Maintain the Stimulus


The T4American coalition, presumably having recognized that the stimulus would not contain a shift in policy towards transit, is now advocating for an emphasis that road funding go to maintenance rather than expansion.


19 responses to “Maintain the Stimulus”

  1. I more or less agree. The stimulus should go to roadway maintenance and repair along with some small sidewalk projects, but not for couplets, not for streetcars, not for adding bicycle infrastructure, not for curb extensions and not for super-sizing sidewalks. The only exception I would make locally would be for the Columbia River Crossing because tolling the crossing further separates the two sides of the river rather than bring them closer together, and any such crossing should not be tolled.

  2. Terry Parker Says:

    I more or less agree. The stimulus should go to roadway maintenance and repair along with some small sidewalk projects, but not for couplets, not for streetcars, not for adding bicycle infrastructure, not for curb extensions and not for super-sizing sidewalks. The only exception I would make locally would be for the Columbia River Crossing because tolling the crossing further separates the two sides of the river rather than bring them closer together, and any such crossing should not be tolled.

    I’m having trouble understanding this, Terry. You have insisted that any transportation infrastructure be paid for exclusively by the actual users — except for a bridge which will be most heavily used by autos and trucks, because the toll separates the two sides. What?

    It’s a bridge and it crosses a river and traffic travels on the bridge from one side to the other. How is this project any different (except in scale) to the Sellwood Bridge?

  3. Jeff asked: It’s a bridge and it crosses a river and traffic travels on the bridge from one side to the other. How is this project any different (except in scale) to the Sellwood Bridge?

    !) The CRC is on an Interstate Highway system. No place on I-5 from Canada to Mexico are tolls charged. 2) Motorists already pay gas taxes for roads and bridges. In addition, the last session of the State legislature increased motor vehicle registration fees specifically to pay for bridges. Motor freight carriers in Oregon pay weight mile taxes for roads and bridges. Drivers, in addition to subsidizing bicyclists and the damage transit busses do to roads, are therefore already paying their fare share for any local match dollars for the highway portion, and then some. 3) Bicyclists and transit riders are likely not to be assessed any tolls or user fees to pay their share of the CRC. Therefore, motorists too ought not to have to pay any additional costs in the form of tolls or user fees. 4) While motorists contribute to the Federal Highway Trust Fund of which 20 percent is siphoned off for transit, bicyclists and transit passengers do not contribute.

  4. Terry Parker Says:

    !) The CRC is on an Interstate Highway system. No place on I-5 from Canada to Mexico are tolls charged.

    So? Either users should always pay fees or not. There are federally funded highways all over the country (especially in the East) which charge tolls. Why should I-5 be exempt?

    There is plenty of precedent.

    [Moderator: Link corrected… was missing opening double-quotes.]

  5. I’m afraid that our new President is turning out to be just another political hack.

    SURPRISE!!!

    But see how great America is, we elect a black man.

    [condoleeza rice, clarence thomas, colin powell ring any bells?]

    {the martin luther kings, malcome x’s, or thrugood marshall’s seem to be an extinct species]

    WE NEED FDR!

  6. CRC is the biggest river crossing along the entire I-5 route so its completely appropriate to have a toll here. I-80 in the Bay Area has a toll going over the Bay Bridge and is part of the primary interstate system.

    Motorists already pay gas taxes for roads and bridges. In addition, the last session of the State legislature increased motor vehicle registration fees specifically to pay for bridges.

    Motorists pay gas taxes, transit riders pay transit fares too. The whole point is, what is paid in gas taxes, car registration and transit fares is much less than what it actually costs. So both get a “free ride”, I can accept that. Inexpensive transport is key to the economy. But I have a problem when motorists get on their high horse about subsidizing transit but refuse to look in the mirror that they are also not paying the full costs of their travel mode.

    in addition to subsidizing bicyclists and the damage transit busses do to roads, are therefore already paying their fare share for any local match dollars for the highway portion, and then some.

