the wind, earthquakes, tsunamis, asteroids, and tornadoes/hurricanes. After all, if you just sit still, nothing else can harm you without operator intervention

    Well, then we had better require licenses for all of those because they’re deadly.

    I’m sure that we will easily accept the risk of one asteroid strike on Earth every 100,000 years (source: NASA); and it’s questionable that I could consider “wind”, “poison gas”, “hurricanes” or “tornados” or “tsunamis” as “objects”; nor is an “earthquake” an “object” either.

  57. Erik:

    Right now, I can cause a lot of damage to a lot of people’s homes. In some cases, I could even kill someone based upon the actions I could take at my workplace.

    All without a license.

    So under the rule of “damages”, should my job also require a license by the State of Oregon?

    Gee, Erik, I don’t know. Why not be a little more specific, and we can consider the possibility?

    And after that, maybe you could list all those expensive capital projects for bicycles.

  58. Well, then we had better require licenses for all of those because they’re deadly.

    This deliberate obtuseness/reflexive contrarianism used in your arguments isn’t exactly helpful.

  59. Matthew,

    Several of the TV stations in Portland have set up cameras at STOP sign intersections. Every time, nearly 80 percent of the bicyclists blow right through while less then 20 percent of the cars do not come to a complete stop. Percentage wise, that is a four to one ration of bikes not following traffic rules as compared to motorists. Since there are far more cars on the road, the equalized fault rate between motorists and bicyclists actually demonstrates on a percentage basis average motorists operate their vehicles much safer than do average bicyclists. Otherwise the fault rate for motorists in motor vehicle-bike crashes would be much higher than for bicyclists.

  60. I’m a big fan of bicycles, but my own experience mirrors what Terry reports. I see a lot of cyclists that show very poor habits, particularly at stop signs. I’m also appalled at how many cyclists don’t observe minimal safety requirements, even something as simple as a helmet. I’ve seen them ride without lights, without reflectors and in dark clothing with no reflective strips — and I’ve seen them do this at night in the pouring rain, apparently assuming that auto drivers possess super powers of vision.

  61. Since there are far more cars on the road, the equalized fault rate between motorists and bicyclists actually demonstrates on a percentage basis average motorists operate their vehicles much safer than do average bicyclists.

    That’s incorrect math. The equalized fault rate you cite is only for incidents when a motor vehicle / bicycle collision actually occurs — it doesn’t show a disproportionate level of fault for bicyclists.

  62. Regarding bicycles at stop signs – I never, ever “blow through” a stop sign, and I never, ever take someone else’s right-of-way. However, if I come to a stop sign, and no other vehicles are present, I will often roll through the stop sign at 2-5 mph.

    I see this as being the moral and safety equivalent to traveling 1 mph over the speed limit in a motor vehicle. When driving an automobile, bear in mind that 1 mph over the speed limit is a violation of traffic laws. I guarantee that 99% of people driving an automobile violate this law frequently. Very few bicycle riders violate the speed limit laws. Police do not stop people driving 1 mph over the speed limit – Often they do not stop automobiles traveling 5-10 mph over the speed limit, which is certainly dangerous in areas with many pedestrians.

  63. Often they do not stop automobiles traveling 5-10 mph over the speed limit, which is certainly dangerous in areas with many pedestrians.

    Oregon rarely uses the 85th percentile rule to post speed limits, so yep, lots of cars go way too fast for the posted limits in areas. I don’t see it much in the close-in areas of Portland so much as the suburban and semi-rural areas around the metro area though. In the city other than on freeways drivers usually don’t go that fast. Maybe 3-5 over, but not 10 usually.

  64. Bob, what about per passenger mile traveled? If bikes are responsible for X accidents, and cars for Y, then factoring in PMT if X/PMT is more than Y/PMT, bikes may be disproportionally responsible. I don’t know, but I assume there are more miles traveled by car than bike in Portland, judging by commute percentages and insurance statistics.

    Sub in vehicle miles traveled for each mode, same idea depending on the desired results.

