Ask Not Who Tolls the CRC, it Tolls for Thee


Monday’s Oregonian points out that the Vancouver mayoral election is the not the definitive word on tolling for the Columbia River Crossing. In fact, tolling will be decided in the state capitols, by the Washington Legislature and the Oregon Transportation Commission.

In fact, although the article does not go into this, it would seem more likely that tolls would be collected on the Washington side where they could be applied to Light Rail capital costs, something that cannot be accomplished on the Oregon side due to the constitutional limitation on use of motor vehicle fees.

But local voters in Vancouver will still get their two cents in. They could tank the project by voting down the tax increase that would fund the Light Rail operations.

Stay tuned!


45 responses to “Ask Not Who Tolls the CRC, it Tolls for Thee”

  1. Funny how everything about the CRC project is flexible except the light rail portion. Im willing to bet there would be a lot more support for tolls provided there was a restriction that toll funds could only go into toll payer related (auto) improvements.

    If Vancouver doesn’t want to tax themselves into a Portland centric transit system, they shouldn’t be extorted into doing so.

  2. Looks like the big O thinks Pollard is about to retire!

    The path to no tolls is clear: One of the signatories to the project, such as the city council, merely has to just say no – they WILL NOT approve a project that requires tolls. Fortunately such a project is described in the DEIS as the supplemental bridge – you just have to remove the toy train and un-needed interchange rebuilds.

    Tolls are only needed to build light rail. The road bridges can be built for around 850mil according to the DEIS. (Or 550 mil if you keep the current bridges for North bound traffic.)

    The feds should be good for 400 mil, leaving 200 mil from each of OR & WA. OR just committed 200 mil for a toy train bridge for the train to nowhere (Milwaulkie), so they should be able to come up with 200 mil to build something that actually will be used. WA just got a big gas tax increase that should be able to shave off a little for the bridge.

    It simply does not make sense to spend 750 mil on a toy train for the 1650 daily transit users. (There are 81,000 daily road bridge users, 150 bikers and 30 hilers.) (They try to claim that there will be more users, but hide the fact that these projections depend on massive density increases in Vancouver.)

    See NoBridgeTolls.com for details.

    Light rail costs too much & does too little, thus it is a toy.

    Thanks
    JK

  3. Rail transit advocates simply do not care what they cost or what they do for transit or traffic.

    Examples abound but WES is the ultimate.
    Even in the face of total failure the advocacy to expand it is alive and well.

    Just like the land use planning around here which
    directs huge tax subsidies to one failed UR or TOD scheme after another while claiming to have avoided the high cost of sprawl.

    On the toll issue, of course it’a all about the light rail and Portland/Metro attempting to annex Vancouver.

  4. Unless we figure out some way to make it convenient for people to use transit, the freeways will only get more congested.

    As a transit user, I’m one less car on the freeway in front of you. If I were driving, I would be HAPPY to pay someone to get out of my way.

    I understand that transit isn’t for everyone, but you have to realize I’m doing you a favor by using it.

    Thanks.

  5. Ed,

    That’s all well and good in general but ignores the greater reality that it’s far more convenient for people to drive.
    Door to door, when and where, flexible, with privacy and comfort. The embellishment of transit as an equal mode is unrealistic to say the least.

    That’s why so many trains and buses are close to empty when not during the commute.

    The emphasis on rail has diminished the bus service capabilities to provide more diverse transit service to more neighborhoods and people.

    And all we hear is we need more rail everywhere.

    This is not “Figuring out some way to make transit convenient”.

    It’s a lesson in ignoring traffic and the greater transportation system needs while pretending bike and rail trasnit are enough.

    This region doesn’t even allow jittneys and other options which you may very well prefer.

    And the idea that all these cars would be in front of me if it were not for rail and bikes is a fantasy.

    It would be far better to give taxpayers a solid bus system with freedom for jittneys etc and
    get commerce and drivers moving.

    Instead we have policy makers who think the answer is to deliberately congest traffic with hopes people and commerce in misery will find other means.

  6. At METRO’s open house on its “Greatest Place” concept they displayed a map showing proposed urban reserves. Although not finalized, three-fourths of those areas were, easily, on the west side of the Willamette River. And the major discussions indicate the northwest region of METRO having the greatest growth in jobs. Yet it is the northwest quadrant of the METRO region that has the poorest transportation infrastructure.

