Rescued from obscurity on OregonLive.
Ronald A. Buel is a Portland business executive and published writer on transportation.
The Oregonian continues its campaign for the $4.2 billion Columbia River Crossing (CRC) with a January 18 editorial, and with a January 22 My Opinion piece by James L. Huffman. These two follow a column by Dave Lister. All three have the same “eliminate congestion with more capacity” theme.
Here are the parts of The Oregonian editorial that are most foolish: “the bridge…must be built with the capacity to handle traffic for as many years as possible. And that means making the bridge 12 lanes, not 10 or eight…If it’s too small, transportation models indicate hot spots of congestion would re-emerge by 2030. A 12-lane bridge, in contrast, would be built for generations.”
There is a fundamental fallacy in the CRC modeling that The Oregonian cites. The current modeling is based on land-use that is the same in 2030 both with and without the 12-lane bridge. This means that there would be no more people living in Clark County if we build the big new replacement bridge than if we don’t.
This false assumption means that the 12-lane bridge will induce no new travel and therefore will not be as congested at rush hour. It means that the 5,000 un-developed acres zoned for housing, in the urban growth areas off I-5 of Vancouver, Battleground, La Center, Ridgefield, and Three Rivers, will be built out for housing at the same rate, whether or not we build the big, new bridge.
New freeway capacity, like this bridge, is proven to induce new travel in every part of our nation. In the case where we have all this sprawled-out, undeveloped-but-zoned-for-housing land, the assumption that the CRC will not induce more travel from new development is so wrong as to be a fatal error under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).
One need only look at the 20-and-30-year projections for the Glenn Jackson Bridge across the Columbia on I-205, which was opened in 1982. Those old projections, done in the same way with fixed land use, are now low by nearly 50%. That’s because thousands of people moved to sprawled-out East Clark County, knowing they could easily commute by single passenger vehicle across that big new bridge. This huge, multi-lane freeway bridge is now congested at rush hour. That’s called induced travel.
Instead of favoring relieving congestion with more capacity, The Oregonian should be asking why every major environmental and land-use organization in Oregon argued against the big new 12-lane bridge.
One answer is that the current fleet of fossil-fuel vehicles in Oregon emits 40% of our global warming pollution. Our only hope for cutting this major cause of climate change, in order to meet both Oregon and Washington’s aggressive climate change goals, is to reduce vehicle miles traveled. New electric vehicles and new fuels won’t help in time. CRC consultants, hoping to favor the big new replacement bridge and satisfy developers, truckers and construction interests, lied about the bridge impact on vehicle miles traveled and global warming pollution, even considering planned mass transit and tolls.
Metro and the City of Portland called for new climate change analysis, but we haven’t seen that yet. What we see, instead, is this push by the pavers for settling the number of lanes now — at 12 lanes all the way across the River. This is a foolhardy campaign for winning the argument, without the new global warming analysis and without a completed Environmental Impact Statement. The eventual resulting lawsuit will doom any new bridge for many years.
36 responses to “There is a fundamental fallacy…”
There is a fundamental fallacy in any concept that suggests Oregon should have any control over Washington and Clark County land use policies. This time the Oregonian Editorial Board is making the wise choice by looking to the future and not foolishly suggesting building a bridge that will be too small and obsolete the day it opens. Many of the new clean technology innovations and fuel sources that will power the cars of the future have not even been developed yet. Any ploy to build a less than 12 lane bridge that will be functionally obsolete tomorrow must not be based on the motor vehicle technology of today.
Population growth is what induces travel demand. Building a 12 lane bridge is only one of many accommodations needed to maintain a vibrant economy that comes with and is a byproduct of population growth. Travel demand can remain relatively flat only if population growth remains flat. Continuing to build out Max and other transit options induces the need for higher taxes and more operating subsidies that eventually will only lower quality standard of living for the working class. Over the long term income has not kept up with inflation, and it will not keep up with the new taxes either that undoubtedly will be levied to operate and construct any transit build out. Moreover, since hand shovels, pick axes, and mules are no longer used in construction; to construct a transit build out requires fueling an immense number of back hoes and dump trucks as a near equal trade off to driving.
