Sellwood Recommendation – It’s “D”


Just in from regular reader Jason Barbour:

Please allow me to interrupt the stream of recent “All CRC All the Time” comments in the aforementioned thread, and in “8, 10, 12?,” for the following late-breaking news regarding the Sellwood Bridge Project:

The Community Task Force has met as the CTF for the final time, and is presenting the following recommendations to the Sellwood Bridge Policy Advisory Group. As a CTF member, I’m pleased to announce the results here.”D” Alignment (current alignment, extended to the South)Signalized westside interchangeBike/Pedestrian signal on the eastside intersection of SE Tacoma and SE 6th Ave.No clear consensus between a 64′ 2-vehicle land bridge and a 76′ 3-vehicle lane bridge (both have separate adequate bike and pedestrian facilities across the bridge). There is consensus that the recommendation is against a 4-lane bridge of any configuration (includes extra lanes disguised as “transit lanes”). Serving on the project has been absolutely incredible.I wouldn’t trade it for any other experience I could’ve had during the time. I also thank everyone else who’s been involved, including members of the public who’ve attended meetings, provided candid testimony, sparked vigorous debate, and asked us to consider their position while we made our decision.

As for me, everyone keeps saying “see you around town…,” but I have a feeling they haven’t seen the last of me. ;) (In a good way, OK?!) Now, back to your regularly-scheduled comments, already in progress.

Now back to CRC coverage…


25 responses to “Sellwood Recommendation – It’s “D””

  1. I’d like to thank Jason and the others who put in so much hard work on this. The recommended solution will not doubt engender much opposition and whining, but any solution would have done the same. Now if only someone can come up with the money and get the work done!

  2. “No clear consensus between a 64′ 2-vehicle land bridge and a 76′ 3-vehicle lane bridge (both have separate adequate bike and pedestrian facilities across the bridge).”

    I am glad to see the round-about on the west end was rejected. However, something wider than a two-lane bridge (which would be replacing one obsolete bridge with another obsolete bridge) is needed to bring the crossing into the 21st century. Additionally, bicyclists need to be directly taxed to help pay for their share of the bridge, proportionally based the percentage of deck space allotted to bicycle infrastructure.

  3. Terry Parker Says:

    I am glad to see the round-about on the west end was rejected. However, something wider than a two-lane bridge (which would be replacing one obsolete bridge with another obsolete bridge) is needed to bring the crossing into the 21st century. Additionally, bicyclists need to be directly taxed to help pay for their share of the bridge, proportionally based the percentage of deck space allotted to bicycle infrastructure.

    A 21st Century bridge would be one not limited to automobiles; it’s not clear how 2 lanes is primitive by comparison to 4 lanes. And before you go on about expanding Tacoma to 4 lanes you’ve still got to explain where all that traffic goes when it gets the 18 or so blocks to McLoughlin.

  4. Hey, Terry –

    Just why are you so insistent on making bicyclists share the traffic lanes instead of riding off to the side and staying out of the way of cars? What benefit is there to slowing down all car traffic to bicycle speed every time a bicyclist crosses the bridge? Personally, I’m having a hard time seeing it.

    Also, how do you intend to impose a separate tax on “pedestrians” for the percentage of deck space allocated to sidewalks? Or would you rather have them do the same as bicyclists: walk in the traffic lanes and have the cars slow to walking speed to avoid hitting them?

  5. Terry- Keep in mind that building a ped/bike bridge would be substantially less expensive. Why should cyclist pay for the excess infrastructure needed to support the weight of not only cars but buses, trucks, etc. Oh yeah, forgot to mention that the vast majority of cyclists also own/operate cars so they are paying for the bridge too. Why not just toll all roads for all users. That way only the people who use them have to pay for them. Toll my local street, toll the freeways, toll the onramps. No freeloaders!

  6. Douglas asked: “Just why are you so insistent on making bicyclists share the traffic lanes instead of riding off to the side and staying out of the way of cars?”

    I am not insisting making bicyclists share traffic lanes with cars. What I am insisting on is that user bicyclists, and not motorists or taxpayers in general, fund the construction and any maintenance of separated bicycle infrastructure. Sustainability starts with financial self-sustainability. Getting out of a car or truck and hopping on to public 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.

