The CRC Money Pit


Thursday’s O had a front page story on the $65M that has already gone into Columbia River Crossing planning, likely to rise to $100M within the next year ($30M of that coming from ODOT funds). The article goes on to look at potential cost reductions for the project given the diminishing likelihood of full funding.

If nothing else, you should check out the wonderful graphic accompanying the story – the graphic itself drew commentary on the O’s commuting blog.

Meanwhile, the project is pursing its tolling options, the funding source it is increasingly appearing to rely on. The project has launched a separate tolling web site, which outlines six tolling scenarios, the most aggressive being variable tolling at rates up to $8.00 (in 2006 dollars – how much is that now?).


87 responses to “The CRC Money Pit”

  1. So now we’ve spent more money than the aerial tram cost to build, including all overruns, or a starter streetcar line costs to build, just dreaming up the thing?

  2. I have brought up in several meeting that tolls (in “perpetuity” as ci. of Portland seems to want) would very likely end up paying for other major projects, once the huge CRC bridge was built. The increased traffic would be inevitable over time, no matter how much light rail helps. And the cries to bury I-5 would once again re-emerge…and probably at a significantly inflated cost.

    Since an official report had already been issued stating that I-5 had reached its limit, this report should have been disclosed early on in the CRC discussions. Not to do so is a glaring omission, and make you wonder what the real reason for asking for tolling in perpetuity is.

    Can someone say T-R-A-N-S-P-A-R-E-N-C-Y?

  3. From the article: Even the Portland-Milwaukie light rail line, with no highway element, is likely to cost $37.5 million in planning from 2006 through next year.

    I’m sure there’s also outrage for this money pit here? Right?

    The CRC could be cheaper if we only built the LRT part, built a new separate crossing, if we skipped some of the interchanges, or if we skipped the LRT, but it seems like no matter what we’ll never be able to get that much support for any one option. Do we just leave the Yellow line ending at the Expo Center and leave the current bridges as a monument to our region’s unwillingness to keep up with growth and aging infrastructure?

  4. Do we just leave the Yellow line ending at the Expo Center and leave the current bridges as a monument to our region’s unwillingness to keep up with growth and aging infrastructure?

    No! Just solve the problem!!
    see: NoBridgeTolls.com

    Thanks
    JK

  5. “So now we’ve spent more money than the aerial tram cost to build, including all overruns, or a starter streetcar line costs to build, just dreaming up the thing?”

    The Columbia River Crossing not only carries freight, but I do believe it also has more considerably users than the Tram and a streetcar start up line combined.

    The real money pit is in providing alternative transportation options: half a million dollars a month to operate WES for approximately 575 passengers a day, transit fares in general covering only about a quarter of the operating costs and little to none of the infrastructure costs including the proposed new transit bridge without tolls crossing the Willamette, $1.9M for bicycle infrastructure on the Morrison Bridge that the bicyclists themselves are not paying for, etc, etc, etc.

    I am against tolling in general; but I am also a realist and realize that tolling may be necessary to help fund a new bridge. If tolling does become part of the funding package it must be equitable and balanced for all users. Therefore, the payee base must broadened to include tolling for all modes of travel using the I-5 corridor crossing, including bicyclists and transit passengers.

    Additionally, tolling must NOT be used for social engineering purposes, and only for a basic simplistic structure rather than a structure with artsy add on costs. Tolls must only be used to help pay for the infrastructure of the mode of transport being used with no cross subsidies paid by one mode to subsidize another mode’s infrastructure or operational costs. Motorist paid tolls must only be used to help fund the construction of motor vehicle infrastructure. Deadbeat bicyclists that currently freeload must be required to pay their own way with tolls and taxes, including paying all the local match dollars for bicycle infrastructure which is estimated to be three percent of the total project costs. Tolls and/or transit fare surcharges must also be charged to all transit passengers to pay any local match dollars required for transit components, plus and including the transit operational costs. Using motorist paid tolls to fund non-motor vehicle infrastructure is a form of tax discrimination.

    By adopting a user paid model by mode for the infrastructure costs on the CRC, the public can no longer be deceived by transit advocates and bicyclists as to where the real and ongoing money pit exists.

  6. One other note; the Oregonian article also states planners are looking for ways to cut the costs of the project including phasing in some of the highway interchanges after the critical components are done. That makes total sense. But planners also need to be looking at eliminating some of the excessive bicycle infrastructure, phasing in some of the transit components at a later date if there is truly a real and not just a politically generated demand for it, and purging all the other costs that are not specifically related to the movement of goods and people.

  7. You gotta love how Terry uses words like “must”, as though he were somehow involved in the decision-making process, and in place to set conditions.

  8. And s usual the story leaves out the cost of light rail portion with all it’s elements.

    I have yet to read a single story with a full accounting figure for the light rail portion of the proposed CRC.

    Is that just an accidental ommition?
    From every story?

    Is it not important?

    No one is interested?

    What?

  9. John E. –

    I’m not a CRC decision-maker, but personally I’m perfectly open to considering light rail as a separate project, but on the condition that a number of alternatives that the CRC _never_ properly considered be back on the table, including an arterial crossing, realignment of the railroad bridge, etc.

  10. John E And s usual the story leaves out the cost of light rail portion with all it’s elements.

    I have yet to read a single story with a full accounting figure for the light rail portion of the proposed CRC.

    Is that just an accidental ommition?
    JK: It is buried in the technical reports (the other 5000 pages of the DEIS):
    From Table 19,Columbia River Crossing, Cost Risk Assessment:
    $63 million light rail, South, (table 19 line item)
    $272 million light rail bridge, (table 19 line item)
    $288 million light rail, North, (table 19 line item)
    $95 million – (Calculated: Rail allocation of permits etc: 25.3% of 377 million)
    $730 MILLION total
    ??? Light rail cost hidden in highway components such as interchange/over pass reconstruction.

    Guess $900 million to a billion before the inevitable cost overruns.

    All that to serve the 1209 people that currently use transit over the I5 bridge – only Portland planners and Metro could be so disrespectful of other people’s money.

    See NoBridgeTolls.com for the low cost version that won’t require tolls.

