On Thursday, JPACT will review regional priorities for the next transportation reauthorization, the once-every-six-years setting of Federal transportation policy.
I’ve extracted the draft policy document (PDF, 362K) from the meeting packet.
While I’m sure our approach will be much more progressive that most other regions, there is still room for improvement. Here are a few gripes:
- “Metropolitan Mobility” means roads – the section on Metropolitan Mobility loftily starts out talking about a multi-modal transportation system, but all the projects listed in the section are road projects. Transit goes into a separate section and if freight rail appears in the document, I didn’t see it.
- A special call-out for “Mega-projects” looks like a way to put Columbia River Crossing funding in its own bucket that won’t impact other allocations.
- One of the great cop-out lines on climate change:
Provide a clear integration with federal climate change policy. Individual projects cannot be held accountable for meeting regional greenhouse gas reduction targets. However, the overall regional system can be held accountable and the federal transportation programs should ensure this accountability (much like the current air quality conformity requirement). [Emphasis mine]
If we allow mega-projects that negatively impact climate change in significant ways (ala the CRC), it’s going to be very difficult to produce an overall transportation system that reduces greenhouse gases significantly. We need look no further than the RTP process, where the scenario modeling is showing how difficult it is to keep VMT from growning.
Now to be sure, there’s a LOT of good stuff in this policy including lots of worthy transit investments. I’m particularly pleased by the emphasis on doing the Sunrise corridor as a parkway (it probably helps that the chief proponent of the parkway approach is now Clackamas County Chair).
But we have room for improvement.
40 responses to “Regional Priorities”
Chris, do you know why, under “New Starts/Small Starts,” there is both “Portland to Milwaukie – New Starts” and “South Corridor Light Rail” listed? Aren’t they the same thing?
Sorry, I don’t know.
I’m pretty sure that the “South Corridor Light Rail” refers to the eventual extension of light rail to Oregon City, either via extensions of the I-205 or McLoughlin corridors.
It looks like there’s over $107 million in there designated as either “TriMet Buses” or “TriMet Bus Replacement”… do you know if that’s above and beyond what we’ve seen in TIP and/or TriMet public statements? Since that’s a topic that comes up around here often, it would be good to know what our fleet will look like after those expenditures.
Josh – I think the timeline is too soon for those to refer to any Oregon City extensions… they could be referring to two different funding sources for the same project, with one labelled as “South Corridor” and the other as “Portland-to-Milwaukie”.
I believe “South Corridor Light Rail” is the Green Line, and the “South Corridor Light Rail Phase 2” is the “Orange” line. For instance, see here:
http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=24981
However, that doesn’t match the dates of the funding requests of Chris’s docoment, (2010,) so I don’t know…
Glad to see Beaverton-Hillsdale/Scholls Ferry/Olsen intersection is getting attention, I dread driving through it almost everyday.
My comments to the document are as follows:
Characterizing the true meaning of this document as progressive defines the word “progressive” as to “have power and domination over the people” which can also be called “socialistic control”. The term “climate change” is being used as the pretext to enacting “social engineering”.
Under paragraph “Regional strategy for integrating land use and transportation”, the second line reads: “The result is economic vitality that positions the region well in a competitive global economy.” In reality vitality has been stifled by 1) increased taxes to subsidize density, public transportation and bicycle infrastructure, and 2) the congestion created by not investing increased road capacity.(as can be identified in the Cost of Congestion document)
The document has a bullet point that reads “ Introduction of peak pricing with the replacement of the Columbia River Crossing “Although Metro and Sam Adams want to implement this kind of social engineering, the politicians on the Washington side of the crossing do not. Congestion pricing and tolls should not exist on an interstate highway system. If peak pricing and /or tolls are implemented, it MUST apply to all vehicle modes of transport including Max passengers, bus passengers and bicyclists.