  65. JHB wrote: I see this as being the moral and safety equivalent to traveling 1 mph over the speed limit in a motor vehicle. When driving an automobile, bear in mind that 1 mph over the speed limit is a violation of traffic laws. I guarantee that 99% of people driving an automobile violate this law frequently. Very few bicycle riders violate the speed limit laws.

    I would compare this quite evenly with the legal definition of “Stop”, according to our good friends who publish the Oregon Revised Statutes:

    801.510 “Stop.” “Stop” means the following:

    (1) When required, it means the complete cessation from movement.

    (2) When prohibited, it means any halting even momentarily of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with the directions of a police officer or traffic control device. [1983 c.338 §92]

    Now, for all of the bicyclists out there, what does this mean?

    A. It is OK to proceed past a stop sign without stopping,
    B. It is OK to slow down prepared to stop if necessary, but it is not required to stop,
    C. You must stop as practically as close to the painted stop bar or posted stop sign or traffic signal, completely cease any forward movement, yield right-of-way to any traffic as appropriate, before proceeding past the stop sign or bar, or upon a green signal.

    Why, the answer can be found in ORS 811.260:

    811.260 Appropriate driver responses to traffic control devices. This section establishes appropriate driver responses to specific traffic control devices for purposes of ORS 811.265. Authority to place traffic control devices is established under ORS 810.210. Except when acting under the direction of a police officer that contradicts this section, a driver is in violation of ORS 811.265 if the driver makes a response to traffic control devices that is not permitted under the following:

    (1) Green signal. A driver facing a green light may proceed straight through or turn right or left unless a sign at that place prohibits either turn. A driver shall yield the right of way to other vehicles within the intersection at the time the green light is shown.

    (2) Green arrow. A driver facing a green arrow signal light, shown alone or in combination with another signal, may cautiously enter the intersection only to make the movement indicated by such arrow or such other movement as is permitted by other signals shown at the same time.

    (3) Steady circular yellow signal. A driver facing a steady circular yellow signal light is thereby warned that the related right of way is being terminated and that a red or flashing red light will be shown immediately. A driver facing the light shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, shall stop before entering the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is no marked crosswalk, then before entering the intersection. If a driver cannot stop in safety, the driver may drive cautiously through the intersection.

    (4) Steady yellow arrow signal. A driver facing a steady yellow arrow signal, alone or in combination with other signal indications, is thereby warned that the related right of way is being terminated. Unless entering the intersection to make a movement permitted by another signal, a driver facing a steady yellow arrow signal shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, shall stop before entering the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is no marked crosswalk, then before entering the intersection. If a driver cannot stop in safety, the driver may drive cautiously through the intersection.

    (5) Steady circular red signal. A driver facing a steady circular red signal light alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is no marked crosswalk, then before entering the intersection. The driver shall remain stopped until a green light is shown except when the driver is permitted to make a turn under ORS 811.360.

    (6) Steady red arrow signal. A driver facing a steady red arrow signal, alone or in combination with other signal indications, may not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the red arrow signal. Unless entering the intersection to make some other movement which is permitted by another signal, a driver facing a steady red arrow signal shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is no marked crosswalk, then before entering the intersection. The vehicle shall remain stopped until a green light is shown except when the driver is permitted to make a turn under ORS 811.360.

    (7) Traffic control devices at places other than intersections. If a traffic control device that is a signal is erected and maintained at a place other than an intersection, the provisions of this section relating to signals shall be applicable. A required stop shall be made at a sign or marking on the roadway indicating where the stop shall be made, but in the absence of such sign or marking the stop shall be made at the signal.

    (8) Flashing red signal. When a driver approaches a flashing red light used in a traffic control device or with a traffic sign, the driver shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is no marked crosswalk, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering it. The right to proceed shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a stop sign. This subsection does not apply at railroad grade crossings. Conduct of a driver approaching a railroad grade crossing is governed by ORS 811.455.

    (9) Flashing yellow signal. When a driver approaches a flashing yellow light used as a signal in a traffic control device or with a traffic sign, the driver may proceed through the intersection or past the signal only with caution. This subsection does not apply at railroad grade crossings. Conduct of a driver approaching a railroad grade crossing is governed by ORS 811.455.