Furthermore, not everybody wants to live in tenement style high density development cubicles, no matter how lavish they may be constructed; ride transit or even a bicycle. The American Dream is that house with a garage and a white picket fence – in other words, a single family home with a place to park the family sized motor vehicle and a private yard. The size of the house, the type of the preferably American brand vehicle and the yard is not for the government to decide, either through tax policy or otherwise. Any project that rations or attempts to ration highway capacity exemplifies a dictator like socialistic control mindset. Such a mindset needs to be rejected in a democratic society.
The American Dream is that house with a garage and a white picket fence
That may be the dream of your generation, TP, but not mine. And in case you missed it, the transition of power from your generation to mine has already occurred.
The American Dream is built on subsidies and policies that distort the marketplace and the choices that people are presented. Suffice it to say that it takes more money and infrastructure to provide services to people when they are spread out.
If white picket fences are the American Dream, why do so many people install chain link ones instead? Seriously, if you look at house ads, many of them say things like “new chain link fence in front yard,” as if that is somehow a selling point. (I mean, it is better than mentioning the “rusting car bodies in backyard,” that seem to go with the sort of people that put chain link fences in their front yard, but still…)
Back to the topic at hand, the EPA said that using the same land use model for both the build and no-build option was a mistake.
If the CRC convinces the city of Portland to sign off on this bridge, when the model that they used is bad, (and they know it, and have been told that by the EPA,) I can only hope that that lie makes front page headlines for a week, including multiple editorials asking for the ODOT chief to resign. But for some reason, I doubt it will…
Terry Parker Says:
Furthermore, not everybody wants to live in tenement style high density development cubicles, no matter how lavish they may be constructed; ride transit or even a bicycle. The American Dream is that house with a garage and a white picket fence – in other words, a single family home with a place to park the family sized motor vehicle and a private yard. The size of the house, the type of the preferably American brand vehicle and the yard is not for the government to decide, either through tax policy or otherwise. Any project that rations or attempts to ration highway capacity exemplifies a dictator like socialistic control mindset. Such a mindset needs to be rejected in a democratic society.
The democratic society is the society that (at least in this region) has determined that your American dream is left over from the 1950s and that other dreams have replaced it. It’s the democratic society that has chosen the leaders and representatives that support those policies, Terry, and there’s nothing dictatorial or socialistic about them.
Encouraging urban sprawl is no longer considered a virtue, at least by most of the people living in this region. You’re big on appropriate taxes; why should people who want nothing to do with urban sprawl have to subsidize people like you who do?
To my comment about the American Dream Unit said: “That may be the dream of your generation, TP, but not mine.”
Obviously, the American Dream of the younger generation is to have everything handed to them on a silver platter from the government just like mommy and daddy did in their youth. Government debt to pay for what is on the silver platter is one of reasons for the declining value of the dollar and why the economy is in a recession.
Jason said: The American Dream is built on subsidies and policies that distort the marketplace and the choices that people are presented.
That sounds more like the Unit’s dream with taxpayers rather than users paying for bicycle infrastructure and transit systems and thereby distorting the marketplace. Moreover, the tax codes today more than ever are divisively manipulating the choices which are for the most part being presented in a socialistic dictator fashion.
Matthew said: If white picket fences are the American Dream, why do so many people install chain link ones instead?
The “white picket fence” is more of a symbolic term (than an actual fence) representing security and purity whereby a person earns what they have instead of expecting the government to pay for it.
As to Jeff’s comments about urban sprawl: If population growth did not exist and was stabilized; the same would apply to any significant amount of so called sprawl.
I have a tax idea. Why not charge per pound that the vehicle weighs since weight plays an important role in road damage. Why should a Geo Metro (remember them) pay the same as a Ford Excursion (remember them too)? How about a dollar a pound?
No Aaron there is no difference in road damage from variups vehicle weights.
You just imagined that to be.
Only the large vehicles (Tractor trailor rigs) cause road damage. They already pay a weight mile tax.
The CRC is a sham IMO.
It could be a $1.5 billion fix and done sooner rather than later.
$700 million plus of this $4.2 Bridge is for light rail IN Vancover. That has nothign to do with the new bridge.