    Say what you will about Clark Co. residents commuting to Portland area jobs. They are bringing in about $150 million each year into the Oregon Dept. of Revenue. As more jobs are added out in the Beaverton/Hillsborto/Forest Grove area that will mean even more tax revenue from Washington residents. Unless our transit policies start discouraging them.

    I’m all for Clark Co. folks bicycling or taking buses to their jobs. But it would be a lot more palatable if the congestion was cleared up on I-5 so that C Tran Buses wouldn’t get stuck in it. The “Northwest Passage” from Vancouver to Hillsboro is the answer. It would be a better bicycle route as well.

  7. Ron, you just made a great argument for rail… it doesn’t get stuck in traffic!!!

    I live in North Vancouver. I would love to sit and read while riding a train to work on the inner east side of Portland. Would it be less convenient form a door to door perspective (Looking at you John) yes… in a way. I might have to walk a bit more than I do now. I’d probably have to bike/walk/drive to a place to get on the train in the couve but it would be worth it to me.

    “reliving congestion” can only be a temporary fix because use will always grow to fill capacity. I work in IT and data speed on networks is a great analogy for this argument for more lanes. As data speeds increase people find new ways to add more stuff and take up the extra space.

    This may be a bit off topic here but how about we get some economic development in Vancouver/Clark Co so there isn’t so much need to drive to Portland?

  8. “”reliving congestion” can only be a temporary fix because use will always grow to fill capacity.”

    Which is exactly what we have found in this area where light rail lines have been built. Congestion resumed in both the I-84 and US 26 corridors…within a few years. I am not opposed to commuter rail. Perhaps the AMTRAK route through Clark Co could have a commuter option. However the incredible rapid rise in light rail costs compared to other choices have left me questioning that option..

  9. >>However the incredible rapid rise in light rail costs compared to other choices

    Road costs have gone up just as much.

    An interesting question, though: What would I-84 and US 26 look like without MAX? How would they look if instead of building MAX, we made these four through lanes in each direction.

    My bet is that in any scenario, they’d still be routinely clogged; you can’t build your way out of congestion. The “no-build” scenario would probably result in less commuters overall; whether that’s good or bad is an interesting question. (We’d probably have less economic development and a smaller population without the added infrastructure).

  10. John: Consider consulting a traffic engineer. Adding more lanes encourages more people to fill those lanes instead of finding a more efficient means of making the trip. Remember, the focus of transportation is to move people and goods, not vehicles. Adding more lanes adds more vehicles at a ratio so close to 1:1 as to make it practical to round it off at 1:1.

    Adding dedicated transit lanes tends to have closer to a 1:80 ratio per trip by bus, and 1:300 by MAX.

    [personally directed portion of comment removed]

  11. Ron: Amtrak offers service between Oregon City, Portland and Fort Vancouver, $9 per trip coach, $12 business class, each way. A lot of people take that option already, even though it only runs 7 times daily. This same option is also availalbe between Oregon City and Portland or Fort Vancouver.

    (Note I’m differentiating here, the real Vancouver is in BC and is served by the same route).

  12. Engineer Scotty said: My bet is that in any scenario, they’d still be routinely clogged; you can’t build your way out of congestion. The “no-build” scenario would probably result in less commuters overall; whether that’s good or bad is an interesting question. (We’d probably have less economic development and a smaller population without the added infrastructure).

    I don’t see that as a terribly bad thing, small business is far better to work for than some underpaid corporate nightmare anyway. And who says we need population growth? Oregon’s full, we need people to leave if we want unemployment numbers to go down.

  13. John E:“That’s all well and good in general but ignores the greater reality that it’s far more convenient for people to drive.
    Door to door, when and where, flexible, with privacy and comfort. The embellishment of transit as an equal mode is unrealistic to say the least.”

    ws: I can agree that driving can be very convenient for many trips. No debate from me there. Just curious though, if it’s always the *best* option for people, why are drivers-only complaining about congestion and parking so much in every city of the US?

    Hopefully we are providing options to people, and I don’t think investing in buses only will accomplish this (nor would a streetcar only system).

    There are very few successful bus-only transit systems, and the only successful bus systems are ones that have their own dedicated lanes (that are generally placed over an existing auto-lane) that cost just about as much as a light rail line per mile.

  14. Hi John,

    > That’s all well and good in general but ignores the greater reality that it’s far more convenient for people to drive.
    Door to door, when and where, flexible, with privacy and comfort. The embellishment of transit as an equal mode is unrealistic to say the least.