    There is a substantial fiscal cost to providing bicycle infrastructure, be it a part of a combined project such as the Sellwood Bridge with separated bicycle infrastructure, or be it an independent specialized project such as the proposed French Prairie Bridge for bicycles at Wilsonville. Metro is about to ask the Federal Government for $12.6 million in transportation dollars to fund the French Prairie Bridge. Local match dollars will also be required to construct the project. Those local match dollars need to come from bicyclists by way of a direct bicycle tax assessed only on bicyclists. Instead of bicyclists expecting somebody else to fund and/or subsidize the separated and specialized infrastructure they want, bicyclists need to pay their own way. As it applies to the Sellwood Bridge, that requires bicyclists to pay a proportionate share of the local match dollar construction costs of any new bridge based on the percentage of deck space allocated for bicycle use.

  7. Getting out of a car or truck and hopping on to public transit or a bicycle currently means one less taxpayer in the transportation tax base.

    This “argument” is valid only in some fantasy world where every gets around using only one means of transportation. In the real world, most people who ride bikes or transit also own and drive cars, and nearly all of them ride in a private car from time to time.

    As you may be aware, no realistic bicycle tax could possibly raise enough money to play catch-up to a century of heavily subsidized automobile infrastructure. So your silly insistent that we shouldn’t build bicycle infrastructure in the absence of an unworkable bicycle tax means — again, in the real world — that you are demanding bicyclists use the same lanes as drivers.

    So I ask again: why do you consider it desirable, from a policy standpoint, to block automobile traffic on the Sellwood Bridge by forcing cars to slow down to bicycle speed every time a cyclist crosses the bridge?

    Also, echoing Jeff’s question, why won’t you describe the tax system you think we should impose on pedestrians to pay for sidewalks?

  8. I have to wonder why anyone can be so bent on bicyclists paying for their “portion” of the bridge, when a significant percentage of the automobile user base pay *nothing* for using the bridge. Until Clackamas County and Washington County commuters pay for their share of the bridge, everyone else should ride for free.

    If anything, its time to put an end to Multnomah County residents subsidizing those that elect to live in unsustainable suburban sprawl and growth. Lets toll all users for their proportionate expense.

  9. Douglas said: “In the real world, most people who ride bikes or transit also own and drive cars, and nearly all of them ride in a private car from time to time.”

    Ride in a private car? Then they are not paying anything. The driver/owner of the car is paying fuel taxes, license and registration fees to use the car or truck being driven on the roads. If money is siphoned off to fund/subsidize bicycle infrastructure, then the driver/owner is paying more than necessary to drive that car or truck on the roads.

    Douglas also said: “As you may be aware, no realistic bicycle tax could possibly raise enough money to play catch-up to a century of heavily subsidized automobile infrastructure.

    Now it appears Douglas is reversing his argument calling motor vehicle infrastructure subsidized. In Oregon, taxes assessed motorists and motor vehicles pay the majority of costs for roads. If those taxes also subsidize bicycle infrastructure, motorists are being over charged, not subsidized. Furthermore, neither Rome or our roadway system (which Douglas admits took a century to construct) was not built in a day. What makes any reasonable person think bicycle infrastructure should be an over night job. Adult bicyclists need to be charged the same license and registration fees for their bicycles that motorists pay to license their cars and trucks. If that does not generate enough funding to start a modest program of providing bicycle infrastructure, provide a little paint and/or even signage directing bicyclists to low traffic volume streets and routes, then the bicycle infrastructure should not be built. Sustainability starts with financial self-sustainability, not bicyclists expecting somebody else to pay for everything they want built.

    As it applies to the Sellwood Bridge, if bicyclists are un willing to tax themselves, then that need to accept the consequences of using standard width sidewalk – not super-sized sidewalk – or be banned from using the bridge like large trucks are banned from some streets and roadways.

    Moreover, the majority of sidewalks in Portland, including repairs, are paid for by property owners, therefore even renters in Portland are helping to pay for sidewalks.

    RusselC said; “Until Clackamas County and Washington County commuters pay for their share of the bridge, everyone else should ride for free.”

    Hey Russel, Where in Clackamas and Washington County can motorists buy gasoline without paying the tax on it? I think motorists in those counties pay license and registration fees too. And guess what, most motorists who live in Multnomah County also travel through those counties from time to time.

  10. Hey Russel, Where in Clackamas and Washington County can motorists buy gasoline without paying the tax on it? I think motorists in those counties pay license and registration fees too. And guess what, most motorists who live in Multnomah County also travel through those counties from time to time.