    Thanks
    JK

  11. dear car lovers , how about the millions of tons of toxic pollution coming out the back side of your rig , that is literally killing all of us walkers and bike riders, I want to toll your car every foot it moves and pay for health care for your victims.

  12. billb: dear car lovers , how about the millions of tons of toxic pollution coming out the back side of your rig ,
    JK: Guess you haven’t been paying attention to the facts lately – modern cars are almost pollution free.

    Unlike buses that still belch black smoke. And trucks. And all that construction equipment that they use to build those ugly high rise condo bunkers.

    Of course, light rail, being electrically powered, emits uranium. thorium and mercury from the coal fired power plants.

    Both bus and LRT use more energy per passenger mile than a small car. Both cost many times what small cars cost.
    See: PortlandFacts.com

    billb: that is literally killing all of us walkers and bike riders,
    JK: Please show us the proof that auto emissions are killing anyone. (Not trucks, not buses, just automobiles. And please nothing from the multinational environmental corporations like the Sierra Club et al.)

    billb: I want to toll your car every foot it moves and pay for health care for your victims.
    JK: Better start out with buses, trucks and light rail if you really want to toll pollution.

    Thanks
    JK

  13. Guess you haven’t been paying attention to the facts lately – modern cars are almost pollution free.

    There’s a lot of pliability in that “almost”, JK.

    Of course, light rail, being electrically powered, emits uranium. thorium and mercury from the coal fired power plants.

    Nice try there, JK. In the past you’ve been a staunch advocate for extracting oil to power cars from oil shale deposits, which are rich in the by-products you just itemized.

  14. Nice try there, JK. In the past you’ve been a staunch advocate for extracting oil to power cars from oil shale deposits, which are rich in the by-products you just itemized.
    JK: If you are claiming that these products END UP in the gasoline that is the final product, please provide a credible source.

    And explain why we would not require their removal?

    Thanks
    JK

  15. If you are claiming that these products END UP in the gasoline […]

    I’m claiming they end up _somewhere_. The uranium released from coal-fired plants doesn’t “end up” in MAX, either.

    And explain why we would not require their removal?

    I dunno, JK — explain why we would not require their removal from coal-fired power plants, either?

  16. Bob R. Says:

    If you are claiming that these products END UP in the gasoline […]

    I’m claiming they end up _somewhere_.
    JK: The somewhere is important. They could be put back in the ground. They could be used for nuclear fuel. I don’t know, that is why I asked. That you don’t know shows that you are just throwing out accusations.

  17. They could be put back in the ground. […] I don’t know, that is why I asked. […]

    And then…

    That you don’t know shows that you are just throwing out accusations.

    Pot, kettle, black. Sheesh.

    Thanks,
    Bob R.

  18. JK:Please show us the proof that auto emissions are killing anyone. (Not trucks, not buses, just automobiles. And please nothing from the multinational environmental corporations like the Sierra Club et al.)

    ws: It’s not about isolating cars and large vehicles – it’s the fact they use combustion engines. Larger vehicles emit more per car, but there’s more single occupancy vehicles than large trucks and buses.

    Health Risks of living near highways:

    Link

    Link between Ozone Air Pollution and Premature Deaths:

    Link

  19. al m says”
    “This is for you “free market” fanatics:

    Oh, c’mon Al M; a lot of “non-minorities” also have hard luck stories. Now, the Ralph Nader approach I might tolerate; but someone who starts ranting about how their particular experience has been uniquely difficult (like Sonia Sotomayor, for example) I am inclined not to trust.

    Now I hope to put up an article soon about the E-95 Scania buses, which have cut co2 by 90 % and other noxious stuff by two thirds….Oh, those crazy Swedes.

  20. al m says”
    “This is for you “free market” fanatics:

    Oh, c’mon Al M; a lot of “non-minorities” also have hard luck stories. Now, the Ralph Nader approach I might tolerate; but someone who starts ranting about how their particular experience has been uniquely difficult (like Sonia Sotomayor, for example) I am inclined not to trust.

    Now I hope to put up an article soon about the E-95 Scania buses, which have cut co2 by 90 % and other noxious stuff by two thirds….Oh, those crazy Swedes.

  21. al m says”
    “This is for you “free market” fanatics:

    Oh, c’mon Al M; a lot of “non-minorities” also have hard luck stories. Now, the Ralph Nader approach I might tolerate; but someone who starts ranting about how their particular experience has been uniquely difficult (like Sonia Sotomayor, for example) I am inclined not to trust.

    Now I hope to put up an article soon about the E-95 Scania buses, which have cut co2 by 90 % and other noxious stuff by two thirds….Oh, those crazy Swedes.

  22. Now I hope to put up an article soon about the E-95 Scania buses, which have cut co2 by 90 %

    Where on earth are they producing Ethanol with so few carbon emissions?

    The first article I found on the E-95 bus doesn’t make that claim … it hedges with the phrase “reduce fossil carbon dioxide emissions by up to 90%”. So either they are referring strictly to tailpipe emissions while ignoring the production of the fuel itself, or they’ve come up with some kind of miracle ehanol production technique that nobody else has come close to achieving yet. Oh, those crazy press releases.

  23. wsIt’s not about isolating cars and large vehicles – it’s the fact they use combustion engines. Larger vehicles emit more per car, but there’s more single occupancy vehicles than large trucks and buses.
    JK: Sorry, it IS ABOUT CARS. Here is the original quotation:
    dear car lovers , how about the millions of tons of toxic pollution coming out the back side of your rig , that is literally killing all of us walkers and bike riders, I want to toll your car every foot it moves and pay for health care for your victims.

    Where is the evidence that CARS kill people with pollution?

    As to your first link, it is to a newspaper story reporting the start of a study, NOT THE RESULTS. And the study isn’t even about cars – its about highways. I hope you can tell the difference.

    Once again I ask for evidence and you give [Moderator: Expletive removed.] .

  24. to JK:

    Cost of Bad Air in South Coast and San Joaquin Air Basins:

    http://business.fullerton.edu/centers/iees/reports/Benefits%20of%20Meeting%20Clean%20Air%20Standards.pdf

    If So Cal were in federal standard range of air quality there would be 3,860 fewer deaths for those 30 and older.

