February 2011 Open Thread


Your February 2011 open thread

Here is your open thread for February, 2011. Initial preparatory work on the new bridge for MLR gets underway on Wednesday, resulting in a temporary detour for Esplanade users. Legend has it, if the groundhog sees his shadow, we’ll have six more lines of light rail built in the city.

And the city of Beaverton is promoting a draft of its proposed civic plan, designed to tame (among other things) the infamous sprawlevard that is Canyon Road. Not muich for transit in the plan, other than improved pedestrian access to the Beaverton TC and Beaverton Central MAX stations, but lots of goodies for bicyclists and walkers in the plan. (I, for one, was kinda of hoping for at least a few exclusive bus lanes in the vicinity of Beaverton TC).

With that, the open thread is now….. open.


92 responses to “February 2011 Open Thread”

  1. According to a tweet by The Oregonian‘s Dominique Fong, 115 people showed up at tonight’s public meeting in Beaverton to discuss the aforementioned civic plan. A second meeting scheduled for tomorrow is likewise filled up.

    No report yet as to what sort of reception the plan received from eager Beavertonians.

  2. How the AAA Cost of Driving = 57¢/mile
    and is 37¢/passenger-mile
    and is 25¢/passenger-mile for the rest of us

    The AAA lists the cost of driving for three classes of cars and at three different annual mileages. Their middle case – driving the “average” car 15,000 miles/year lists the cost of driving as:

    $0.57…….. AAA stated cost of driving per mile (per vehicle mile)

    But, according to the TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 29, fig. 8.1, the average USA car has 1.59 people in it. Applying this conversion gives:

    $0.36………per passenger-mile at the national average of 1.59 people per car

    The AAA Driving Costs 2010.pdf states on page 3:
    Depreciation is based on the difference between new-vehicle purchase price and estimated trade-in value at the end of five years.
    Thus the AAA data is for the average cost of driving a car that is only 2 ½ years old (presumably to match the typical upscale AAA member.) But, according to the TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 29, table 3.9, the average age of the average USA car is 10.6 years. Adjusting for this, we get:

    $0.25…… per passenger-mile –AAA cost of driving adjusted for average USA car age

    We can also calculate the cost of driving entirely from data in the TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 29:

    $0.24…….Actual average USA cost of driving (per passenger-mile)

    Thus we can conclude that the actual cost of driving in the USA for the average person is around 25 cents/passenger-mile. Since this cost includes all licensing and taxes, it includes much of the cost of building and maintaining the roads. When using this cost to compare to different modes of travel such as transit bus, light rail, commuter rail or airline, keep in mind that much government owned transit reports costs WITHOUT the cost of building and maintaining the guide way.

    For the calculations, see: http://www.portlandfacts.com/aaa_cost.html

    Thanks
    JK

  3. Jim,

    If you want to read an extensive discussion on why your logic is flawed, please see this thread over at The Infrastructurist:
    http://www.infrastructurist.com/2011/01/27/why-cutting-rail-funding-would-hurt-americas-transportation-network/#comments

    Cost per-passenger mile is not the correct way to measure the effectiveness of a transportation option. An option is effective if it gets the individual to their destination in an efficient matter (time, cost, quality of mode). These are hard to quantify, and cost per passenger mile should definitely be one of the inputs, but not the ultimate measure. Here is why:

    Scenario 1: I live on a cul-de-sac in low-density East Gresham. I drive my car 6 miles to WinCo. It costs me $2 and the government $1 in road, police, etc subsidies.

    Scenario 2: I live in the denser Hollywood neighborhood. I take MAX 3 miles to the Winco at Gateway for $2, and it costs the government $1 in Trimet subsidies.

    In scenario 1, the cost per passenger mile is $0.50, in scenario 2, the cost is $1 per mile. Your way of thinking makes option 2 look more expensive, even though both trips get me to the store, and are roughly the same value to me.

    Do you see the problem here? Using cost per passenger mile favors longer trips, and does not provide the full picture of value to the individual.

  4. Scenario 1: I live on a cul-de-sac in low-density East Gresham. I drive my car 6 miles to WinCo. It costs me $2 and the government $1 in road, police, etc subsidies.

    Scenario 2: I live in the denser Hollywood neighborhood. I take MAX 3 miles to the Winco at Gateway for $2, and it costs the government $1 in Trimet subsidies.