    So are you proposing that the city of Portland the county of Multnomah don’t need to directly put money into a new because everyone’s state and federal gas taxes, were they not used for any other purpose than automobile infrastructure, ought to cover the replacement costs?

    Got any real figures to back this up?

    Be sure to include all the other automobile-exclusive infrastructure you’d like to see, and what the end level of gas taxation should be to match.

    As for my opinion, I think Douglas and others are on to something: Everyone has a right to use the roads… if motorists wish for bikes and pedestrians to be out of the main travel lanes so that motorists can drive faster, and/or if society, via its elected representatives, views that separate infrastructure for bikes and pedestrians is in the interest of safety and convenience, then it is NOT unfair to ask motorists to pay some portion of the costs of the separate infrastructure.

  11. PS… Your answer regarding sidewalks doesn’t address the question. Property owners are taxed for sidewalks regardless of the intensity of use, and regardless of how many people live in a household. A homebound individual pays as much for sidewalks, all other things being equal, as a household with six kids who walk to school every day. There is no direct user fee here, and no proportionality in relation to use.

    In many areas, the presence of frequent and high-speed automobile traffic necessitates sidewalks where it would otherwise be safe to walk in the road.

    This is another instance of one class of users (pedestrians and bikes) literally being forced to the sidelines in the interest of motorists, and then having pay demanded of them for that additional infrastructure.

    Now, I personally don’t hugely disagree with the way we fund sidewalks, although it could be done other ways. However, it is you who have been demanding that “users pay” for all modes, so to so quickly dismiss sidewalks, which are not paid in any proportionate manner according to usage, is completely inconsistent with your stated principal.

  12. Also, echoing Jeff’s question, why won’t you describe the tax system you think we should impose on pedestrians to pay for sidewalks?

    I propose a sales tax on shoes! I know everyone in the state will love that idea, it’ll pass first try. Right?

  13. if bicyclists are un willing to tax themselves, then that need to accept the consequences of using standard width sidewalk – not super-sized sidewalk – or be banned from using the bridge like large trucks are banned from some streets and roadways.

    And you still haven’t told us how you intend to tax pedestrians to pay for the standard width sidewalks, or — in the absence of a pedestrian tax — why you believe motorists would benefit from pedestrians walking in the road and slowing down traffic. You’re obviously opposed to the current method of property-tax funding, since there’s no user-pays component. Or do you believe we should simply ban walking and force everyone to drive everywhere they want to go?

  14. “Almost three-out-of four bridge motorists are traveling from Clackamas County to Portland, Washington County or western Clackamas County.”
    per Oregonian 12/26/2008 titled “Region weighs options on cracked Sellwood Bridge”

    The “Sellwood Bridge and the South Willamette River Crossing Study” also provides supporting evidence as to the percentage of traffic as related to Clackamas County.

    And as for the bridge being equally paid for by those that are not paying other Multnomah County taxes, perhaps you can provide a break down of how those individuals from surrounding counties are paying for their 50%+ of the use of the bridge.

    Perhaps the City of Portland should assess a City Tax that is applied to payroll for everyone that commutes into the city from outside of the city limits. This tax could be used to pay for the infrastructure required to transport all of those individuals into the city (roads, bridges, transit, etc).

  15. Terry:

    Moreover, the majority of sidewalks in Portland, including repairs, are paid for by property owners, therefore even renters in Portland are helping to pay for sidewalks.

    While that may be true for private property, it most certainly doesn’t apply to the Sellwood Bridge. If you take a look at option D, you’ll see that 24 feet of bridge space is being allocated for sidewalks, that’s two full lanes! Even if you allocated normal sidewalk space (6-8 feet, right?) you’re still adding at minimum an additional travel lane to the bridge that cars can’t use. Think about how much cheaper the bridge would be if it were 25 feet wide instead of 64!

    Face it, pedestrians most likely aren’t paying for their fair share of the bridge, there’s no reason why we should be increasing the price of the bridge to suit them.

  16. pedestrians most likely aren’t paying for their fair share of the bridge, there’s no reason why we should be increasing the price of the bridge to suit them.

    That’s why Terry apparently wants them to walk in the street.

  17. Maybe if bicyclists are so selfishly unwilling to pay an equitable bicycle tax to pay their share for the super-sized bicycle infrastructure on the bridge, they should be banned from using the bridge at all and be required to use a small inexpensive fleet of pedal powered boats with bike racks to cross the river. They would be closer to nature that way and further from the motor vehicles they detest, but pay their way.

Leave a Reply

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