Get rid of the rest of the light rail extension and the price drops a billion more.
variups ?
various
This false assumption means that the 12-lane bridge will induce no new travel and therefore will not be as congested at rush hour.
No, no, no, no, no. No. Not at all.
A 12 lane bridge will induce it’s own congestion. It will be wide enough that enough weaving traffic will congest it trying to get back in the through 3 that it’s not worth it.
An 8 will have weave backups that will make the whole project a waste. A 10 lane bridge will smooth flow without increasing raw throughput.
In other words, Hazel Dell to downtown PDX doesn’t improve by a significant percentage. Downtown Couv to Marine Drive is a different story. Is it so bad if the ‘induced demand’, as some call it, comes from denser development in downtown Vancouver with MAX access?
The 2-way’ing of Main, Broadway, and C St in Downtown Vancouver was a precursor for Vancouver Streetcar. Those streets just went from one-way to two-way last week. Maybe the CRC can better connect a pair of twin cities.
I found the Oregonian article I read a little while ago:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/01/conversion_to_twoway_streets_r.html
It’s about converting three of the main streets through downtown Vancouver to two-way traffic. This is like traffic calming, but even better. Instead of three lanes northbound with some drivers weaving across all lanes, there’s now one each way, parking, and a center turn lane to serve businesses.
Vancouver is doing some good things, the CRC could keep us better connected to our twin city if we don’t go full stupid on it.
“A 12 lane bridge will induce it’s own congestion.”
We’ll never get a new bridge witih so much made up nonsense injected into the planning and decision making.
Terry: you are quite the ideologue, so determined to perpetuate the myth that your low-density version of American Dream was and is still self-made. It wasn’t and isn’t. Several studies have identified the role of federal and state highway construction in promoting low-density surburban development in the post-WWII era. Another less mentioned federal subsidy came in the form of federal investment in water and sewer systems. States and localities could receive up to 80% of the capital costs of treatment facilities. This allowed suburban localities the extravagance of inefficiently serving the low-density development they favored with their zoning laws (talk about socialistic dictators). These subsidies have been radically curtailed the last 30 years. That is one reason why in Oregon- where we are uber-cheap about paying public infrastructure- we now have tons of land sitting idle within our urban growth boundaries.
“A 12 lane bridge will induce it’s own congestion.”
We’ll never get a new bridge with so much made up nonsense injected into the planning and decision making.
I think I was misunderstood, I don’t think “induced congestion” is a legitimate factor in disqualifying a project. It means that transit and highways can’t serve that many people, and it’s a failure in my opinion. Anyway…
I meant that the federal and state authorities have said that 6 lanes in a direction gets no benefit over 5, due to weaving maneuvers. 5 lanes each way (10 total) is the most that is beneficial without barriers. You get too much weaving, swerving, etc to get a benefit. 6 lanes in any direction causes too many problems, overall.
If we’re going to do barrier separated HOV/HOT/truck lanes, let’s make that a separate project, or a re-do from the ground-up. Otherwise, 10 lanes (if we’re going to do the CRC) is the right amount to avoid unneeded idling.
Trevor Stewart “Another less mentioned federal subsidy came in the form of federal investment in water and sewer systems”
ws: You forgot electricity. Another one is the internets, for some rural areas.
Terry Parker’s suggestion that drivers pay there way also deserves a response… even though I know this myth has been laid to waste many times before here on Portland Transport.
Even if you look at just the highway system (the roads used almost exclusively by drivers) only about 60% of the revenue sources come from tolls, gas taxes, or vehicle registration fees. The rest comes by other general taxes and fees unrelated to car/road use. Revenue sources for non-highway roads is even less tied to any sort of user fee.
See the Brookings Institutes “Fueling Transportation Finance: A Primer on the Gas Tax:”
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2003/03transportation_puentes/gastax.pdf
The argument that any transportation mode should be funded exclusively by user fees (also suggested by Parker) is flawed since they all have some benefits to society separate from the benefits to individual users. Some also have significant non-transportation related costs.
All forms of transportation and thus forms of development (low and high density) are going to be subsidized.So the debate should be less about who is or who is not “paying there way” and more about the societal benefits or costs of “subsidizing” a particular mode of transportation and development.