    (10) Lane direction control signals. When lane direction control signals are placed over the individual lanes of a highway, a person may drive a vehicle in any lane over which a green signal light is shown, but may not enter or travel in any lane over which a red signal light is shown.

    (11) Stop signs. A driver approaching a stop sign shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if there is no marked crosswalk, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering it. After stopping, the driver shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when the driver is moving across or within the intersection.

    (12) Yield signs. A driver approaching a yield sign shall slow the driver’s vehicle to a speed reasonable for the existing conditions and if necessary for safety, shall stop at a line as required for stop signs under this section, and shall yield the right of way to any vehicles in the intersection or approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard. [1983 c.338 §609; 1989 c.539 §1; 1997 c.507 §6; 2003 c.278 §6]

    And, for any of the smart-asses out there who want to beg to differ the application of these laws to a bicyclist, here’s ORS 814.400:

    814.400 Application of vehicle laws to bicycles. (1) Every person riding a bicycle upon a public way is subject to the provisions applicable to and has the same rights and duties as the driver of any other vehicle concerning operating on highways, vehicle equipment and abandoned vehicles, except:

    (a) Those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.

    (b) When otherwise specifically provided under the vehicle code.

    (2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section:

    (a) A bicycle is a vehicle for purposes of the vehicle code; and

    (b) When the term “vehicle” is used the term shall be deemed to be applicable to bicycles.

    (3) The provisions of the vehicle code relating to the operation of bicycles do not relieve a bicyclist or motorist from the duty to exercise due care. [1983 c.338 §697; 1985 c.16 §335]

    And, for your reading pleasure, I would suggest that all bicyclists also read up on 814.410 (Unsafe Operation of a Bicycle on a Sidewalk) – which includes a legal requirement to provide an audible signal to any pedestrians (this one has got to rival littering as far as laws that are not obeyed), and even states that there are bicycle speed limits under certain circumstances (which also, per the same law, are not required to be posted); 814.420 (Failure to use a Bicycle Lane or Path) (basically if there’s a bike lane, you must use it, with some exceptions); 814.430 (Improper Use of Lane), and 814.440 (Failure to Signal).

    Now, since Bob R. has cleared up that neither the ability to cause death nor danger is a prerequisite for licensing an individual (or an object), how many bicyclists can, without looking up the ORS, correctly state the conditions of the above laws, PLUS correctly state the “rules of the road” laws that apply equally to bicyclists as to motor vehicle operators?

  66. Bob said:
    “I’m sure that we will easily accept the risk of one asteroid strike on Earth every 100,000 years.”

    We would? Besides the fact that that would probably wipe out the human race, (which I think most of us would consider to be worse than an equal number of deaths spreed over a longer period of time, so that the human race could go on,) we also have to consider that statistically, that is the same as killing 60,000 (6B/100,000) people a year. That kind of seems like a big deal…

    Dave said:
    “what about per passenger mile traveled? If bikes are responsible for X accidents, and cars for Y, then factoring in PMT if X/PMT is more than Y/PMT, bikes may be disproportionally responsible.”

    Lets look at an extreme example: Assume for the moment that the cars drove 1 billion miles in Portland last year, and bicycles rode 1,000 miles, and that when you adjust the at fault rate by PMTs you find that the cars are at fault as often per mile as bicyclists. (And assume for the moment that a bicyclist was at fault once in those 1,000 miles.) That would mean the the bicyclists were hit 1 million times every mile that they traveled, or 16 times for every inch of their trip. First of all, one would think the bicyclists would have stopped before the left the driveway when they saw the line of cars lining up to hit them, but in any case, how did all the cars in town know to hunt the cyclists down then and there anyways, and how did they manage to do it 12 times, (per car, on average,) in a year? And after being hit 16 times an inch of travel, I think the cyclist would probably be suffering from some serious brain damage, (even with a helmet,) and could probably be excused for the time they rolled 1/16th of an inch past a stop line at a stop sign before they got hit in the one accident that they were at fault in…