    EPA air pollution sources:

    Particle Matter:

    http://www.epa.gov/OMS/invntory/overview/pollutants/pm.htm

    Nitrogen Oxide:

    http://www.epa.gov/OMS/invntory/overview/pollutants/nox.htm

    Hydrocarbons:

    http://www.epa.gov/OMS/invntory/overview/pollutants/hydrocarbons.htm

    Carbon Monoxide:

    http://www.epa.gov/OMS/invntory/overview/pollutants/carbonmon.htm

    The air quality study also shows that if So. Coast air basin met federal standards, then it would save 22 billion a year in air quality costs.

    In other words, bad air above federal standards in the these two areas cost people 22 billion dollars

    Air pollution is an externality – it is a cost imposed on everyone.

    Cars in particular are a major source of bad air quality standards as shown by the EPA PM 2.5 sources. There is a clear correlation between cars and Particle matter/ozone pollution. Ozone and PM pollution above certain levels kills people.

    So yes, car air pollution has lead to people dying.

  25. I might add, the study I posted was in regards to standards above federal limits and the what-ifs if it were reduced to fed standards.

    Assuming there was no human induced pollution (from cars), there would be even more lives saved. This is obviously impossible (and I do enjoy my modern lifestyle, btw), but this merely shows the impact that bad air has on people’s health.

    Light gasoline trucks, car, motorcycles are responsible for 25% of particle matter (PM 2.5) air pollution, as linked above to EPA’s website.

  26. Dear transit and bicycle lovers,

    How about accepting and demonstrating some responsibility by paying your own way instead of poaching, pilfering and pickpocketing the funds from everybody else. Sustainability starts with financial self sustainability. Transit and bicycling alternatives can never be sustainable until they are financially self-sustainable without any subsidies from motorists (which include raiding parking meter revenue), and from other taxes including the payroll tax in Oregon and the sales tax in Washington.

  27. Terry Parker: Transit and bicycling alternatives can never be sustainable until they are financially self-sustainable without any subsidies from motorists (which include raiding parking meter revenue), and from other taxes including the payroll tax in Oregon and the sales tax in Washington.

    Why, Terry? You make pronouncements like this and never explain “why?”.

    It’s almost as if the rest of the world doesn’t exist. All that transit, all those bicycles . . . if they’re not sustainable, why are they still there?

  28. ws Says: EPA air pollution sources:
    Particle Matter:
    http://www.epa.gov/OMS/invntory/overview/pollutants/pm.htm
    JK: Once again I checked one of YOUR references and it turns out to be complete [Moderator: Expletive removed.] .
    From YOUR references pie charts:
    first chart: 1999 National Emissions by Source: Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
    On Road Mobile Sources = 10%

    Second chart: 1999 National Emissions by Source: Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
    On-Road Mobile Sources
    Cars & motorcycles = 15%
    Diesel Vehicles = 72%

    Try to follow this grade school arithmetic:
    On road is 10% of total; cars are 15% of on road. Therefore cars are 15% of 10% or 1.5%
    Got that: cars are 1.5% of the total PM2.5 and this guy claims cars are killing people, while he ignores the 72% of 10% due to diesel which includes transit buses. Whatever damage cars do, is almost certainly less than buses since cars use LESS ENERGY pre passenger mile than buses. Want to talk about light rail pollution from burning coal? (Actually I’m through wasting my time with this guy.)

    So once again an anti car zealot is shown to have [Moderator: Expletive removed.] for proof.
    I’m not going to waste my time debunking the rest of your [Moderator: Expletive removed.] .

    Thanks
    JK

  29. Transit and bicycling alternatives can never be sustainable until they are financially self-sustainable without any subsidies from motorists

    So once again an anti car zealot is shown to have [Moderator: Expletive removed.] for proof.

    You guys give me Excedrin headache number 23!

    BTW. have you noticed that we are getting the HOTTEST weather since they started keeping records?

  30. BTW. have you noticed that we are getting the HOTTEST weather since they started keeping records?
    JK: Not True. Hottest in, maybe 50 years. Oregon’s hottest temp was set many, many years ago.

    Thanks
    JK

  31. JK: Not True. Hottest in, maybe 50 years. Oregon’s hottest temp was set many, many years ago.

    Jim old buddy, correct me if I’m wrong but did we not get a record “high” for the low yesterday?

    What’s happening right in front of our noses is clear evidence of global warming.

    Colder winters and hotter and hotter summers!

    If we don’t get moving on this problem we are all gonna be DEAD!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

  32. Al, JK –

    This is not an existence of global warming debate site. Drop it.

    JK –

    Drop the profanity.

    Thanks,
    Bob R.

  33. Since the moderator is in a moderating mood… I think you forgot one profanity in JK’s post above.

    :)

    [Moderator: Corrected.]

  34. JK:

    I get some strange feeling you do not like me. I don’t believe it, though. Point was, you said prove that cars have killed people from their tailpipe emissions and pollution. Cars contribute to air pollution, air pollution kills people. Really, pretty simple.

    JK:Where is the evidence that CARS kill people with pollution?

    ws:What would happen if someone closed their garage door and turned on their car?

  35. [Moderator: Complaint about moderator action and demand to either include new counter-arguments or remove other comments removed. The initial arguments were allowed to stand, and then both parties were told to drop the topic. Case closed.]

  36. ws: I get some strange feeling you do not like me.
    JK: Personally, how should I know if you are likable. As to the “information” you post, I get tired of correcting your many mistakes. You really should quit considering the Sierra club Weekly reader as a primary source. They lie to get you to send money. Same for the other multi-national corporations getting rich peddling green panic.

    ws: What would happen if someone closed their garage door and turned on their car?
    JK: According to a number of people, not much – the deadly CO is burned to CO2 in the catalytic converter.

    Thanks
    JK

  37. The CRC may carry freight, but I’ll bet *far more* freight by tonnage is carried by the BNSF railway bridge over the Columbia River.

    Of course, any consideration of improvements to that are “out of scope” according to the email I got from the CRC people. That’s an outright violation of NEPA, of course — failure to consider reasonable alternatives — but what’s a little lawbreaking among friends?