The document has a line relating to funding that reads “Clearly a substantial increase in funding is needed” and makes some recommendations including gas tax increases. In that getting out of a car & hopping on to transit or a bicycle currently means one less taxpayer in the transportation tax base; that loss many times over creates a need for a new taxpayer base specifically from these user groups. To have equity in the transportation tax system, needed is a 50 cents to a dollar per ride tax surcharge added to transit fares, and some kind of Federal bicycle tax before any increase in the gas tax or any new motor vehicle fees are even considered. Public transit and bicycle infrastructure MUST be operated in a financially self-sustained manner, paid for by taxing the users, not by poaching the funds from the Federal Highway Trust Fund and other motorist paid taxes and fees. Any new transit options must be proved to be cost effective, both in construction and without taxpayer subsidies for operation. Furthermore, transportation dollars should not be used for land development just because it is located next to transport infrastructure, be it roadway, transit or bicycle.
New Starts must not be considered the expansion of current transit facilities. Therefore, expansion of streetcars and MAX must be considered as a Mega Project.
Demand management is epitome of social engineering and needs to be eliminated from the document. 1) Ramp metering has negative impacts on neighborhoods, and 2) peak level and/or congestion pricing is a negative impact to a vibrant economy in addition to social engineering.
Fixed Guideway Modernization needs to include trolley bus systems. The “Portland Streetcar Planning and Alternative Analysis needs to not only “change” its focus, but a name change to better reflect non-bias actual transit demand planning instead of mode first planning. Additionally, instead of just requesting new busses and tossing the old ones aside, TriMet needs to consider rebuilding retired busses thereby reducing overall consumption.
Bicycle boulevards, paths and trails need to be paid for by bicyclists, not money poached form motorist paid taxes and fees. .
Instead of super-sizing sidewalks already in place, sidewalks should be added where they do not exist.
The environmental effects of construction, including the equipment used, and any increased congestion transit and bicycle projects add to roadways (reducing the number of lanes thereby significantly increasing congestion on Interstate Avenue is a good example) needs to be weighed with any and all new and/or expanded transit and bicycle projects.
There is a statement in the document that reads: “As a state highway built to operate as an arterial-type facility passes through a compact type downtown area, it is essential that the design treatment shift from an objective to move traffic to an objective of slowing traffic, minimizing impacts and creating a compatible urban streetscape.” Slowing down traffic increases congestion and uses more fuel thereby having a negative eco effect. The compatibility must also extend to motorists using the roadway. This in part can be accomplished by eliminating curb extensions where busses stop requiring busses to pull over to the curb and/or use pullouts when stopping for passengers; by NOT using these roadways for streetcars; by not using these roadways for bicycle routes,; and by limiting the number of pedestrian crossings to signalized intersections with cross streets.
The Burnside Couch Couplet needs to be eliminated from funding consideration. In general these types of couplets do not work with the properties in between the two one-way streets becoming isolated.
The SE Division reconstruction needs to be eliminated from consideration in that NO priority exists for this project. It is highly likely the project will only add congestion to the street delivering negative eco effects. Moreover, if the same type of deep dungeon like storm water runoff facilities that are on NE 102nd are constructed on Division Street through neighborhoods that are mostly residential, the City will be subject to possible lawsuits due to curious little kids falling in and cracking their heads open.
Finally, I have a problem with J-PACT itself in that it is made up with a stacked deck of the usual suspects who are on the subsidy receiving side rather than having a proportional amount of representation on the motorist taxpayer side of the issues. It is disturbing that “tea” is part of the name for the funding programs. When a person thinks of American history and Boston Tea Party, the issue there was the same as with JPACT: “taxation without representation”
Congestion pricing and tolls should not exist on an interstate highway system
If that’s your stated policy goal, that’s fine, but what you’re essentially calling for is the under-pricing of expensive infrastructure during peak times, rather than letting market rates match demand. That’s really just more “social engineering” — it just happens that this particular variety of social engineering falls in line your your particular policy ideals.
Finally, I have a problem with J-PACT itself in that it is made up with a stacked deck of the usual suspects […]
Current JPACT membership (Not including alternates):
Looks like 12 of the 17 positions (a supermajority) are held by duly-elected public officials.
That means the “usual suspects” were put there by “we the people”.
A special call-out for “Mega-projects” looks like a way to put Columbia River Crossing funding in its own bucket that won’t impact other allocations.
