At the Social Media panel today at RailVolution, it was emphasized that video is a great way to visualize and explain transportation ideas and issues that are otherwise difficult to communicate.
We have no better example in our region than this video by Spencer Boomhower, laying out with stark clarity the issues around the Columbia River Crossing in a quick 11 minutes.
The Columbia River Crossing: A Boatload of Questions from Spencer Boomhower on Vimeo.
11 responses to “Spencer Boomhower: CRC Genius”
WOW! Amazing. I ran into Spencer on bikes today and he told me this was posted.
OK, I watched the whole thing and only learned one factoid at 6:28 – I hadn’t found the cost of seismic upgrading ($88-190 mil) in the CRC DEIS.
However, I spotted this “CRC Genius” repeating the thoroughly debunked claim about induced demand: “freeway capacity is a resource, one that tends to get used up as quickly as taxes can be found to expand it.” (7:10) Does he really think people will drive to work twice each morning if we add capacity?
The reality is that induced demand is a minor effect, with much of the traffic coming off of lesser roads when the freeway becomes a faster/better route. He needs to read more widely, for instance: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/itfaq.htm
He does point out the high cost of the CRC proposal, reminds us of the moderate cost of updating the current bridges and repeats the good idea of moving the lift span of the railroad bridge to mid river to end the “S” curve problem, but doesn’t say how many bridge lifts this will prevent. Or consider the possibility or further raising the existing hump.
He also reminds us that we can build a pair of new bridges for $818 mil (2:40) and that the two states are able to come up with $600-$800 million (3:24). He forgot to connect these two factoids and suggest that those numbers suggest that we can build the required bridge pair without tolls. Or we could upgrade the existing bridge pair and build ONE new one for about $550 million and be under the low end of the available money.
Finally, he advocates smart transportation choices, without ever saying what they are. Surely, if cost is important, they do not include the $646 million for light rail. (Funny I missed any mention of light rail beyond the cost listing on the slide at (3:15), although he showed the cost of most road features one at a time.)
For more information you might take a look at: nobridgetolls.com/ and nolightrail.com/
Thanks
JK
JK, if you’re going to link (yet again) to completely anonymous web sites (no contact info, registration hidden behind a paid proxy service) as sources, please either own up to them being your own web sites (which is something you should disclose in your post when treating them as supplemental sources), or don’t bother linking in the first place.
Thanks.
repeating the thoroughly debunked claim about induced demand … Does he really think people will drive to work twice each morning …
Once again you have mischaracterized the phenomenon of induced demand. Induced demand occurs due to the encouragement of more auto-centric development when a new auto-focused transportation facility is created or expanded.
Now, you may personally think there’s absolutely nothing wrong with facilitating more and more of that type of development by building said infrastructure. That’s entirely your right to hold that opinion.
But you can’t say that the new capacity won’t get used, or that its existence won’t prompt development where it would otherwise have not occurred. That’s simply a logical outcome.
And its an outcome that we take as a given around here, so let’s not divert from the point in this thread into rehashing the same argument (which you’ve ignored and/or mischaracterized again) about the existence of induced demand.
Thanks.
Bob R. Says: Induced demand occurs due to the encouragement of more auto-centric development when a new auto-focused transportation facility is created or expanded.
JK: The other version of induced demand is that people instantly drive more when more capacity is added. That is what I was criticizing based on the video saying (emphasis added): “freeway capacity is a resource, one that tends to get used up as quickly as taxes can be found to expand it.”
The sound track also mentions “induced demand”, while the reference I supplied says (emphasis added):
What is Induced Travel?
“Induced travel” is a term that has been widely used to describe the observed increase in traffic volume that occurs soon after a new highway is opened or a previously congested highway is widened. The term often appears in the popular press, and has been used by some advocacy groups to support their argument that “we can’t build our way out of traffic congestion,” because any increase in highway capacity is quickly filled up with additional traffic.
Read the whole publication at the link above: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/itfaq.htm
As to the version of induced demand that you refer to ( encouragement of more auto-centric development), we can have that debate later.
Thanks
JK
[Moderator: Complaint from JK about prior moderator admonishment about JK’s failure to identify anonymous links, and JK’s bizarre comment (given his own repeated past behavior) about getting “hung up on the messenger” removed. – Bob R.]