    It’s apparent that the CRC people are dead set, for backroom political reasons, on adding highway lanes, whether or not it’s the best thing to do (and it’s obviously not). Any alternative which might suggest that it isn’t needed is not allowed to be considered. :-P

  38. According to a number of people, not much – the deadly CO is burned to CO2 in the catalytic converter.

    30 seconds on Google reveals this peer-reviewed paper:

    Journal of Forensic Sciences
    Volume 51 Issue 5, Pages 1158 – 1159
    Published Online: 31 Aug 2006

    CASE REPORT
    Suicidal Asphyxiation by Inhalation of Automobile Emission without Carbon Monoxide Poisoning

    Stephen J. deRoux, M.D.
    Office of Chief Medical Examiner
    520 First Avenue
    New York, NY 10016

    ABSTRACT: Reported herein is the suicidal asphyxiation of a young man due to exhaustion of oxygen in the interior of a sealed automobile into which the exhaust emissions were diverted. His blood carboxyhemaglobin concentration was less than 5% saturation. The car was equipped with a catalytic converter and when tested, the exhaust carbon monoxide concentration was 0.01%.

    Anybody want to buy a copy?

  39. Ethanol production is just in its infancy state: I have no idea what the source for Scania’a ethanol would be, and how much CO2 is being made in the distillation process. But I think this is a technology that will make advances. According to the article I read, which was on GCC, or some other enviro-site, other harmful emissions which typically stem from diesel fuel were also dramatically cut. Finally, I believe existing diesel engines can be converted to this ethanol blend. Not sure what the costs are.

    Didn’t say I had all the answers did I? I still find the low floor concept, in electric powered buses, intriguing for a number of reason. I think the double decker design could work well if they were limited to express routes where they knew there was sufficient clearance. London is doing it—aren’t they progressive, too–or is it just Portland, Seattle and SF?

    Have the Swedes invested much in light rail transit? Didn’t see much when I was there, just the regular train lines.

  40. Hey Bob R.,

    While you are googling can you find out what percentage of cities on the planet with population above 400,000 have built systems like the MAX?

  41. No, I’m not going to do everyone’s homework.

    But I suggest you start with metro areas, not cities, and a population base somewhere over a million or two, as MAX is a regional system, not a city-of-Portland system.

    Happy hunting.

  42. Ron Swaren Says: While you are googling can you find out what percentage of cities on the planet with population above 400,000 have built systems like the MAX?

    If you want to offer me a nice grant I’d be happy to do your research for you.

  43. Bob R.Anybody want to buy a copy?

    ws:From the article:

    “The causes of death were attributed to inhalation of the products of combustion. They stated that the primary cause of death in both cases was inhalation of toxic levels of CO2”

    This discussion is getting silly, but all I was trying to show was that bad air can lead to premature death to sensitive people and that cars are apart of a cities’ overall bad air quality. Yet, Karlock thinks that rainbows and lollipops come out of car tailpipes.

  44. Yet, Karlock thinks that rainbows and lollipops come out of car tailpipes.
    JK: Quit mischaracterizing me.

    I was disagreeing with you blaming cars for “bad air” when they are a tiny fraction of emissions. Probably even less than buses.

    BTW, there is less pollution in low density areas because of less emission sources per unit area.

    Thanks
    JK

  45. [Moderator: Confusing and incorrect attributions corrected.]

    JK Originally wrote:
    According to a number of people, not much – the deadly CO is burned to CO2 in the catalytic converter.

    Bob R. replied:

    30 seconds on Google reveals this peer-reviewed paper:
    ……

    The car was equipped with a catalytic converter and when tested, the exhaust carbon monoxide concentration was 0.01%.

    JK now replies:
    30 seconds on Google found that .01% CO is not particularly deadly:

    35 ppm (0.0035%) Headache and dizziness within six to eight hours of constant exposure
    100 ppm (0.01%) Slight headache in two to three hours
    200 ppm (0.02%) Slight headache within two to three hours; loss of judgment
    400 ppm (0.04%) Frontal headache within one to two hours
    800 ppm (0.08%) Dizziness, nausea, and convulsions within 45 min; insensible within 2 hours
    1,600 ppm (0.16%) Headache, tachycardia, dizziness, and nausea within 20 min; death in less than 2 hours
    3,200 ppm (0.32%) Headache, dizziness and nausea in five to ten minutes. Death within 30 minutes.
    6,400 ppm (0.64%) Headache and dizziness in one to two minutes. Convulsions, respiratory arrest, and death in less than 20 minutes.
    12,800 ppm (1.28%) Unconsciousness after 2-3 breaths. Death in less than three minutes.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide_poisoning

    Thanks
    JK

  46. JK, your post about CO is completely irrelevant. The article was about CO2. You were the one who wanted to discount the involvement of CO in such a scenario, and I played along…

    Scroll up, and you’ll see that WS said:

    What would happen if someone closed their garage door and turned on their car?

    Then you said:

    According to a number of people, not much – the deadly CO is burned to CO2 in the catalytic converter.

    That is when I linked to a peer-reviewed paper about CO2, _not_ CO.

    The whole point of the article is that the victim died from CO2 asphyxiation, not CO.

    And there’s plenty of other examples — I chose the one which was a scientific paper published in a peer-reviewed journal.

  47. Here is a list of USA cities that have wasted money on light rail and its cost per passenger-mile. Keep in mind that the average USA car costa around $0.20.