    The problem is that in order for there to be a bicycle/car collision there has to be a bicycle and a car in the same area at the same time, and then one of them has to violate the right of way of the other one, and then, the other one doesn’t successfully avoid the collision. If all those things don’t happen, then there can be no bicycle/car collision. And we don’t really have an idea about how often a car and a bicycle were in the same area at the same time, and one of them violates the other’s right of way and the other manages to avoid the accident, nor how often they are in the same area at the same time and neither of them violates the other’s right of way, nor how often they aren’t in the same place at the same time. But I do know that PMT of cars vs PMT of bicycles doesn’t tell you that information…

  67. Matthew said that I said: “I’m sure that we will easily accept the risk of one asteroid strike on Earth every 100,000 years.”

    I didn’t say that. Erik said that.

  68. Matthew wrote: We would? Besides the fact that that would probably wipe out the human race…That kind of seems like a big deal

    If it’s such a big deal, then don’t you think that instead of debating over where to site Streetcar lines and Light Rail lines and who’s fault is it if a bicycle and a motor vehicle collide at an intersection, that the number one priority for this world would be to develop some type of “asteroid avoidance system” for the earth?

    Let’s face it, one in 100,000 year odds of total global destruction. Not just the deaths of a few pepole but total global destruction. Neither MAX nor bicycles nor busses nor wind farms nor plug-in-hybrid vehicles nor cloth shopping bags are going to help save us!

    Portland ought to be at the forefront of developing this system, complete with the construction of a massive rocket launch facility (hey, didn’t Oregon try to get one built in Boardman back in the 1980s?) and thousands of workers who will engineer this project. School curriculum will be re-designed so that large numbers of high school students will be able to move right out of high school and onto this project. No expense will be saved to build infrastructure for this – new power plants, new highways and railroads, new transit systems to get people to and from these new employment centers.

    But, it can’t kill salmon, because apparently we can’t put two concrete posts in the Columbia River (but we have no problem even considering barging our garbage in the same river), so I guess we’ll have to build nuclear power plants (and use the excess warmed water to transport heat instead of dumping it back into the river, or dumping it into lakes where we can generate hydropower from).

    Now that I gave my little science fiction story, I think we as a globe have demonstrated our willingness to accept the extremely rare risk of an asteroid destroying our civilization. We’re doing a pretty darn good job of finding new ways to kill ourselves, just at a much slower and more painful rate – so why should we even be worried about an asteroid? Heck, I have a 10,000,000 times better chance getting killed thanks to the City of Portland, Metro and TriMet refusing to provide me with pedestrian safety measures at my bus stop!

  69. “Let’s face it, one in 100,000 year odds of total global destruction. Not just the deaths of a few pepole but total global destruction. Neither MAX nor bicycles nor busses nor wind farms nor plug-in-hybrid vehicles nor cloth shopping bags are going to help save us!”

    Well, there is a good chance that if we don’t worry about global warming and peak oil, that we could easily kill 80% of the population in the next century. So statistically, that works out to, 48,000,000 people a year, which makes it a far bigger problem than asteroids. Of course, most of the people that die will be poor people: The US will suffer from a lower standard of living, but for the most part we’ll live through it, so maybe those 48M isn’t that big of a deal after all.

    (Besides the fact that I’m against plug in hybrids because they promote sprawl, and so do very little to help a lot of our problems in the long run.)

    “so why should we even be worried about an asteroid? Heck, I have a 10,000,000 times better chance getting killed thanks to the City of Portland, Metro and TriMet refusing to provide me with pedestrian safety measures at my bus stop!”

    Is this like the bicycle that gets hit every 16th of an inch of his trip? Since you aren’t already dead, you are either very lucky, or those odds are clearly wrong…

  70. Matthew wrote: Is this like the bicycle that gets hit every 16th of an inch of his trip? Since you aren’t already dead, you are either very lucky, or those odds are clearly wrong…

    So what you’re saying is that I have a better chance getting hit by an asteroid than getting hit by a car trying to cross a five lane highway?

    Then why do we bother wasting money on all of the pedestrian improvements, i.e. those crosswalks to access MAX stations? After all, those pedestrians also have a more likely chance getting hit by an asteroid, so we can use the money for those pedestrian improvements towards something else. Like that massive asteroid detection and deflection system.