    As someone who used to reverse-commute from SW Portland to the Salmon Creek area, by bus, every day of the week, I respectfully disagree. Not to say driving would be terrible, but riding the bus was much more convenient than driving since I can DO things while riding.

    If light rail were available, it would be even faster and more convenient since it could bypass the congestion caused largely by single occupant cars.

    We agree that bus service should be expanded. I’m certainly open to the idea of privately run transit.

    > And the idea that all these cars would be in front of me if it were not for rail and bikes is a fantasy.

    It seems like there is a contradiction here. If you take away people’s option to ride transit or bike, they MUST end up driving. I know a lot of people who get cars for exactly this reason: transit doesn’t serve them in the hours or locations where they work. Get on a MAX train during the weekday some time and imagine all those people in SUV’s.

    Thanks,

    Ed

  15. As we argue the various points on this topic this is a good time to bring up that on Dec 5 we are going to be having another

    TRANSIT BEER get together.

    Bob R, it’s been awhile since you’ve been to one!

    I don’t suppose Big Daddy Chris Smith would consider joining us would he?

    And I would love to see Jim Karlock, Terry Parker, Ron Swaren, Engineer Scotty, WS, Jeff Frane, and other people from this forum show up and have a few drinks together and then discuss this stuff!

    Come on you guys, lets PARTY!

  16. EngineerScotty Says: An interesting question, though: What would I-84 and US 26 look like without MAX? How would they look if instead of building MAX, we made these four through lanes in each direction.
    JK: Simple calculation:

    Trimet says that MAX carries as many people as 1 1/3 lanes of freeway IF 100% OF THEM WERE IN CARS. However 2/3 of then were in buses before MAX, leaving 1/3 who were NOT in buses – they would occupy, 1/3 of 4/3 divided by 1.2 per car, of one lane of freeway or about 40% of ONE LANE, neglecting those who gave up transit for driving when MAX started. Some claim that number about cancels out the 1/3 that are new to transit for no net effect of building MAX.

    In any case had we built one additional lane, instead of MAX:
    * the max riders would have a faster commute on the bus.
    * drivers would have less congestion
    * we would have more capacity for freight
    * we would have saved a big part of that BILLION dollar cost.

    EngineerScotty Says: My bet is that in any scenario, they’d still be routinely clogged; you can’t build your way out of congestion.
    JK: So, where would all those new cars come from:
    1. Population increase?
    2. People making useful trips that they otherwise didn’t? (Is it bad for people to travel?)
    3. People choosing the freeway over cutting through a neighborhood street full of kids.
    4. People suddenly deciding to commute to work TWICE each morning and TWICE each evening?

    Induced demand is a ridiculous concept on its face. (Except for a few percent.)
    See “Induced Travel: Frequently Asked Questions” fhwa.dot.gov/planning/itfaq.htm

    Thanks
    JK

  17. ws: There are very few successful bus-only transit systems, and the only successful bus systems are ones that have their own dedicated lanes (that are generally placed over an existing auto-lane) that cost just about as much as a light rail line per mile.
    JK: Are you calling ,most pre 1940 transit systems a failure?
    Was Portland’s transit system a failure before MAX?
    How many transit systems don’t have toy trains or subways?

    BTW, Tom Rubin also disagrees with you. See blip.tv/file/2743664
    Before you dismiss this guy, here is his bio:
    Thomas A. Rubin, CPA, CMA, CMC, CIA, CGFM, CFM has over thirty years of public transit experience as a senior executive in major transit agencies and as an auditor, consultant, and author. He has served over 100 transit operators of all sizes, operating almost all transit modes. As the Chief Financial Officer of the Southern California Rapid Transit District in Los Angeles and the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District in Oakland, he was responsible for accounting, finance, information technology, management and budget, purchasing and stores, risk management, and treasury functions. At the Southern California RTD he was responsible for the financial and compliance management of the then-largest Federal transit grant in the nation for construction of the Los Angeles Red Line subway. Mr. Rubin founded and directed the transit industry practice of what is now Deloitte & Touche, LLP, growing it to the largest in the accounting/consulting industry. He has been active in the American Public Transportation Association for many years, serving on the Associate Member Board of Governors and was selected to serve as an APTA Director. He was a member of the Executive Committee (Board of Directors) of the California Transit Association.

    Thanks
    JK

  18. “you can’t build your way out of congestion”

    Why exactly are we building the Big Pipe project if adding capacity will only encourage people to go to the bathroom more often?