    Agency……………………………………………………………………… Pass Miles……… Cost/pm
    Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority………..291,157,513…….1.38
    San Diego Metropolitan Transit System………………………………..207,726,689…….0.42
    Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon ………..186,540,535…….1.11
    Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority………………………..176,196,470…….1.24
    Dallas Area Rapid Transit…………………………………………………..138,867,254……. 3.06
    Bi-State Development Agency……………………………………………137,439,468……..0.90
    Denver Regional Transportation District………………………………119,749,823…….1.39
    San Francisco Municipal Railway……………………………………….106,543,428……..1.98
    Utah Transit Authority…………………………………………………….. 82,248,010……..1.34
    Sacramento Regional Transit District…………………………………..78,760,310………0.97
    New Jersey Transit Corporation………………………………………….72,249,430……..2.22
    Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority……………… 69,595,848……..1.03
    Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority ………………………..54,527,623……..1.75
    Metro Transit ………………………………………………………….52,693,748……..0.70
    Maryland Transit Administration…………………………………………41,318,845……..1.22
    Port Authority of Allegheny County…………………………………….34,681,135……..4.52
    Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas……………….28,317,753……..5.09
    The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority……………………..19,202,136……..1.06
    Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority………………………………14,323,752……..1.92
    New Jersey Transit Corporation……………………………………………13,564,801……..2.65
    New Orleans Regional Transit Authority…………………………………1,622,224……..7.64
    Memphis Area Transit Authority……………………………………………..873,928…….. 5.56
    Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority…………………………871,778……..3.53
    Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority…………………………………862,224 ……. 2.88
    Central Arkansas Transit Authority ………………………………………….249,052…….. 9.89
    Kenosha Transit…………………………………………………………………70,309………4.54
    Island Transit……………………………………………………………………..40,358……17.49
    City of Phoenix Public Transit Department dba Valley Metro…………………….0
    Regional Public Transportation Authority, dba: Valley Metro…………………….0
    King County Department of Transportation – Metro Transit Div…………………0
    Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority……………………………………….0
    North County Transit District………………………………………………………………….0
    Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads……………………………..0
    Charlotte Area Transit System…………………………………………………………………0

    Of course, the cost includes capital cost (as does the car cost), but only for the latest year.

    Thanks
    JK

  48. Bob R. Says:

    JK, your post about CO is completely irrelevant. The article was about CO2. You were the one who wanted to discount the involvement of CO in such a scenario, and I played along…

    Scroll up, and you’ll see that WS said:

    What would happen if someone closed their garage door and turned on their car?

    Then you said:

    According to a number of people, not much – the deadly CO is burned to CO2 in the catalytic converter.
    JK: What is wrong with this answer? Remember the original context was cars harming the environment, not a closed space. The purpose of ws introducing a closed space had to be to show the presence of some toxin, not to argue that cars can exhaust the oxygen supply of the planet. If he was making that argument, well he is just being laughable again. Otherwise he changed the premise of the argument.

    Bob R. Says: That is when I linked to a peer-reviewed paper about CO2, _not_ CO.

    The whole point of the article is that the victim died from CO2 asphyxiation, not CO.
    JK: Is that why the article states:
    asphyxiation of a young man due to exhaustion of oxygen in the interior of a sealed automobile (bold added)
    Are you arguing that cars can exhause all of the oxygen in the world? Otherwise what is your point?
    Again you are missing the context of the discussion – a sealed car has NO relevancy to cars harming the environment.

    Thanks
    JK

  49. For what it’s worth,

    Every city has its unique atmospheric conditions. The local Portland atmosphere vents pretty well most of the time…but summertime temperature inversion conditions used to produce a very distinct brownish haze at times in the 1970’s. Probably not nearly as bad as typical LA conditions…but it certainly could have posed a health risk at many times and would have become worse with more people moving here.

    Various endeavors have reduced that scenario. The Gresham Max ( final cost 18m per mile) might have helped a teentsy weeny bit, too. But now just imagine all the worker bee US citizens going to work every day in whatever mode they can find to earn income which in turn produces taxes to pay for expensive transit projects. Now, that produces a lot of smog and CO2 somewhere in this hemisphere.

  50. WS already quoted from the article for us:

    The causes of death were attributed to inhalation of the products of combustion. They stated that the primary cause of death in both cases was inhalation of toxic levels of CO2.

    Are you arguing that cars can exhause all of the oxygen in the world?

    No. That should be obvious to anyone still bothering to follow along.

    Otherwise what is your point?

    My point is you tried to dismiss the harmfulness of CO2 in WS’s garage scenario, and I provided you with a paper showing that you were incorrect. Plain and simple. That is all.

    a sealed car has NO relevancy to cars harming the environment.

    That statement doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

  51. Ron,

    Much human activity produces harmful emissions. You (and Tom McCall) are probably correct that the air would be cleaner if more people moved somewhere else.

    But the suggestion you seem to be making, that transit projects (among all public and private works) are significant contributions to the problem, is silly. Perhaps we ought to have a moratorium on all new construction in the metro area–houses, shopping malls, factories, big pipes, freeways, light rail, bridges, airports, shipping terminals, skyscrapers, LNG pipelines, electrical transmission lines, aerial trams, apartment buildings, and cul-de-sacs–such a thing would certainly reduce our carbon footprint and might slow population growth trends. But it would be kinda drastic, doncha think? Singling out transit projects, among all those things, as Bad For The Environment, simply makes no sense–especially when the end result of most transit projects is good for the environment.

    Bottom line–if you wanna save the earth, and teach the local construction trade a lesson; stop building so many subdivisions. Complaining about the Green Line is barking up the wrong tree.

  52. Bob R. Says: Data source, method of calculation?
    JK: from http://ti.org/NTD07sum.xls which combines data from the many separate files of the National Transit Database at http://204.68.195.57/ntdprogram/data.htm (select RY 2007 Database (Self-extracting xls)

    The spreadsheet shows method of calculation by inspecting the formulas:
    Passenger-miles is data from Table 19
    Cost is calculated by adding capital cost & operating cost then dividing by passenger-miles.

    You may also want to look at the energy compared to small cars while you are looking at the data. I get the best bus system, in the top ten systems is equal to a car getting 25 mpg and the best toy train is equal to a car getting38 mpg, the next best is 33mpg and the rest are 30 or below. No reason to spend billions to save energy!

    For more data see: Table 2.13, TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 27–2008

    Thanks
    JK

  53. jk: Cost is calculated by adding capital cost & operating cost then dividing by passenger-miles.

    I’m curious. Is the capital cost amortized over 20-30 years?

  54. JeffF Says: jk: Cost is calculated by adding capital cost & operating cost then dividing by passenger-miles.

    I’m curious. Is the capital cost amortized over 20-30 years?
    JK: To be sure, go to the data source listed an read all the footnotes etc.

    My impression is that it is this year’s only, because that is all that the Feds require to be reported. However, when I added up all the capital cost history for Trimet, with amortization, I got a similar number for the total per passenger-mile cost ($1.11) which is posted at portlandfacts.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit-Details(2005).htm.