    Why is the cost of police only apportioned to motorists but not to TriMet users, when there is a clear need and demand for police services by TriMet which is not fully paid for by TriMet (while TriMet has its own self-funded police force, police calls to TriMet facilities routinely require response from non-funded police officers, and as TriMet is a non-property tax paying government entity, the local agencies which contribute police officers to TriMet related calls have to force their local residents to cover the cost of those calls.)

    If you’re going to force motorists to pay the “full costs” of their choice, you MUST do the same for transit users (or bicyclists, airline travellers, Amtrak riders, Greyhound riders, etc.) as well.

  5. includes much of the cost of building and maintaining the roads

    Please refer to this up-to-date study:

    Do Roads Pay For Themselves? Setting the Record Straight on Transportation Funding

    Excerpt from executive summary:

    Highways don’t pay for themselves — Since 1947, the amount of money spent on highways, roads and streets has exceeded the amount raised through gasoline taxes and other so-called “user fees” by $600 billion (2005 dollars), representing a massive transfer of general government funds to highways.

    Highways “pay for themselves” less today than ever. Currently, highway “user fees” pay only about half the cost of building and maintaining the nation’s network of highways, roads and streets.

    And you have again omitted any reference of why it’s acceptable to take two different values from two different tables in the data book and simply divide them without quantifying whether they truly chart compatible values.

    (And, yet again, you have used data which conflates urban and rural miles, which you’ve only supported in the past by quoting an email sent you about a phone conversation they had with someone.)

    Lest my criticisms be misconstrued (as they have in the past), I’m quite happy that there are roads, streets, highways, and the very useful automobile. I just advocate for a different balance among modes, that we take a good look at the oft-ignored true costs of the dominant mode, and that we stop building our so much of our society in a manner which creates a de facto requirement of car ownership.

  6. Erik,

    Fine, ignore the police costs, if you want. Local roads are very much subsidized. You should try addressing the general point of my comment.

    Note: I would argue that drivers use more police resources than transit users. You have issues that are related directly to driving, such as speeding, DUI offenses, hit and run, etc. The crimes you are talking about occur on Trimet, not because of it.

  7. Erik,

    TriMet at least pays for part of its security. It maintains its own police force, and frequently pays municipal law enforcement for an additional presence on the busses, trains, and platforms.

    ODOT pays not a dime to fund the Oregon State Police patrol division, whose entire purpose is providing “security” to the state’s highways. Likewise, a huge percentage of the dollars spent on county sheriff’s departments and local police forces goes towards traffic duties as opposed to non-traffic crime prevention.

    And yet many transit critics paint TriMet as the scofflaw. Why is policing transit considered to be an excessive burden on law enforcement, which requires subsidy from transit operations, whereas policing roads, shopping malls, and other venues (public and private) is simply part of law enforcement’s “job”?

    It doesn’t make sense. Other government agencies which operate public amenities (such as parks or school districts) but which neither pay taxes (by virtue of being government agencies) nor are part of larger governments (cities, counties, states) which also operate law enforcement agencies, aren’t expected to cough up money for law enforcement. Some of these agencies may augment law enforcement with their own security (and in some cases, such security may include sworn officers); but you don’t see the Clackamas County Sheriff going before the North Clackamas School Board and whining about (hypothetical) excessive police calls at Rex Putnam HS, or suggesting that the school district is somehow responsible for a crime increase due to the unruly behavior of its students. (And we all know the sort of ruffians that go there, eh Bob?)

    While the good sheriff may have a legitimate complaint about urban renewal affecting his budget (I suspect that his recent complaints about alleged MAX-induced crime at CTC has much to do with the proposed funding mechanisms for MLR, which will have an impact on his revenue sources), it seems to me that patrolling the bus lines and train tracks within Clackamas County is part of his duties–just like patrolling the roads and highways is.

  8. One big difference between subsidies for transit/cycling and those for motor vehicles is that we almost all directly benefit from the latter – i.e. with our own personal vehicles, UPS/USPS deliveries, emergency response, etc. – while most people benefit only indirectly from subsidies to the former – less congestion, pollution, need for parking, etc.

    It’s sort of like Social Security and Medicare being good but welfare being bad.

  9. Not to mention the huge Portland sewer project…most of the pollution captured from storm drains by the Big Pipe is from streets and parking lots and consists of residue from oil, gas and tires, yet its the ratepayers who pick of the tab. Motor vehicle operators get a free ride; what happend to “pollutors pay!?”
    And then their is the health care costs of the “toxic rivers,” aka freeways, thru urban areas.