    It puzzles me.

  19. jk: Trimet says that MAX carries as many people as 1 1/3 lanes of freeway IF 100% OF THEM WERE IN CARS. However 2/3 of then were in buses before MAX, leaving 1/3 who were NOT in buses – they would occupy, 1/3 of 4/3 divided by 1.2 per car, of one lane of freeway or about 40% of ONE LANE, neglecting those who gave up transit for driving when MAX started. Some claim that number about cancels out the 1/3 that are new to transit for no net effect of building MAX.

    Let me get this straight. You claim that 2/3 of the people currently riding MAX previously commuted by bus?

    And you also claim that a bus commute from Gresham to Portland or Hillsboro to Portland would be faster than a rail commute?

    None of my comments are official TriMet statements, and are purely my own.

  20. al m Says:

    As we argue the various points on this topic this is a good time to bring up that on Dec 5 we are going to be having another

    TRANSIT BEER get together.

    You don’t have to go to work later, do you?
    (just kidding)
    When and where do you propose this?

  21. Regarding the Big Pipe:

    1) If not building the Big Pipe resulted in excrement backing up on people’s bathroom floors when the used the can too often, it might have an impact on behavior. But the problem that the Big Pipe solves is not that people’s toilets were backing up, it’s that the sh*t was being dumped in the Willamette instead.

    2) There isn’t a better alternative to a community sewer system for management of human waste in an urban environment.

    3) The EPA essentially made Portland do the Big Pipe.

    4) Factors such as living close to work and such can reduce the amount of driving people need to do. Harder to reduce the amount of pooping people need to do.

    Apples and oranges.

  22. Of course the bus commute would be faster than the rail commute. It would happen, after all, on the congestion-free freeways that we would have if US26 and I-84 merely had one more lane in each direction!

    :)

  23. The obvious needs to be pointed out: Sewer lines and highways aren’t analogous. A gallon of sewage doesn’t take up 24 feet of linear space in a 12 foot wide corridor. A car, no matter how many people are in it, does. It takes up even more space when it’s moving.

    Unless you’re suggesting we’re taking the wrong approach and we should be making I-5 a 57-lane-diameter traffic tube, the two projects aren’t comparable.

    The Big Pipe Project site is an interesting read. Among other things, it’s good to know that the Big Pipe is a storm sewer, not a sanitation sewer. Also interesting to note: We wouldn’t need to seperate the two if we didn’t pave over the whole region, thus allowing the ground to drain properly. When you pave it over, all the water has to go down a drain, or you cease to have a highway and you gain a man-made canal. And that drain has to go somewhere. The Big Pipe is only necessary because there’s too much pavement laid down already.

  24. Re: Thomas Rubin. Over 100 transit agencies on his resume? He’s terrible at what he does if he’s turned over that many jobs. Not surprising, either, when was the last time you went anywhere in California on mass transit? That’s right, never, because no place in California has effective mass transit (and I’m including the lackluster BART and MUNI system everyone freaking worships in the bay area in this).

    Here’s a hint that mass transit, rail transit in particular, does work: Go to New York City or London sometime. Both are about the size of Portland in area and have far more people, but about the same number of cars per capita. Nobody in their right mind drives because in the city, there’s no better way to create gridlock than put another car on the road.

    You can’t build your way out of it. So you add another three lanes to I-5. Where’s it gonna go when it leaves the freeway? Congratulations, the problem’s been shifted to the surface grid, which *will* back up onto the freeway via ramps.

  25. Re bus commutes: I’m all in favor of having HOV2 lanes or even contraflow lanes similar to what you find on the 99 Freeway in Vancouver at the George Massey Tunnel. Unfortunately, Fort Vancouver closed their successful HOV lanes (causing ODOT to close the southbound HOV lane), and poopooed the contraflow idea even though it worked well when one span was closed for construction a few years ago (woulda worked better if they could have used both spans, pretty much exactly reproducing the Vancouver system, but a barge hitting the bridge made that impossible).

    I’m not in favor of high-occupancy toll lanes like you find in Seattle. That only ensures selfish dickheads get to move.

  26. San Antonio is only using the same local/express system sections of 217 and 205 use, and as I 270 in DC use. The site suggesting that San Antonion built its way out of congestion is a bit of a strawman: The same site says that overall traffic volume has increased and congestion has gotten worse.