    I didnt realize bikes caused damage to roads requiring repaving every decade. I’m with you on transit buses causing damage to streets, but not light rail and streetcars which damage their own tracks and trackbed.

    I personally have no problem with a toll for peds and bikes and a fare surcharge for transit riders for the CRC. BART has a surcharge for the transbay tube as did the key system for the bay bridge. CRC is one of the few pieces of the pedestrian and bike network that actually requires maintenance.

    al m, can you at least try to talk about transport?

  7. There is plenty of precedent.

    Interestingly large parts of the roads on those lists have had either toll-free alternatives built to serve local traffic (see also Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, Schenectady), or toll-free segments for the same purpose (Buffalo). Also, the Niagara Thruway dropped the tolls a few years ago after the original (1950/60’s era, 40 year) construction bonds were paid off.

    Also, nearly every tolled Interstate in the system already was funded before the Interstate system was funded. The feds have kicked in for new roads, and have allowed converting other roads, but those have almost always been state highways or US highways, not part of the Interstate system.

    I still the the CRC is a bloated project that seems like it’s being designed just to cost too much, but that’s another discussion.

    It’s unfortunate we don’t have a shovel-ready plan for the rail bridge that would make a great arterial/transit/pedestrian/rail (aka a truly mutli-modal) corridor. Plus a backup route to/from Jantzen beach would be a good idea in case of a major emergency.

  8. It’s unfortunate we don’t have a shovel-ready plan for the rail bridge that would make a great arterial/transit/pedestrian/rail (aka a truly mutli-modal) corridor. Plus a backup route to/from Jantzen beach would be a good idea in case of a major emergency.

    We sort of do have one, but the CRC refuses to study it (probably because it actually saves money and is a legitimate alternative to the project they want). It’s called “rehab the existing bridges instead of tearing them out.”

    The two bridges already there could support light rail, arterial traffic, bike lanes and wider sidewalks for significantly less than the cost of putting all that stuff on a new bridge. And the CRC’s new freeway bridge would cost less if it was just 3 to 4 freeway lanes each way, instead of the bloated 12-lane + huge bikeway + LRT monstrosity they’re pushing right now.

  9. jon – TriMet fares currently only cover 21 percent of the operating costs and basically none of the capitol costs including not paying for constructing additional light rail trackage and the Max portion of the Columbia River Crossing.

  10. {al m, can you at least try to talk about transport?}

    I am talking about transport.

    What Obama does is CRITICAL to transport.

    And Obama is talking about “tax cuts” and “highways” not transport!

    Get it?

    In other words, will the real OBAMA please stand up!

  11. Terry Parker says:
    “TriMet fares currently only cover 21 percent of the operating costs”

    Mr Parker, how much of the total expenses to maintain highways and roads comes from tolls?

    How much of the police department budget comes from user fees?

    Ditto on the fire department.

    How much of the military budget comes from donations?

    Is there anything at all,

    ANYTHING,

    in the way of government services that IS SELF SUPPORTING?

    The answer is no of course.

    But people like you have this thing about transit being the government buga boo,

    when transit IS NOTHING WHEN COMPARED TO OTHER BOONDOGGLES,

    like the military for instance.

    Something that you never complain about.

  12. I would say that the fact that TRIMET covers 21% of its costs by user fees is a HUGE SUCCESS by government standards!

    And it’s actually up to 25% these days.

  13. TriMet’s reported system fare recovery to system costs ratio hasn’t been as low as 21% for at least ten years… the FY2008 figure was 26.5%.

  14. Al M. wrote: in the way of government services that IS SELF SUPPORTING?

    Actually, yes.

    The Port of Portland’s aviation sector receives no taxpayer subsidy and is fully supported by landing fees, rents, and other revenues. It only very rarely gets some type of funding from the FAA but largely all projects are paid for by itself…in fact the airports subsidize marine operations (which does receive property tax support).

    Portland International Raceway is a self-supporting Enterprise Fund.