    I would beg to differ as the number of people killed as pedestrians trying to cross streets is far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far greater than the number of people killed by asteroids each year. Heck, just counting the number of people who are killed in one year attempting to cross a street going to or from a bus stop is greater than the total number of all asteroid fatalities over the last 10,000 years.

    But, according to your logic, it makes no sense because, they are disposable human beings. After all, they’re just lowly bus riders who aren’t worth anything.

  71. “Heck, just counting the number of people who are killed in one year attempting to cross a street going to or from a bus stop is greater than the total number of all asteroid fatalities over the last 10,000 years.”

    Do you have a source for that? Keep in mind that for most of that time period on most of the planet there was no written history nor knowledge of asteroids, so it is quite likely that the legends told by now extinct tribes about angry gods punishments may indeed be asteroid related. (and some non-extinct tribes too, see Joshua 10:11 .) Also keep in mind that many, many small asteroids hit the planet every year, and while they don’t leave ocean sized craters, they do hit things, and some of those things are people, or things that happen to be near people…

    However, earlier you were giving 10,000,000:1 higher odds on you being killed crossing the street as a result of there not being a crosswalk at your bus stop, which I assume to mean 10,000,000 higher odds than if you had a marked crosswalk, not higher than being killed by a asteroid. (If I’m mistaken about that, then it looks like you are changing your standard by saying it is only 10,000 times. Which was exactly my point anyways.) A pedestrian crash death happens on average every 70 million walking miles, so if you live 1,200 feet from the bus stop, and you walk to and from the bus stop 5 days a week, and your odds are 10,000,000 times higher than average, then statistically you should have died 8 times this year already…

    You haven’t. So either you are very lucky, or…

  72. So while I was looking up the pedestrian death rate, I came across this little gem:

    “Despite advances in modern transportation, travel by foot is still a common and necessary mode of transport.” (top of page 34)

    I mean, it is the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, but the way that is worded makes it sound like they really are working on making walking unnecessary and maybe with a little more technology we’ll all be able to amputate our legs off.

  73. Matthew wrote: some of those things are people

    And do you have a source for that?

    However, earlier you were giving 10,000,000:1 higher odds on you being killed crossing the street as a result of there not being a crosswalk at your bus stop, which I assume to mean 10,000,000 higher odds than if you had a marked crosswalk, not higher than being killed by a asteroid. (If I’m mistaken about that, then it looks like you are changing your standard by saying it is only 10,000 times. Which was exactly my point anyways.) A pedestrian crash death happens on average every 70 million walking miles, so if you live 1,200 feet from the bus stop, and you walk to and from the bus stop 5 days a week, and your odds are 10,000,000 times higher than average, then statistically you should have died 8 times this year already…

    So, again, I ask:

    Then why do we bother wasting money on all of the pedestrian improvements, i.e. those crosswalks to access MAX stations? After all, those pedestrians also have a more likely chance getting hit by an asteroid, so we can use the money for those pedestrian improvements towards something else. Like that massive asteroid detection and deflection system.

    Since you seem to harp on your opinion that I’m more at risk of being killed by an asteroid than at risk of walking from my bus stop, just why do we spend millions on pedestrian related improvements? Why aren’t we using that money towards protecting ourselves from asteroids?

    Clearly, you (of a pro-light rail mindset) have no problem with the millions spent on pedestrian improvements to/from MAX stations; and I would argue that under your attempt to rationalize the impact of pedestrian/automobile interactions, that such investments in MAX station access is wasted money and as a result, MAX riders should pay a surcharge to recoup the costs of those investments; or when practical those “improvements” should be removed to avoid ongoing maintenance expense (i.e. the numerous overhead pedestrian signs on Burnside that require electrical connections and light bulb maintenance among other things).

    So, why are MAX riders’ lives more valuable than a lowly bus riders’ life? Why are MAX riders afforded safety improvements, while you feel that my safety is of zero concern to you as I disembark a TriMet bus?