Really Chris? You don’t think that a $575m light rail expansion (using the Green Line as an example) is a “Mega-project” also?
Anyway, the part that struck me is: B. Take steps toward transitioning to a VMT fee
So your point about the CRC eroding any green initiatives makes even less sense since Oregon seems so determined to charge my 40 mpg car the same as a 8 mpg Hummer that weighs three times as much.
Not to mention the privacy implications. At least it’s really, really easy to prevent a GPS from working.
You don’t think that a $575m light rail expansion (using the Green Line as an example) is a “Mega-project” also?
It’s a major project, for sure, but the roads-only portion of the CRC is proposed to cost more than 4X that amount, so would that make it a super-mega-project? :-)
Not to mention the privacy implications.
Agreed.
Chris Smith wrote: “Metropolitan Mobility” means roads…Individual projects cannot be held accountable for meeting regional greenhouse gas reduction targets. However, the overall regional system can be held accountable
Bob R. wrote: It looks like there’s over $107 million in there designated as either “TriMet Buses” or “TriMet Bus Replacement”…
Dave wrote: Really Chris? You don’t think that a $575m light rail expansion (using the Green Line as an example) is a “Mega-project” also?
So, what we have here is that while we need to look at the overall regional system to reduce carbon output; yet we are spending huge amounts of money in single, very specific projects (i.e. the Green Line, MAX to Vancouver) while only a measley $107M just to MAINTAIN the existing bus fleet instead of improving, enhancing, and expanding not only the bus fleet itself but also access to bus transit.
I wonder what kind of greenhouse impact we could make with a $575 million investment in our regional bus system, rather than $575 to build a MAX line alongside a freeway which won’t provide any local service and provides a very indirect routing to its destination (downtown Portland); instead of, as an example, an frequent express bus route that connects Clackamas Town Center with Milwaukie and Portland via seldom-congested Highway 224 along with substantial improvements to 82nd Avenue to make it more transit friendly for users of the 72 – TriMet’s busiest bus line.
Really Chris? You don’t think that a $575m light rail expansion (using the Green Line as an example) is a “Mega-project” also?
Our LRT projects have generally been funded under the “new starts” program which is a competitive program based on cost-effectiveness (the dreaded TSUB score). So they are not an ‘exception’ such as I think is being suggested for the CRC.
If the CRC were seeking funds on a competitive basis with some rational cost-benefit score (although it’s possible to question how rational TSUB is), I would not have the same objection.
One more note: Metro needs to discontinue spending dollars on the Drive Less Save More campaign. These are wasted transportation dollars, especially for the TV ads (I’ve heard no less than four or five in last couple of hours). The money could be better utilized improving infrastructure. In words to Metro: Advertise less – save more for infrastructure.
Bob – As for JPACT, when I referred to the usual subjects, I was thinking more about the citizen members and the citizen advisory committees than the elected public officials. Although I do not know all the elected officials you listed, of those I either know or know something about, I can only count on, “maybe” three of the seventeen, to give some support to drivers, and they are all from Washington. Therefore, JPACT is still a stacked deck rather than having a proportional number of members representing motorist taxpayers. Even though people vote by driving their cars which includes approximately 80 percent of the trips made in the region, JPACT continues to ignore that mandate and spend motorist paid tax dollars on alternative infrastructure. As I said before: “taxation without (motorist) representation.”
I understand what you’re saying Chris, but I agree with what Eric wrote a bit more:
I wonder what kind of greenhouse impact we could make with a $575 million investment in our regional bus system, rather than $575 to build a MAX line alongside a freeway which won’t provide any local service and provides a very indirect routing to its destination (downtown Portland)
We could be doing a lot more in this region, for a lot more users, if we looked at what’s working for other cities. The San Diego area just opened HOT lanes (soon to have BRT, it’s under their proposal for ready-to-run projects found on http://www.sandag.org).
San Diego’s take on buses is a lot different than ours, and somewhat interesting. Take for example, the Super Loop in UTC. (See also http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=293&fuseaction=projects.detail for more.) Quickly, it’s a streetcar-like bidirectional bus service to serve an area that’s basically a high-rise multi-use development (like the Pearl).