    When lanes end, and they all do, traffic has to go someplace. Adding lanes only moves the problem, it doesn’t solve it.

  27. Paul,

    Wrong completely wrong and you’ve never driven there.
    Misrepresenting San Antonio, which is the same metropolitan size as Portland, doesn’t make us look good.

    There is no similarity with 217 and 205 at all.

    And the recent major improvements in San Antonio have all but eliminated the worst congestion and gridlocks caused by old chokepoints.

    Their lanes don’t just end as you imagined.
    Their two circles and multiple spoke system is very effective and over the past 15 years has become a model for what can be done while preserving the communities.

    Their freeways and expressways also have frontage roads adjacent to them. Usually two or more lanes all in the same direction whic makes the system far superior.

    Your’e free to believe whatever you want, but you are wrong and are misrepresenting the San Antonio system.

  28. However 2/3 of then were in buses before MAX

    First of all, I’ve read that 1/2 of Westside transit users were new to transit after Westside MAX opened. But the thing is that those buses would be ON THE FREEWAY if it wasn’t for MAX. As can be seen here (westside) and here (eastside) there used to be many bus routes on the Sunset (8) and Banfield (6). And unlike the former bus lines, MAX provides frequent, high-quality service every day.

    In addition, if the highways were widened instead, there would be more pollution in the surrounding area, transit would be less reliable than an exclusive right-of-way affords, less people would take it since some will take a train but not a bus, and people would not be encouraged to make efficient use of the highway by either traveling at a different time, using a different route or taking transit.

    Lastly, it would be best if driving was priced more realistically by including things such as the large portion of the Big Pipe needed because of road runoff so it didn’t take unfeasibly-wide highways to eliminate congestion. And then we could have a rational discussion of what kind of transportation we want to have.

  29. John E:“Heaven!
    San Antonio built their way out of congestion.

    http://www.texashighwayman.com/san.htm

    And most have frontage/access roads on both sides of freeway for businesses and short trips which also buffer neighborhoods from Freeway noise.”

    I don’t think it’s technically feasible to produce such a hub and spoke system in Portland without demolishing our city and environment.

    San Anotonians waste more hours behind the wheel than Portland does, though, they have a lower travel time index:

    http://mobility.tamu.edu/

  30. “Rail transit advocates simply do not care what they cost or what they do for transit or traffic.”

    >>>> Well, that’s the railfan disease. And the trouble is, they’ve got a whole bunch of influential people indoctrinated.

    The guy who is in charge of the steam locomotive museum here even admitted it! In the O, he said something to the effect that once you catch it, you’re addicted — it’s a disease!

  31. “Ron, you just made a great argument for rail… it doesn’t get stuck in traffic!!!”

    >>>> Neither does a bus on a dedicated busway, plus it can give more of ‘door to door’ service to compete with private autos.

    Go up to Seattle and ride Sound Transit’s ‘Swift’ to Everett to see what a mean. Note the better quality vehicles, too.

  32. “An interesting question, though: What would I-84 and US 26 look like without MAX? How would they look if instead of building MAX, we made these four through lanes in each direction.”

    >>>> How would they look like with busways (elevated over the highway in places as necessary)? Much better service than with clunky, inflexible MAX.

  33. “And you also claim that a bus commute from Gresham to Portland or Hillsboro to Portland would be faster than a rail commute?”

    >>>> YES! MUCH FASTER if we had built a dedicated busway system with various levels of service instead of clunky, inflexible MAX.

    The trouble is, the railfans got control of the agenda back in the 1970’s. God only know how many have infiltrated Trimet and Metro.

    And if you think I’m kidding, I konw FIRST HAND about this syndrome in NYC and elsewhere.

    BTW, I am a non-driver, which means I use Trimet for my transportation needs.

  34. “John E.” wrote: “Paul, Wrong completely wrong and you’ve never driven there. Misrepresenting San Antonio […]”

    John, do you know Paul personally, or are you just making an assumption here without evidence? It seems that nearly every time you visit here you drop a personal attack on someone. Stick to known facts for a change.

    Personally, I _have_ driven in San Antonio, and I didn’t find it to be any particular kind of motorists’ paradise. However, the Riverwalk pedestrian corridor was quite nice.

  35. November 3, 2009 10:19 PM Nick theoldurbanist Says:

    Well, that’s the railfan disease.

    November 3, 2009 10:30 PM
    Nick theoldurbanist Says:

    The trouble is, the railfans got control of the agenda back in the 1970’s. God only know how many have infiltrated Trimet and Metro.