The is also clearly a public good in maximizing people’s choices and not forcing them to be reliant on one mode of transportation as is that case in most low-density developments. Alas Terry Parker’s notion of the American Dream involves its own form of socialistic tyranny that is thankfully being eroded by both market forces and smarter transportation investments.
The proposed 12-lane CRC flies in the face of both. How regrettable and embarrassing that it is being proposed by the transportation planners, civic leaders, and elected officials from our region.
Trevor
What is curious is that all this talk about 8, 10 or 12 lanes is driven by the so-called need to accommodate the local traffic that accounts for 1/3 to 1/2 of the I-5’s volume. Why local traffic on an Interstate freeway? Why not on adjacent arterials or frontage roads for local traffic? We need a “Broadway Bridge” across the Columbia (with light rail) for the local traffic.
That allows the removal of substandard on/off ramps and for better flow on the existing three thru freeway lanes. Under the current thinking, after $4+ Billion, I will still have to get on the Interstate to have a drink at Shenanigan’s!
“The size of the house, the type of the preferably American brand vehicle and the yard is not for the government to decide, either through tax policy or otherwise.”
So you agree, Terry, that the federal income tax deduction for mortgage interest is fundamentally un-American, and should be repealed immediately?
I heard Chairman Mao rose to power behind a similar tax policy.
I agree completely with Lenny, the best solution is a seperate local traffic bridge with path and LRT.
Unit said: “And in case you missed it, the transition of power from your generation to mine has already occurred.”
This statement in itself sounds like a dictatorial statement. There was a transition of power when Castro took over Cuba, and Cuba’s economy has suffered ever since.
John E said; “Only the large vehicles (Tractor trailer rigs) cause road damage.”
It depends on the number of axles and how the weight is distributed per axle. In actuality, TriMet’s busses do more damage to roads than most trucks (per PBOT) because so much weight is concentrated on just two axles.
As for induces demand; Building out light rail coupled with the government subsidies for high density neighborhoods creates an induced demand for more urban heat islands of development, now also in the suburbs.
Come on TP, what about me? Let us know your thoughts on federal tax policy re: interest deductions. I’d love to see how you squeeze that into your meme.
Terry Parker:Furthermore, not everybody wants to live in tenement style high density development cubicles, no matter how lavish they may be constructed; ride transit or even a bicycle.
ws:You don’t do the phrase “American Dream” justice when you define the meaning for everyone.
No, not everyone enjoys living in denser housing units. You’re operating under some notion that the suburban landscape was developed by people’s choice (on the free market) rather then a set of rules and conditions, mostly unintentional, that paved the way for this type of lifestyle that people “choose”.
Yes, some do like it, however, you should note that this type of housing with a large setback from the road, single use zoning, large lots, and garages in the front of the house is not determined by people’s choice, rather it is the only legal option provided to developers to build.
With the massive amount of people who left the city, aided by large government funding that promoted fringe city development and automobile use, came about one of our countries’ largest movement of people and wealth.
A common argument for “choosing” the suburbs are schools. I don’t blame some people for wanting better schools, often found in suburban communities. It’s no wonder they’re better, they moved much of the taxes and funding to the fringes and left poor tax-base to fund inner city schools.
Even more of a common argument upheld by the pro-sprawl crowd is the perception of safety. Parents of these areas usually argue that their neighborhoods are free from crime and gangs, but have no convictions for handing the keys off to their 16 year old children without acknowledging that the leading cause of death for teenagers is not crime, but motor vehicle accidents.
So, for those who do not enjoy highly dense downtowns, their only “choice” for a quieter environment (really just a default choice) is the suburban-sprawl moonscape.
Unfortunately, we don’t (and can’t) build nice neighborhoods like we used to (like Ladd’s Addition), which I think is a good alternative to suburban sprawl and does not bankrupt municipalities.
If cities had had the option in the 50’s and 60’s to spend their federal highway money on upgraded transit instead of highways thru their very hearts, we would have very different cities. In Portland we would have an eastbank park to match the westbank, Goose Hollow would be a thriving center of the PSU community, Lower Albina would be hopping from Interstate to MLK, and so on.