It’ll use hybrid buses, have 10 minute headways, and upgraded stop amenities. It sounds like a great head-start on a streetcar.
Maybe we should try a similar idea for any future (after the East Side Loop) streetcars to see if ridership is there. It seems like a great way to start service and get an estimate of what service will be. Upgrade to tracked streetcar if it works out well, and move the buses to another potential route.
Sometimes it seems like Portland is starting to just copy itself rather than try something new. I think the East Side streetcar is a good idea, but the full-system map? I’m not so sure. It seems like too much, we have to make sure we don’t over-complicate the network if we want casual and choice users to feel it’s easily navigable.
A basic pair of rings with a few spokes is great, but let’s make sure we don’t neglect the buses that have to get people to the rail also. I have to wonder what $575m could have done for the bus system.
Bob – As for JPACT, when I referred to the usual subjects, I was thinking more about the citizen members and the citizen advisory committees than the elected public officials.
Terry, let’s be 100% clear. There are NO citizen members on JPACT. Every single member is either an elected official or senior staff of an Agency represented (like Fred Hansen from TriMet). There are six citizen members on TPAC, the technical committee that advises JPACT, but if you think they sway the discussion very often, you’re mistaken (although we do try).
Bob mentioned the notion of the “under-pricing of expensive infrastructure during peak times” If that is the case, then transit service during peak times ought to be charging significantly higher fares to cover the costs of additional equipment and labor.
It’s perfectly fine to make that argument, Terry. The point is, using your own stretched definitions of “social engineering”, your own policy proposals of NOT market-pricing freeways amount to “social engineering” as well… watering-down the term that much makes it practically useless.
Somebody could do a masters thesis just on this discussion alone!
Bob – It is not at all stretching the definition of “social engineering’” when tax or toll is designed for the purpose of forcing somebody to change their activities – the example here being congestion pricing thereby forcing the concept of getting people out of their cars. Metro and Sam Adams have admitted as much. If the tax or toll was equitably applied to all modes, did not vary in price based on the time of day and the revenue collected only went to pay for infrastructure for the specific mode of transport being used, then it would be a straight user tax and not a social engineering.
then it would be a straight user tax and not a social engineering
No, not at all. Making a conscious decision to price a limited resource the same during times of peak demand as it is during low-demand affects behavior patterns just as much (but in a different direction) as demand-sensitive pricing.
Movie theaters price seats slightly cheaper for early shows, to get more customers in to buy concessions. By your definition, that’s “social engineering” — but the theaters are just responding to market forces in the way they think is best. Electric utilities charge their industrial customers based on demand, in part to encourage large power consumers, such as aluminum manufacturing to do at least some production at night, to level out demand. By your definition, that’s “social engineering”.
One justification for pricing road infrastructure the same regardless of time-of-day, as you suggest we should continue doing, is that the poor will not be priced out of being able to use the roadways at a given time of day. That’s egalitarianism, but it’s also a conscious decision which trades one thing: “cost of access reduced for everybody” for another: “increased congestion, regardless of ability to pay”. That is a clear choice, and it definitely affects behavior patterns… that’s absolutely “social engineering” by your definition… it’s just “social engineering” that supports your desired policy goal. There’s just no escaping that.
Simply put: By defining “social engineering” down to the point where it means the same thing as “market pricing”, you’ve rendered it meaningless.
Bob – I totally disagree with you. Movie theaters are a for profit business. Providing transportation infrastructure to the public is not. The fact that movie theaters price seats at the early shows slightly cheaper, maybe even at a loss, and seats at other times possibly even excessively is a business decision and has no bearing on how to price transport infrastructure.
Additionally, like distributors and customers who receive quantity discounts for products, electric utilities a number of years back also charged considerably less per kwh to their customers who used larger blocks of power because the delivery costs were approximately the same no matter how much electricity was used. Enter the legislature with their social engineering and we have the reverse type of billing of today.
In a democratic society, government should be accommodating the roadway capacity needs of the people, not rationing it in an attempt to change their travel choices.