Thanks Spencer! I’ve been singing those “Deep River Blues” ever since I first saw your work at the Liberty’s alternatives panel. Great work. And to think that the Governors’ I-5 Task Force split down the middle almost 10 years ago on doing a serious study of a lower cost arterial option.
Clarence, Lenny, thanks much for the kind words. (And thanks to Chris for the complimentary headline – though that’s a bit much to take in :))
JK, Bob pretty much covered it, but I think of induced demand as being more of a long-term thing; the result of development that takes advantage of this taxpayer supplied resource. That’s why I showed houses and store popping up like dandelions as the the highway lanes slowed.
Really, it seems to me that induced demand is simply freeway capacity fulfilling its design goal as a conduit that plugs population density into “cheap” land.
On the topic of money, it sounds like you got the sense I was saying the states have available the money I showed in the spinning pie chart. I think that might have been a mistake on my part. That was only meant to show how much the states would be on the hook for.
Now I’m wishing I’d had a chance to preview this video, because I’m realizing I needed to emphasize the point that (AFAIK) only the 100 some-odd million the states have scraped up for planning has been secured. The rest is just vapor at this point.
As for the light rail, I just couldn’t think of much to say about it. I’m thoroughly ambivalent about light rail. It seems like a nice thing to have, and I’m glad Portland has it. But I’m not sure how to quantify its worth. If Vancouver votes it down, I wouldn’t personally be crushed.
In general, I question the notion that just because these two cities are close as the crow flies, they should be so thoroughly linked up. Crows don’t have trouble crossing half-mile-wide rivers, but for humans it poses a substantial engineering challenge.
It doesn’t make sense to me that a city on one side of this geographic obstacle should be a bedroom community to a city on the other side. Any more than it would make sense for a city on top of a 200-foot cliff be that thoroughly connected to a city at its base.
Not that I’d advocate disconnecting these two cities, but the connection between them doesn’t seem like it needs to be quite so broadband.
(How about plopping a billion or so of this yet-to-be-found money into Vancouver for jobs development so there’s less need to commute over a big river chokepoint to get to work?)
Personally, I’ve come to envision two pet solutions for the crossing:
1. Politely ask I-5 to go around. Rename the current I-205 to I-5, and convert the current I-5 through Portland to more of an arterial.
Yeah, that one always gets a laugh. But I heard (at the PNCA PDXplore panel) that’s what they did in Cambridge, MA when they didn’t want I-95 plowing through their historic town. So they just renamed the ring freeway I-95; now it just goes around.
And the other idea:
2. “Old Dog – New Tricks, New Dog – Old Trick.” Convert the current bridge to have, in either direction, the inside lane be a nice wide arterial lane with a breakdown lane, the middle lane be a light rail line, some fraction of a current outside lane be a cycletrack, and the current sidewalk be pedestrian-only. Then, swooping overhead, have a new, simple, six-lane freeway bridge, doing one thing only: freeway traffic (the “old trick” in this metaphor). And finally, necessarily, have an arterial to Hayden from Portland, so that the freeway can bypass Hayden entirely.
This would only work if the type of self-contained urban development described in the Hayden Island Plan were to replace the Jantzen Beach stores.
(BTW, I realize I may have squandered my newfound “genius” status with those suggestions. :))
But would anyone actually go for it, and build it? I have no way of even beginning to say. I throw out ideas like that so casually (and didn’t include them in that video) because this whole arcane freeway development process is baffling to me. You would think the design goal is to cross a river, and give people access to what they need. But looking at the CRC plans, it seems like the design goal is to pour as much federal money (and state money, and tolls) as possible into fancy new interchanges while at the keeping the public focused on (and talking about) the bridges alone.
It’s quite a spectacle.
Spencer Boomhower Says:
Clarence, Lenny, thanks much for the kind words. (And thanks to Chris for the complimentary headline – though that’s a bit much to take in :))
Spencer Boomhower Says: JK, Bob pretty much covered it, but I think of induced demand as being more of a long-term thing; …
JK: I based my comments on your statement of as fast as money can be found for new roads, which I took to mean just about instantly.
Spencer Boomhower Says: Really, it seems to me that induced demand is simply freeway capacity fulfilling its design goal as a conduit that plugs population density into “cheap” land.
JK: As far as I can tell the cost saving from that “cheap lane” and lower taxes far outweighs the cost of road building and leaves excess cash in people’s pockets. That is called an improvement in people’s standard of living.