    You can do a similar calculation for the CRC as follows (all number approximate.)
    1. LRT cost $750e6
    2. Passengers per day: 1650 (per CRC DEIS)
    3. Length of project: 2.5 miles(expo to Clark Coll. Per Google Earth)
    4. Maximum possible annual passenger-miles: 1650peope x 2directions x 2.5miles x 365 days =
    3,011,250
    5. Cost at 7% per year (my recall of the Federal standard) = 750e6 x 0.07 = $52,500,000

    Capital Cost per passenger-mile: $52,500,000 / 3,011,250 = $17.43

    MAX operating cost per mile (from NTD Transit Profiles) : $11.22
    Average C-Tran Portland express bus load: 24.44
    If those people were on MAX instead: $11.22 x 2.5mi / 24.44 = $1.15 per passenger-mile

    Total LRT cost: ….$18.58 per passengr-mile
    Cost of Car: ……..$0.254…..portlandfacts.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit(2005).htm

    As they say: Light Rail Costs Too Much & Does Too Little

    Thanks
    JK

  55. Bob R. says:
    “I’m not going to do everyone’s homework.”

    Ron says:
    “I’m not going to do ANY homework! Life is too short!” (I’m not sure that on that particular subject it would help anyway)

  56. JK-

    I don’t doubt the validity of your “recall of the Federal standard”, but it seems that 7% would amortize capital costs in far too short of a time—about 14+ years. With that standard, all of the original MAX cars, stations, roadbed, catenary/overhead, etc. would all be paid for and MAX rides using original equipment would only have operating costs. Maybe that figure represents an approximate interest rate if the funds were borrowed.

  57. R A Fontes Says:
    I don’t doubt the validity of your “recall of the Federal standard”, but it seems that 7% would amortize capital costs in far too short of a time
    JK: Feel free to look it up and get back to us. (I was too lazy to look it up.)

  58. Only 1600 rides per day on a proposed MAX line across the Columbia? While I’m not going to argue with the DEIS, that seems kinda low. How does that compare with C-Tran ridership?

    One idea which makes sense if MAX runs into Vancouver, and especially goes farther into the Couv then the downtown area, would be to have a line which heads downtown and then continues to the West Side; personal anedoctal experience :) informs me that lots of high-tech workers out here in Washington County happen to live up in Washington State. Right now, that commute is a bit difficult to do with transit. This would likely be an additional line (beyond the Yellow Line, which I assume will be the nomenclature for Milwaukie MAX south of town), but wouldn’t require any additional trackage.

  59. EngineerScotty Says: Only 1600 rides per day on a proposed MAX line across the Columbia? While I’m not going to argue with the DEIS, that seems kinda low. How does that compare with C-Tran ridership?
    JK: Glad you asked:
    Recent data is that 1209 people make round trips across the I5 bridge on C-Tran. (Transit ridership is down, that’s why C-Tran is looking at service cuts.)
    For the link to that 1600 people (3300 boardings) number go to http://www.NoBridgeTolls.com

    EngineerScotty Says: One idea which makes sense if MAX runs into Vancouver,..
    JK: No idea to build light rail makes sense. (Well maybe one somewhere – come to think of it the San Diego LRT was & is cheap – only one in the USA) Cars are cheaper and small cars are more energy efficient. Light rail just costs too much and does too little. See my earlier post for the cost (I have energy too, but the formatting didn’t work out)

    Thanks
    JK

  60. Bob R. Says: WS already quoted from the article for us:
    The causes of death were attributed to inhalation of the products of combustion. They stated that the primary cause of death in both cases was inhalation of toxic levels of CO2.
    JK: OK, you introduce new data, I was answering the original post:
    ABSTRACT: Reported herein is the suicidal asphyxiation of a young man due to exhaustion of oxygen in the interior of a sealed automobile into which the exhaust emissions were diverted. His blood carboxyhemaglobin concentration was less than 5% saturation. The car was equipped with a catalytic converter and when tested, the exhaust carbon monoxide concentration was 0.01%.
    The operative phrase is: due to exhaustion of oxygen

    Bob R. Says: Are you arguing that cars can exhause all of the oxygen in the world?
    No. That should be obvious to anyone still bothering to follow along.

    Otherwise what is your point?
    JK: My point was to point to this in the original post:
    asphyxiation of a young man due to exhaustion of oxygen

    BTW that conflicts with the later quote ws presented which was:
    The causes of death were attributed to inhalation of the products of combustion

    Which is it – inhalation of combustion products or exhaustion of oxygen? They are mutually exclusive. But that is what one usually finds when looking at claims from ws.

    And neither one applies to cars in the “wild”.

    Bob R. Says: My point is you tried to dismiss the harmfulness of CO2 in WS’s garage scenario, and I provided you with a paper showing that you were incorrect. Plain and simple. That is all.

    a sealed car has NO relevancy to cars harming the environment.

    That statement doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
    JK: And the article DID NOT SAY CO2 had any role in the death, it said asphyxiation of a young man due to exhaustion of oxygen

    Thanks
    JK

  61. 1600 rides per day? It looks like CRC backers had bad luck of the draw in the analyst lottery. TriMet’s 35 line has been drawing about 1100 round trip riders for many years, yet the streetcar project anaylists projected almost 5500 riders by 2025; all this from some of the slowest growing areas in the region.

  62. Which is it – inhalation of combustion products or exhaustion of oxygen? They are mutually exclusive.

    No, they are not mutually exclusive at all. When a person is asphyxiated, it doesn’t mean they are suffocated. The combustion products replace the oxygen in the location where the person is breathing. The oxygen is displaced or “exhausted” while the combustion products are “inhaled”.

    This is really very basic stuff, JK.

  63. 1600 rides per day?

    No, 1600 “riders”. JK is taking the estimate of 3300 boardings and dividing to guess at round-trips.

    3300 boardings seems low to me… with the very notable and not-to-be-ignored exception of WES, ridership has generally significantly exceeded estimates for rail projects in our region.

    (And we’ll soon see how well the Green Line estimates hold up — the line is opening with reduced service from original plans during an economic downturn.)

  64. Oops! I really did mean to say “1600 riders”.

    So TriMet expects 46,500 Green Line rides by 2025. Is there an official projection for initial ridership?