Furthermore, if you consider transportation dollars as a limited resource, then true market value pricing must also be applied to transit service. The average cost for a one-way ride would cost approximately $10.00 each. The current revenue received through the farebox covers only 21 percent of the operational costs and pays nothing towards the damage done to the roads by TriMet’s two-axle transit busses. Transit service is enormously discounted with taxpayer provided subsidies to attract riders. Therefore, the subsidies to transit are also a form of social engineering.
An earlier post made mention of the “MAX Orange Line”. Despite what Wikipedia says, there is no such thing. TriMet officials decided several months ago that the Portland to Milwaukie line will be an extension of the existing Yellow Line.
Now, back to the subject of “social engineering”. Why is it that Libertarians are so quick to throw this term around when talking about public transportation and road fees, yet almost always fail to see other, more popular, government programs in the same light? Seems to me that anybody that fears “social engineering” should be opposed to public education, oil subsidies and the home mortgage deduction as well. These are the programs that most effect how and where we live.
Terry Parker Says:
In a democratic society, government should be accommodating the roadway capacity needs of the people, not rationing it in an attempt to change their travel choices.
In a democratic society, government should be accommodating the wishes of the population, which are expressed through the election of our chosen representatives. In the case of the Portland metro area and the State of Oregon, that expressed desire is clearly to support public transit and alternative modes of transport. If the majority of people in the region didn’t approve of a transit subsidy we would not have one.
People used to piss in the street…then we got sewers…no doubt, socialism to some. Motor vehicles do the equivalent into our air and water, so we, The People, pursue measures to reduce the “pissing.” Transit, bikes, UBG…these are just public health policies aimed to reduce the bad stuff. Some folks clearly favor the old approach; the vast majority support the obvious.
“People used to piss in the street…then we got sewers…no doubt, socialism to some.”
So if I wasn’t in the middle of reading this, I wouldn’t bring it up:
http://www.alanmacfarlane.com/savage/DUNG.PDF
But it is about how nightsoil, (outhouse cleaning) was a capitalist business in Japan pre-WWII. See, farmers needed fertilizer, (and badly, Japan has rather poor soil,) and people produce about half a ton of the stuff a year, and so farmers started paying for it. It didn’t happen overnight, first the farmers started cleaning up the streets, and then the farmers started building public outhouses, and then they started paying to clean your outhouse. And it became ingraining the society, for instance if you were visiting someone’s house and were served food, you were expected to use their toilet as well, and if you didn’t you probably wouldn’t be invited back.
But back to the topic, (okay, the current off-topic): The reason that this worked in Japan is that the market wasn’t distorted in the first place, there were no fertilizer subsidies, and food prices were allowed to rise high enough that farmers could be profitable by collecting human waste, (unlike the US today, where food&fertilizer are both heavily subsidized.) You can’t say that the transportation market in the US in undistorted in the first place, for instance, no private company is interested in building a toll ($2.50 each way) bridge over the Columbia themselves, they simply can’t make a profit at it. And if you look at parking rates to park in a private parking garage downtown, it costs MORE than parking on the street, the only reason that private parking garages exist is because there isn’t enough street parking for the socially engineered (low) price. So expecting that one section of the transportation system to break even, when none of the rest of it even comes close, is the real social engineering here…
The point about private parking costs is a good one, Matthew.
Regarding construction of private roads, I recently saw a report produced for the state of Texas (I’ll try and find a link) studying the options for privatization of roads in that state.
It noted that for the few opportunities where private companies were interested at all, they wanted protectionist non-compete guarantees… not just an understandable guarantee that the government wouldn’t come in and build a new facility nearby, but a guarantee that NOBODY ELSE would be allowed to build a competing facility nearby.
The most amazing thing about PORTLAND TRANSPORT is that
BOB R
actually can moderate it at the level he does, YEAR after YEAR!
It’s amazing!
Bob R, I’m gonna nominate you for the Guinness book of records.
Hell, by the time I get done reading the posts I am too worn out to write anything!