    Instead of spinning conspiracy theories (yet again), how about proposing the exact route of this busway, and your proposed elevated sections, how much it would cost to build and maintain, how many buses would be needed to meet current capacity, how much they would cost to operate, and precisely where they would go, and where they would stop, for starters?

    It’s easy to level vague accusations against a barely-defined group of nefarious infiltrators — it’s not so easy to propose a specific alternative.

  36. OK, then, I call your bluff. How is San Antonio’s freeway system not a predominently express/local system like the busiest sections of 205 (such as near Mall 205) and 217 (near the 10/8 interchange)?

    Please also quantatively back your assertion that San Antonio has no traffic problems.

    The source you cited roundly contradicts both claims you made.

  37. Re: Busways

    If busways are so much better than light rail, why has every city that has constructed them (Eugene included) done so purely as an interrim measure to be replaced by higher capacity light rail systems?

    Busways require specialized equipment: Busses with doors on both sides, platforms, specialized signalling, etc. For a city the size of Portland, the capcity of a busway versus the capacity of a light rail system compared to the cost of either option, light rail wins. Busses are typically limited to 60 feet: Remember the old articulated busses? They don’t hold that many people compared to a single light rail vehicle, and not that any more people compared to the 40 foot busses TriMet uses today.

    Now…busway versus streetcar? Busway wins.

  38. That being said, perhaps we should take a play out of Vancouver’s playbook. Their Metro equivalent condemned all it’s constituents city streets and gave the to Translink (their TriMet equivalent) to solve their traffic problems, since Vancouver’s transportation buraeu wasn’t aggressive enough to solve the problem.

    Result? Most boulevards (the same size as Portland’s), reserves the right lane for HOV3+/bus/bicycle on most, with the busiest having the outside lanes reserved for HOV8+/bus/bicycle. Want to drive single-occupant? Expect it to take twice as long as taking a bicycle and three times as long as the bus. On the other hand, Translink is open most routes 18+ hours a day, with major routes open 23 hours. Vancouver is a smaller city than Portland.

    Why haven’t we given real thought to actively (rather than passive-aggressively) discouraging single-occupancy and increase transit capacity to compensate?

  39. Looks like the light rail/smart growth/high density whore faction are losing their biggest shill in Vancouver:

    Pollard is trailing badly.

    Maybe this tells us something about the future of tolls and toys.

    Thanks
    JK

  40. What’s the point in arguing about Eastside MAX–or Westside MAX? Those are done deals—-and they have little relevance to future decisions, no matter whether you support more MAX lines or oppose them. The Green Line is a done deal—-and it appears that the Milwaukie MAX is moving ahead.

    But, now, another MAX line to Gresham, or one to Sherwood…..now, those are far from settled. I am glad that METRO put such questionable MAX routes as Troutdale to Damascus in the lowest tier. I definitely think a better bus service would be adequate enough in such areas. Has anyone heard how SF’s and NY’s evaluation of double decker buses went?

    Better yet, I would rather focus on the underlying strategy in the Portland area. How much growth over the next half century will be good, and how much will result in an increasing tangle of poorly executed plans? How much population increase will come about from the natural inclination of people to relocate to a safer place? And how much will result from a large Congressional pipeline to federal dollars for infrastructure projects?

  41. JK: I think you are stepping over the line with your last comment.

    I’m not sure how different it is today but San Antonio in 1998 was a horrible place to live/drive. I was there for four months assisting my brother with physical therapy after a bad accident on the 1604 loop. The way everything is laid out requires LONG drives on the freeway to get anywhere. The access roads on the side of the freeways were like smaller freeways with an occasional light. There was no business development on them. Just the back of buildings for the most part… and giant golden arches signs!

    Also on this page at the previously linked site:
    http://www.texashighwayman.com/tollsys.htm
    Looks like lots of tollways to come. Translation: roads are expensive and we don’t have enough funding to keep building them.

    Seems odd to me that their answer is to build a giant new tolled parallel system to collect tolls on to help feed their giant-er future system.

    Lastly the value of the convenience argument seems to be overstated. Convenience is one measure. Sure maybe the car wins door to door but there are a LOT of other ways to measure the validity of transit(bus or LRT) vs car. Cost, pollution, long term maintenance, foreign oil dependence etc etc. If our decisions on what to do hinge on convenience then this country is doomed.

Leave a Reply

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