    So is Pearson Field…big, bad Pearson Field, the royal pain in the ass for the CRC project.

    And I’ve had folks from both PDOT and ODOT tell me that 100% of the cost of their respective roadway systems is covered by the gas tax. In fact ODOT’s only take from the general fund in recent years, $10 million, was to go support a 250+ seat Amtrak train between Portland and Eugene that on average had 70 boardings per day per train.

    Also, the Oregon Lottery is self-sustaining.

  15. 100% of roadway costs are not covered by gas taxes. This only constitutes 20% of ODOT’s budget (although the majority of ODOT’s budget). In fact, ODOT even gets millions in revenues from the Oregon Lottery and the Cigarette tax. These two taxes plus some other misc. fees constitute 16% of ODOT’s budget.

    They also get a good amount from Bond payments (almost 1 billion), to which it is repaid by increased vehicle registration fees and other taxes.

    http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/COMM/docs/0709budgetbooklet.pdf

    Don’t be afraid to read the document, it’s pretty user friendly and non-technical (I really enjoyed the level of simplicity of this budget document).

    Don’t get me started on how gas taxes and registration fees are not paying the full cost of automobile ridership in America.

  16. WS wrote: 100% of roadway costs are not covered by gas taxes.

    OK, so let’s look at that budget booklet more closely:

    ODOT started off the budget year with $391 million in the bank.

    Add $890 million in the state gas tax,
    $863 from the federal gas tax,
    $506 million from the weight-mile tax (trucker’s tax),
    $501 million in driver and vehicle registrations (DMV revenue),
    $67 million in Transportation licenses & fees (trip permits),
    $136 million in transfers to ODOT (for services ODOT provides),
    $4 million from the General Fund (to pay for the Amtrak train),
    $46 million in lottery revenues (how is this a problem? Don’t play the lottery if you don’t like it.)
    $909 million in bond sales (to be repaid by ODOT revenues, not the general fund),
    $22 million for sales/charges for service (i.e. if ODOT makes a traffic sign and sells it to State Parks.)
    $39 million in “other” revenue.

    Now let’s look at page 5.

    64% of ODOT revenues are derived from user fees like gas taxes, weight-mile tax, licenses/fees and revenue bonds.

    (Now, if you don’t like bonds as a source of revenue, that’s fine. Kiss MAX goodbye because MAX wouldn’t exist without those bonds.)

    16% of revenue comes from:

    Cigarette Tax revenues — dedicated to elderly and disabled transit.
    Matching funds from state and local sources (i.e. Portland might contribute funds towards a joint project.)
    Loan payments from local agencies (smaller communities paying back ODOT),
    Lottery funds (see above),
    Transportation fees/permits.

    Page 6:

    “GAS TAX GENERATES MOST REVENUE”.

    Page 7:

    “REVENUE BONDS PROVIDE FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE PROJECTS”.

    (Interesting, part of this goes to ConnectOregon, which helps fund transit projects. In fact, ODOT bond dollars went to help fund the Streetcar to the tune of $2.1 million dollars, as well as transit projects in Sandy, Tillamook, Springfield, Bend and Joseph; rail projects throughout the state including a new train station in Chemult (population, next to zero), and a railroad yard for P&W to help relieve congestion along the WES line.

    In ConnectOregon II, TriMet received $3 million for a light rail station at 188th Avenue, Columbia County is getting a “transit facility”, the Mount Hood Railroad got money to repair washed-out track for a tourist railroad, Veneta and Keizer both got transit centers, and Bend got an “intermodal center”.)

    And Page 8 explains ODOT’s spending:

    $2.53 billion in the highway division. $2.75 in user fee revenue.

    That’s a “profit” of $200 million.

    It’s pretty straight forward to me. Of course, we could eliminate some of that excess funding…maybe PDOT needs to repay ODOT for the Streetcar spending; TriMet needs to repay ODOT for the light rail station…

Leave a Reply

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