Bob R. wrote: It noted that for the few opportunities where private companies were interested at all, they wanted protectionist non-compete guarantees…
On a local level, the consortium that had considered building the Newberg-Dundee bypass (as a toll road) wanted existing Highway 99W to be tolled as well. Needless to say, that was an unpopular opinion shared by very few people, and for that and other reasons the project was deemed unworthy for private investment.
Where are the Libertarian cries for a privately operated car-ferry service between Vancouver and Portland to replace the I-5 bridge?
Afterall the publicly funded 1917 road bridge between Portland and Vancouver put out of business and replaced a private ferry operation.
Jeff said: “In the case of the Portland metro area and the State of Oregon, that expressed desire is clearly to support public transit and alternative modes of transport. If the majority of people in the region didn’t approve of a transit subsidy we would not have one.”
1) I have yet to see a public vote approving the expenditures, funding and subsidies given to transit (or bicycle infrastructure for that matter). 2) In that people also vote by driving their cars, and approximately 80 percent of the trips in the Portland metro area are made by motor vehicle; there is also a clearly expressed desire by the people of the region to maintain and improve roadways, and even increase motor vehicle capacity to reduce congestion.
Well, Terry, do you think the freeway portion of the CRC should be put to a vote?
When did we make a public vote on the recently-completed I-205 widening project? I personally approve of that project, but I don’t recall an up-or-down vote on it.
We elect representatives to make a lot of these decisions. The overwhelming majority of elected representatives in the Portland Metro area are at least moderately transit/bike/ped-supportive.
“When did we make a public vote on the recently-completed I-205 widening project?”
Ditto the ongoing I-5 widening project. I don’t recall seeing that on the ballot either. Are you outraged about that, Terry?
“I wonder what kind of greenhouse impact we could make with a $575 million investment in our regional bus system, rather than $575 to build a MAX line alongside a freeway which won’t provide any local service and provides a very indirect routing to its destination (downtown Portland).”
>>>> Would someone please enlighten me as to what was the rationale for building the Green Line? Thanks.
Would someone please enlighten me as to what was the rationale for building the Green Line?
One of the rationales was to connect Clackamas Regional Center with Gateway Regional Center, and to provide faster travel times for non-local transit trips in that corridor.
Another rationale was that the ROW for transit, at least as far as the Clackamas County line, already existed.
Of course, this transitway could also have been paved as a busway, but with rail, once you get as far as Gateway, you can tie into the existing lines and provide service to downtown.
It doesn’t make too much sense to use this route if the goal is purely to provide Clackamas TC park & ride users with a ride all the way to downtown, but it does make sense to serve people further north in the corridor with trips to places such as Hollywood, Lloyd District, and downtown.
My household is near the 60th Ave. station, and I know we’ll use it for trips as far as Clackamas TC now & then.
Terry Parker Says:
2) In that people also vote by driving their cars,
I was using the word “vote” in its literal sense, in reference to the representative democracy that is the system of government in this country.
The Green line was the idea of the elected officals of Clackamas county. Ridership data supports it, but prior to their input the Milwaukie line was to be built next.
Speaking of votes, the 1998 light rail property tax measure passed in every Portland precinct along the line between Kenton and Sellwood, except Arbor Lodge and east Kenton in Portland.
It lost in the region by 2k votes.
Bob R. wrote: One of the rationales was to connect Clackamas Regional Center with Gateway Regional Center, and to provide faster travel times for non-local transit trips in that corridor.
If the rationale for HCT is to connect Metro designated Regional Centers…
Then what’s the point of WES?
And when can I expect a new MAX line to connect Washington Square with Clackamas Town Center? After all, they are both Regional Centers, so doesn’t that warrant planning at the Metro level? It would result in another new bridge across the Willamette River, less dependence on the Sellwood and I-205 bridges, and encourage dense developments in…West Linn…Rivergrove…Durham…
(I love the irony of our region’s planning…)
And when can I expect a new MAX line to connect Washington Square with Clackamas Town Center? After all, they are both Regional Centers, so doesn’t that warrant planning at the Metro level?
i believe this corridor is one of the potential HCT corridors and would presumably use commuter rail technology operating over the LO RR bridge