Freeways were built thru and at the expense of those urban communities least able to defend themselves, and sucked the middle class out into our adjacent farmlands. In light of the toxic impacts of these high capacity roadways as well as the increasingly dire warnings of global warming experts, we should be spending our time and energy getting these monsters removed as quickly as possible.
If cities had had the option in the 50’s and 60’s to spend their federal highway money on upgraded transit instead of highways thru their very hearts, we would have very different cities.
Or maybe our economy would have collapsed, or maybe pet unicorns would be popular these days. It’s at best a guess, and I don’t see how that could change an opinion.
Vancouver is getting more and more jobs located in Vancouver. People are realizing they have a talented work force across the river. Think of New Jersey. A lot of the jobs are in New York (Portland), and as New York (Portland) grows, New Jersey (Vancouver) will find a way to employ more people.
Yes, UPS solved their problem with I-5 by building a sub-hub in Vancouver and putting 100 folks to work there. Now if Washington would legalize triples, freight could get moving across I-5 that much better on the six lanes we have.
Grant,
Be it a single family house, a townhouse, a condo, a cabin, a home in the country, etc – the choice is yours – there is a big difference between a “voluntary program” that helps (by a little incentive) people and families purchase probably the largest investment in a lifetime, the home they live in, as compared to a socialistic program that “forces” people to do something or not do something. An example of the latter would be excessive unaffordable and manipulative tolls, and/or divisive rationing of highway capacity to get (attempting to force) people out of their cars.
Terry Parker: “Be it a single family house, a townhouse, a condo, a cabin, a home in the country, etc – the choice is yours – there is a big difference between a “voluntary program” that helps (by a little incentive) people and families purchase probably the largest investment in a lifetime, the home they live in, as compared to a socialistic program that “forces” people to do something or not do something. An example of the latter would be excessive unaffordable and manipulative tolls, and/or divisive rationing of highway capacity to get (attempting to force) people out of their cars.”
ws: I don’t think anyone has an issue with choosing to live where one wants, but a lot of our issues regarding this bridge project are being induced by a particular lifestyle in a far-off county, and the burden is being placed on everyone and not just the ones creating the mess.
Tolls are not trying to force anyone out of their cars, rather they are correcting for the externalities of the automobile by making them pay more of their “fare” (pun intended) share.
Certainly there’s a debate about what is a reasonable toll amount. It shouldn’t be too onerous and it shouldn’t be too low – but it should account for all of the externalities that automobile ridership across the river creates: congestion, parking demand, environmental degredation, and municipal safety services, and need for local street expansion to support more traffic.
I’m sure some people want to be punitive in the tolling amount, but most do not want to.
So Terry, you think government subsidies through tax policy is ok, if it provides people with housing (and by logical extension, transportation) choices? I couldn’t agree more. Glad to see you are finally coming around on that issue.
Lenny Anderson: If cities had had the option in the 50’s and 60’s to spend their federal highway money on upgraded transit instead of highways thru their very hearts, we would have very different cities. In Portland we would have an eastbank park to match the westbank
I would doubt that would happen; rather the Eastside would still be a very industrialized area, and it’s even quite possible that marine traffic would continue to florish. The eastside was filled with railroad yards (which is where most of the land for I-5 was reclaimed from), transloading docks/wharfs, and rail-served warehouses. In fact every railroad had direct access to the Eastside – the Union Pacific, Southern Pacific, Portland Traction Company, Northern Pacific Terminal/Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railway – all had their “streets” and each railroad had a switching line on a given street. Many of these railroad lines are still embedded in the streets but only the UP ex-SP Valley Main is still in use, the others partially paved over, ripped up or otherwise removed from service.
Likewise, the west bank would continue to be used for commercial/industrial/marine purposes, just as it had been pre-Harbor Drive.
The only real difference between “then” and “now”? We probably wouldn’t have Rivergate, because Rivergate is where Portland’s rail/marine related industry had to move to when it was banished from downtown. I-5 didn’t kill off greenspace, it killed the industrial core of the city.
The Willamette River of much of the 1900s was a sad place. In retrospect, we ought to be THANKING the freeway system for clearing out those industries away from the river, and it was the construction of I-5 that allowed for the demolition of Harbor Drive – and thus the creation of Waterfront Park. Without I-5, we’d still have Harbor Drive, and without Harbor Drive, there’d be dozens of businesses. In whose interest is it for the city to demolish hundreds of businesses and homes for a park?