    One problem with the necessity of projecting ridership & trip times so far out in the future to justify projects: No accountability. Who’s going to find out what went wrong and how to prevent future problems if we won’t even know if estimates are baseless until decade(s) after critical decisions? Most, if not all, of the people involved will have gone on to other things.

  65. To clarify a bit on Bob’s comment.

    1) Asphyxiation is caused by the body’s failure to absorb sufficient oxygen (via respiration) to support cell metabolism. This can be caused by:

    2) A lack of sufficient oxygen in the air being breathed (or none at all, in cases such as drowning).

    3) The presence of certain gasses in the air–carbon monoxide being a notorious and relevant example–which will readily bind to red blood cells instead of oxygen.

    This is why CO is considered “poisonous” (and rates a 4 for toxicity/health hazard on the “fire diamond”). Carbon monoxide poisoning is not due to a lack of oxygen in the local atmosphere; it is due to the simple presence of CO. CO interferes with normal body function in sufficient concentrations–hence, it is a poison. (Compare this to another highly poisonous gas–hydrogen cyanide, sometimes called Zyklon B, which interferes with the ability of cells to utilized oxygen in their metabolism).

    Carbon dioxide, in sufficiently high concentrations, can also kill by binding with red blood cells in preference to oxygen molecules. The concentration of CO2 needed for this to occur are higher than normal levels of the gas; and of course CO2 is a byproduct of respiration in animals; but people trapped in a mindshaft generally don’t die from “running out of oxygen”; they die from their lungs absorbing CO2 instead, even though the local atmosphere still contains O2.

  66. Thanks, Scotty.

    Anyone not familiar with the challenges faced by the crew of Apollo 13 might also wish to look into the CO2-related troubles of that mission.

  67. JK:And the article DID NOT SAY CO2 had any role in the death, it said asphyxiation of a young man due to exhaustion of oxygen

    ws: The article actually did say that CO2 was the primary cause of death…I have the entire article and already quoted a section.

    Quote:

    “Of note, Atkinson et al. (2) also described a man who was found dead in his car after he discharged two CO2 gas cylinders inside the vehicle.”

    It’s rare but not impossible to die from CO2 saturation.

    Once again, this discussion is getting stupid, but you’re trying to promulgate that bad air quality – partly contributed by automobile activity – is not a negative health impact. I find that insulting to everyone’s intelligence.

    Looking beyond deaths related from poor air quality which is fairly rare, it is a serious health impediment. Car emissions are more than just PM and CO2, anyways.

    Bob R:“Anyone not familiar with the challenges faced by the crew of Apollo 13 might also wish to look into the CO2-related troubles of that mission.”

    ws:How about anyone familiar with other planets’ atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and their inability to support higher life due to this fact.

  68. Anyone doubting the danger of CO2 should do a brief search on safety measures in breweries and wineries, and on the history of accidents in which those measures were not taken properly.

  69. ws Once again, this discussion is getting stupid, but you’re trying to promulgate that bad air quality – partly contributed by automobile activity – is not a negative health impact. I find that insulting to everyone’s intelligence.
    JK: But you are not showing much intelligence by singling out autos’ pm2.5 while ignoring the other 98.5% of the PM2.5 emissions. You are showing no ability to relaistically judge priorities, instead, irrationally picking on cars. Why not pick on buses? Or the coal power plants that run MAX?

    ws Looking beyond deaths related from poor air quality which is fairly rare, it is a serious health impediment.
    JK: Got any proof that it is really a problem in American Cities? (And don’t give me the # of days of one station or another in a big city violating the very low Federal standards as proof of anything except as an excuse for the green multinational corporations’ fund-raising.)

    ws Car emissions are more than just PM and CO2, anyways.
    JK: After your previous statement was completely discredited, you now introduce a new one. Sorry, not interested in debunking more of you crap. However I will observe that since buses use MORE energy than cars (per passenger-mile), they pollute more. If you want to reduce pollution Do NOT advocate transit.

    ws Bob R:”Anyone not familiar with the challenges faced by the crew of Apollo 13 might also wish to look into the CO2-related troubles of that mission.”
    ws:How about anyone familiar with other planets’ atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and their inability to support higher life due to this fact.
    JK: How is this relevant? NO CONCEIVABLE action by man can increase CO2 to levels directly dangerous to humans. Not even burning all of the known fossil fuels. But increased CO2 clearly helps plants grow.

    Thanks
    JK

  70. R A Fontes Says: TriMet’s 35 line has been drawing about 1100 round trip riders for many years

    Bob R. Says: 3300 boardings seems low to me… with the very notable and not-to-be-ignored exception of WES,
    JK: A quick check of nobridgetolls.com/refrences.html#transit shows this:
    From CRC DEIS, Page 3-18:

    About 3,300 weekday daily transit passenger trips across the Columbia River used the I-5 corridor in 2006.1 This includes approximately 1,400 trips on the four C-TRAN express bus routes and 1,900 local bus trips.

    Of course these people make round trips, so 3300 trips is the result of 1650 people making round trips. (To accommodate these people the CRC proposes spending over $750 million)

    Bob R. Says: ridership has generally significantly exceeded estimates for rail projects in our region.
    JK: NOT TRUE. Most have been FAR BELOW estimates. See PortlandFacts.com for the truth, not Trimet’s propaganda machine:
    Eastside Ridership:
    1978 forecast 42,500
    1990 actual 19,700 (54% under ridership projection)
    Westside Ridership:
    1988 forecast…..34,150 (for 2005)
    1999 actual……..23,000 (I recall trying to get 2005 data, but it wasn’t available for some reason)
    Here are the cost over-runs:
    Eastside MAX forecast: $172 million; actual $266 million (55% over construction budget)
    Westside max forecast: $295-395 million; actual $963 million (144-226% over budget)
    Above data from PortlandFacts.com which has links to the original sources.

    Thanks
    JK

  71. How is this relevant?

    The relevance is tangential. It’s been explained to you before, but I’ll do it one word at a time for you:

    You.
    tried.
    to.
    downplay.
    the.
    harmfulness.
    of.
    CO2.
    in.
    an.
    enclosed.
    garage.

    A.
    study.
    was.
    posted.
    which.
    clearly.
    shows.
    CO2.
    can.
    be.
    harmful.
    in.
    an.
    enclosed.
    garage.