  74. Erik, we do spend millions to protect ourselves form asteroids. Maybe not enough, but it’s not an unfunded issue.

  75. Erik, I’ve just gone over Matthew’s comments and I don’t see anything he wrote which says you’re more at risk of being killed by an asteroid than at risk of walking from your bus stop, as you claim he says.

    How about everyone comes back to earth and discusses CRC tolling policy, eh?

  76. And do you have a source for that?

    Yes, a well documented and reported case even, (unlike Joshua 10:11 ) The victim wasn’t killed on impact, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Hodges
    Now, where is your source that more haven’t happened?

    Then why do we bother wasting money on all of the pedestrian improvements, i.e. those crosswalks to access MAX stations? After all, those pedestrians also have a more likely chance getting hit by an asteroid, so we can use the money for those pedestrian improvements towards something else. Like that massive asteroid detection and deflection system.

    I never said that we shouldn’t spend money on pedestrian improvements, I’m totally in favor of it. I’m trying to get more crosswalks put in across Lombard Ave in North Portland. The arguments I usually give to people is that it will encourage more small businesses to develop along Lombard because customers can walk to their stores, but I’ve very aware that it will also help children getting to school and people catching the bus, (and, just for the record: the last time I rode that particular bus line was Sunday evening.)

    Now, you seem to be arguing that we should be spending 1,000,000 times more money protecting people that are walking to bus stops than we spend worrying about asteroids because the odds of death are 1,000,000 times as high, (that was the odds you claimed above.) NASA currently spends $4.1M/year simply on tracking objects that might come near the earth, so you seem to be advocating that we spend $4.1 Trillion/year on pedestrian improvements. That is more than the entire federal budget. And, so, no, we shouldn’t spend that sort of money on pedestrian improvements. I wish we could, but we just can’t afford to do that… (Honestly, I don’t make these straw men up just to beat them back down, you are the one claiming 1 million times odds.)

    How about everyone comes back to earth and discusses CRC tolling policy, eh?

    We should improve safety on the existing bridges by removing a lane and turning it into a shoulder, (keep in mind that means the bridge would be 2 lanes in each direction, the same width that I-5 is at the Rose Quarter and southbound at Delta Park,) and then if the free market wants to step in and build a private crossing (bridge/ferry/whatever) and recover the costs of that by collecting toll money, they are welcome to do so. The solution would simply be capitalism at work, and who can object to that?

  77. We should improve safety on the existing bridges by removing a lane and turning it into a shoulder…

    Do I have to dig up my last post about this absurd suggestion to point out that it requires changing federal law to modify an Interstate Highway without bringing it up to current standards? The last exemption given dealt with building HOV lanes on shoulders in areas with poor air quality ratings. Like I-5’s only HOV lane in the area.

    The feds will never allow the current bridges to be downgraded with no solution. Portland complaining won’t allow it to be narrowed to remove the only HOV lane or one of two general purpose lanes.

    To remind you of another issue with your plan, the main bridges (and directional lanes) around Portland are the St Johns (2), Fremont (4), Broadway (2), Steel (2), Burnside (2), Morrison (3), Hawthorn (2), Marquam (4), and Ross Island (2). Hmmm… The Columbia gets 7 lanes now (and 6 under Matthew’s plan), vs 23 for the Willamette?

    That the area is only looking at one new bridge area is the biggest problem I have with the CRC at this point.

  78. Bob R. wrote: Erik, I’ve just gone over Matthew’s comments and I don’t see anything he wrote which says you’re more at risk of being killed by an asteroid than at risk of walking from your bus stop, as you claim he says.

    And Bob, I suggest that you provide me with the same courtesy and inform Matthew that his repeated comments are not in line with statements I made on this thread.

    For example, I never said that NOBODY was killed by an asteroid. And Matthew came up with a whole whopping ONE example of someone killed by an asteroid, plus an example from a book of questionable origin.

    Meanwhile, let’s look at pedestrian fatality numbers in the U.S.:

    http://www.walkinginfo.org/faqs/answer.cfm?id=31

    4,881 in 2005 alone. One confirmed asteroid fatality in how many years?

Leave a Reply to MachineShedFred Cancel reply

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