Another thing about sprawl, seldom appreciated, is that residents of sprawl DO NOT drive much more than city dwellers unless you are comparing them to the horridly congested high density areas where driving is less because there is no room for more cars or buses and travel times are very long even for short distances.
Spencer Boomhower Says: As for the light rail, I just couldn’t think of much to say about it. I’m thoroughly ambivalent about light rail. It seems like a nice thing to have, and I’m glad Portland has it. But I’m not sure how to quantify its worth.
JK: I can help here: Light rail costs much more than driving and more than buses. Even ignoring Federal money, the capital construction cost of Portland’s light rail is around $0.36 per passenger-mile (see: http://www.portlandfacts.com/lrt_cost_w_localmatch.html), more than the cost of driving a car (also including most capital costs). For comparison, Portland’s lowest cost bus line, the knd that MAX replaces, costs $0.34 per passenger-mile. Compae this to LRT’s $0.36 for amortized construction and operating cost of $0.39 for a total of around $0.75 per passenger-mile. Other sources put this closer to $1 per passenger-mile (http://www.portlandfacts.com/top10bus.html)
Spencer Boomhower Says: It doesn’t make sense to me that a city on one side of this geographic obstacle should be a bedroom community to a city on the other side.
….
(How about plopping a billion or so of this yet-to-be-found money into Vancouver for jobs development so there’s less need to commute over a big river chokepoint to get to work?)
JK: Interestingly, the region of the Portland area with the most job growth is Clark county. (Mostly due to Metro’s/Oregon’s hostile job environment)
Spencer Boomhower Says: 1. Politely ask I-5 to go around. Rename the current I-205 to I-5, and convert the current I-5 through Portland to more of an arterial.
JK: Some are indeed advocating this. Problem is that I205 is a longer route from Wilsonville to Gateway.
Spencer Boomhower Says: 2. “Old Dog – New Tricks, New Dog – Old Trick.” Convert the current bridge…. Then, swooping overhead, have a new, simple, six-lane freeway bridge, doing one thing only: freeway traffic (the “old trick” in this metaphor). And finally, necessarily, have an arterial to Hayden from Portland, so that the freeway can bypass Hayden entirely.
JK: I think the CRC rejected this sort of a concept. Probably because it didn’t cost enough and they needed to get the cost up high enough so the tolls would be high enough to finance the light rail with toll credits (not actual toll dollars, just tolls as a credit.)
Spencer Boomhower Says: because this whole arcane freeway development process is baffling to me. You would think the design goal is to cross a river, and give people access to what they need. But looking at the CRC plans, it seems like the design goal is to pour as much federal money (and state money, and tolls) as possible into fancy new interchanges while at the keeping the public focused on (and talking about) the bridges alone.
JK: Right on. The real goal of most mega projects is to shower money on politically connected developers, consultants and construction firms, all of which donate a part of their profits back to the politicians. A part of that goal is to spend almost a billion on light rail. If the project happens to actually useful, well that is just a side-effect.
Thanks
JK
JK: ” I based my comments on your statement of as fast as money can be found for new roads, which I took to mean just about instantly.”
Ah, fair enough, I can see how you’d think that.
Spencer, the local bridge from north portland is in most ways the better entry to Hayden Island.
Picture hard decelleration and mad accelleration (exhaust emissions highest, noisiest) to exit and enter I-5 there. Picture a truck losing its brakes on the northbound exit ramp — plunge! All exiting traffic must get off the ramp quickly, thus encouraging accelleration onto surface streets. Picture truck traffic on 4 corridors leading to I-5 ramps at 4 points.
Now picture traffic leading to 1 point of entry/ exit from north portland near Best Buy. The CRC working group’s Concept #1, you should know, has no ramps, zero, none directly at I-5 to Hayden Island. 6-lanes of I-5 alone cross Hayden Island. No ramps! Development potential, value and attractiveness of Jantzen Beach becomes optimal. The long ramp of Concept#1 allows for gradual descent onto Hayden Island and ascent to the new north portland interchange and main entry ramps to I-5; much less pollution and noise.
Building a drawbridge for the rail line is also very sensible and could start right away.
For the proposed marine terminal facility, there’s no question the more logical route is via north portland local bridge or Concept #1.
Great video.