    There is little relevance to the rest of the discussion. Nonetheless, it was brought up as a direct refutation of one of your points.

  72. A quick check of nobridgetolls.com/refrences.html#transit shows this:

    I never disputed the fact that 3,300 is the CRC estimate, JK. I just stated that it seems low to me.

    Of course these people make round trips, so 3300 trips is the result of 1650 people making round trips.

    Yes. Didn’t I spell it out explicitly enough for you? I even explained your point to others. You seem to take issue with absolutely everything, even when we’re in agreement.

    Your “PortlandFacts” about MAX costs are widely disputed — do we have to go into that again? Hint: Initial early estimates are not the same thing as project budgets at groundbreaking time. For example, the Aerial Tram very obviously went well over budget after construction was well underway. MAX, not so much.

    Should the CRC get built, I won’t hold planners to estimates given last year or the year before or even today … I’ll hold them to the budget given when the full funding grant agreement is signed, or whatever funding mechanisms are in place as construction begins.

    Lots of estimates were bandied about over the years for the cost of widening I-5 through Delta Park. It’s only fair to evaluate ODOT and the contractor based on the final estimate as the actual project began.

  73. JK:“But you are not showing much intelligence by singling out autos’ pm2.5 while ignoring the other 98.5% of the PM2.5 emissions. You are showing no ability to relaistically judge priorities, instead, irrationally picking on cars. Why not pick on buses? Or the coal power plants that run MAX?”

    ws:I didn’t single out anything. Particle matter is but one of many air pollutants.

    I am not “picking on cars”. You made an assertion to billb’s post on Jul 25 to prove that car emissions can kill. That is all.

    JK:“Got any proof that it is really a problem in American Cities? (And don’t give me the # of days of one station or another in a big city violating the very low Federal standards as proof of anything except as an excuse for the green multinational corporations’ fund-raising.)”

    ws:Um, yeah. People die from bad air:

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/archives/2000-releases/press03022000.html

    “Boston MA: “Air pollution kills about 70,000 Americans each year,” said Joel Schwartz, associate professor of environmental health at HSPH. “That’s more people than die from breast and prostate cancers combined. Air pollution is a huge public health problem.””

    It’s an exacerbating condition. I *believe* people do not directly die from AIDS, they die from the opportunistic infections (skin cancer, etc.) associated with a depleted immune system caused by HIV/AIDs.

    People are not dying directly from air pollution, but people with existing conditions and predispositions are at severe risk of having compromised health.

    This is just looking at the death side of air pollution, and not any of the negative health effects of asthma, misc. respiratory problems, quality of life issues, etc.

    My concerns of air pollution have more to do with smog and quality of life issues. You know, I do enjoy views of Mt. Hood from time to time. Is that wrong?

    JK:After your previous statement was completely discredited, you now introduce a new one.”

    ws:Discredited? According to you?

    JK:“But increased CO2 clearly helps plants grow.”

    ws:Thanks for the science lesson, Jim. Are you aware of photosynthesis, too?

    These two issues were relevant because you made an assertion that stated one cannot die from having their car on in a closed environment due to catalytic converters. This is not always true as we all have shown.

    These were just little tid-bits, though, I see you’re trying to turn this into a GW debate (again) so you can pimp more of your ass-backwards-anti-global warming links on your sweet HTML website.

  74. Engineer Scotty,

    Apparently there is nothing beyond your ability. You are apparently a botanist now, also. So CO2 is a poison? how then does vegetattion suck it in and keep growing? You should find a better proof for your hypothesis than what happens in the confined space of a garage.

    Also what are “people trapped in a mindshaft?”

  75. So CO2 is a poison?

    To humans, in sufficient concentrations, yes.

    Lots of things which are good for one species (plants) are bad for another. Or, substances which are common and exist in the body, in the wrong concentrations, are poisonous.

    For example: We all need some iron in the blood, but too much is poisonous.

    http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec24/ch297/ch297h.html

    It’s just positively stunning that we’re still debating any of this very basic stuff.

  76. Also what are “people trapped in a mindshaft?”

    A good many of us in this thread, apparently. :-)

  77. No, I’m not a botanist… and as Bob points out, the chemical needs of flora and fauna happen to differ on the point of oxygen and carbon monoxide.

    Good thing, too; otherwise we’d be screwed.

    I did, however, pay attention in my science classes…

    At any rate, ethanol (C2H5OH) is a poison in significant concentrations–drink a liter of Everclear, and chances are you’ll be dead the next morning. That doesn’t mean I won’t be enjoying a beer tonight…

  78. “It’s just positively stunning that we’re still debating any of this very basic stuff.”
    I think so too—so I wonder why some people jump to conclusions?

    Last time I checked I had not yet suffered any CO2 poisoning. Or Everclear poisoning either, since I am not in need of cheating on any drug tests. However, I would like to contribute some money for some overseas community development. Before being interrupted by some of the hysterical political developments going on in the USA—and also before losing some substantial property due to ineffective and untrained public safety personnel—notably Seattle FD) I was investigating how to situate a plant to manufacture a promising new building material for western African nations. It might be useful for some here to note—as an example of the wrong direction we are headed—that the 20 billion we could save by stopping both the CRC project and the concommitant Freeway Loop full tunnel project—-would, if invested in such manufacturing facilities, eliminate the lack of quality housing (which is the underlying cause of poverty) around the entire world. I wonder what could have been done with the majority of the $900 Billion so called “stimulus package” passed by congress this spring!

    Yet I would concur that greenhouse gases are a problem that needs to be addressed. About a year ago a scientist released a study that claimed that NF3 used in the production of LCD monitors was 17,000 times as harmful, pound for pound as a greenhouse gas, than CO2. I wonder what other products related to modern manufacturing are contributing to greenhouse gases? Concrete production, utilizing lime, contributes roughly nine per cent of greenhouse gas. Animal herds contribute quite a lot. My vehicle is twenty years old and US made–so I have not relied on either the manufacturing of a new vehicle or the importation of one from across the sea (which would also contribute a lot of pollution). However, there are a lot of people in our society that do—so perhaps complaining to them would be more appropriate.

    Rest assured— my carbon footprint is very small. And I am interested in energy saving technology once it has been proven.

Leave a Reply to Bob R. Cancel reply

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