The notion that we can magically remove I-5…what is going to be “the next big thing”, to paraphrase a certain marketing slogan? A I-5 tunnel – Portland’s second “Big Dig”? Widening I-405? A new Westside Freeway? Or an assumtion that the freeway traffic will magically disappear and everyone will walk with a huge, fake smile on their face to the nearest MAX station, where MAX and streetcar trains will whisk the whole family away to faraway destinations (cue Jetsons opening theme, but replace the flying cars with Streetcars)?
A twelve-lane expressway is just a waste. *Everywhere*.
So, this is an expressway. At two lanes each way, you’ve essentially maxxed out its usefulness. Given high exit frequency, three lanes each way to account for entry and exit ramps makes sense.
If you have more passengers than that, you get far more bang for your buck with a rail line.
A rail line has a very high people-moving capacity — and there are enough people moving to support it.
As for local traffic, it really deserves its own bridge on a local road.
As for freight, UPGRADE THE BNSF BRIDGE ALREADY. UPS doesn’t need triple-trailers on the road, which are mind-bogglingly dangerous, if they have an intermodal yard and a good double-track train line.
In sum:
— double-track MAX extension to Hayden Island and Vancouver. Big garages in Vancouver to suck up traffic and put it on the train before it funnels into the river bridges.
— upgraded double-track freight rail bridge.
— arterial bridge for short-distance truck and car traffic
— highway bridge for through-traffic only. Cutting the Hayden Island exit entirely would probably speed up traffic quite a lot, and simplify the bridge design.
Incidentally, any urban expressway bridge will be obsolete the moment it opens. Because urban expressways are already obsolete technology. Expressways are only suitable for low-volume rural applications (for which they’re fairly good, to be fair).
Build a bridge with support for four tracks of rail line at high speeds — that won’t become obsolete for a hundred years.
Of course it was the conversion of overseas shipping to containers that moved harbors out of close in locations. Portland was slow to respond, loosing business to Sea/Tac; Portland now handles 1% of westcoast containers, exporting mostly air (empties) and straw.
Even ODOT’s chair…Glenn Jackson…recognized at the time that the Marquam Bridge and Eastbank Freeway were huge mistakes.
A boulevard along the eastside would move as much traffic as the freeway does in the peaks…like the Embarcadero in SF…freeing up land for parks and development.
anon. wrote: UPS doesn’t need triple-trailers on the road, which are mind-bogglingly dangerous, if they have an intermodal yard and a good double-track train line.
Those UPS triples aren’t going to places where intermodal railyards exist.
They go to places like the Oregon Coast, to Central Oregon…where no railroad will operate an intermodal facility for three or four flatcars a day.
Lenny Anderson wrote: A boulevard along the eastside would move as much traffic as the freeway does in the peaks…like the Embarcadero in SF
The Embarcadero doesn’t serve the same purpose as a freeway does; S.F. has I-80 running through it, plus the I-280 (which the Embarcadero becomes), plus U.S. 101 is a freeway at the north end and across the Golden Gate.
A better example would be U.S. 101 as it leaves the freeway alignment and becomes an seven-lane boulevard on Van Ness or Lombard…and there is a LOT of opposition in Portland towards streets being that wide (i.e. Burnside couplet project).
North Division, in Spokane, is a perfect example. Spokane doesn’t have a north-south freeway, it has Division which carries two major highways (U.S. 2 and U.S. 395). And many stretches have four through lanes in each direction, plus two left turn lanes.
Freeways don’t seem so bad, anymore.
Removing freeways from the Central City will not be easy, but when Portland begins to grow again, the land under the Eastbank freeway will be that much more valuable and a way will be found and funded.
Erik Halstead:“North Division, in Spokane, is a perfect example. Spokane doesn’t have a north-south freeway, it has Division which carries two major highways (U.S. 2 and U.S. 395). And many stretches have four through lanes in each direction, plus two left turn lanes.”
ws: Except they’re building a new 10 mile north/south freeway section at the tune of 3 billion dollars.