  10. One big difference between subsidies for transit/cycling and those for motor vehicles is that we almost all directly benefit from the latter – i.e. with our own personal vehicles, UPS/USPS deliveries, emergency response, etc. – while most people benefit only indirectly from subsidies to the former – less congestion, pollution, need for parking, etc.

    Such things as UPS/USPS deliveries, emergency response, and all sorts of other freight movements and high-priority traffic would benefit enormously with fewer SOVs clogging up the roads. Much money is wasted when trucks are stranded in traffic; many drivers are paid by the hour and thus make the same whether their feet are on the gas or on the brake.

    Likewise, the other things you dimsiss as “indirect” subsidies are highly valuable.

    It’s sort of like Social Security and Medicare being good but welfare being bad.

    Unfortunately, rather than being viewed transit is frequently viewed as “welfare”–with all the negative baggage that implies. Rather than being as a useful public good, it gets viewed as a social service, and one targeted at a segment of the population widely considered “unworthy”. This is frequently a self-fulfilling prophecy; if you build crappy transit, only the desperate (or highly dedicated) will use it.

  11. The word “indirect” was applied to benefits, not subsidies. It does not mean of little value. In this case, it just reflects benefits which are not necessarily part of the rationales of individuals choosing to use transit or bicycles on particular trips.

  12. I see that R.A. has already replied to Scotty but as I just came across Scotty’s comment in the RSS feed I feel I should point out I didn’t take R.A.’s original comment to be dismissive in nature — it was merely an observation about the perception of direct vs. indirect benefit (thus the welfare vs. medicare remark.)

  13. Bob R quotes: Highways don’t pay for themselves — Since 1947, the amount of money spent on highways, roads and streets has exceeded the amount raised through gasoline taxes and other so-called “user fees” by $600 billion (2005 dollars)
    JK: Lets look closer:
    2010-1947 = 63 years
    $600 billion / 63 = $9.52 B/yr

    We can divide that by the vehicle-miles to get the subsidy rate. Lets assume that 1970 represents an average over the 63 year period, just to see the order of magnitude of the subsidy:

    $9,520 million / 1,109,724 million miles = $0.0086 per vehile-mile, or $0.0055 per passenger mile at todays average car occupancy. (Table 3.6 TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK:
    EDITION 29)

    What an outrage, we are subsiding those evil cars at $0.0055 per passenger-mile while we only have to subsidize transit at about $0.60/ passenger-mile

    (Or did I make a mistake somewhere?)

    Thanks
    JK

  14. I would agree with that… :)

    The whole “transit=welfare” thing is something I find troublesome, although I know that RA knows better. :) But RA’s larger point is correct: Transit often doesn’t enjoy great deals of public support because it’s perceived to be of little benefit by many people. Indirect benefits can be substantial, but they can often be harder to quantify, especially when the benefit is in the form of a reduction of externalized cost.

    At any rate, the question of whether society benefits from streets (in the abstract, or from a given street) may differ from the question of whether society benefits from unlimited private automobile traffic on those streets. I’ve no doubt that we benefit from streets in the whole. OTOH, the whole “streets are for cars” meme, wherein other uses (pedestrians, bikes, transit, and even freight traffic) are treated as second-class, is frequently not beneficial.

    An interesting article at Streetsblog on the subject…

  15. Jim,

    Where are you getting the data for $600 billion (in 2005 dollars) going to fund all types of roads for cars? I was only aware that they tracked Federal HIGHWAY dollars over that period of time. Local roads are mostly funded by local non-user fees (property taxes). Multnomah county has a $0.03 per gallon gas tax… that covers all of the work on city roads?

  16. Yes, Jim, there’s at least one mistake there… The rate of spending imbalance vs. “user fees” funding roads has changed dramatically since 1970.

    In the referenced study, Figure 3, “Percentage of Highway Spending from Various Sources, All Levels of Government” shows that in your selected year of 1970, user fees contributed to about 70% of spending. More recently, they only contribute to 50% of spending.

    So the weighting of the deficit is larger in more recent years. Dividing that $600bn over time going back to 1947 masks the currently-distorted funding/spending picture.

  17. Chris I Says: Where are you getting the data for $600 billion (in 2005 dollars) going to fund all types of roads for cars?
    JK: It was quoted by Bob, I just answered his number.

    Thanks
    jk

  18. Bob R. Says: So the weighting of the deficit is larger in more recent years. Dividing that $600bn over time going back to 1947 masks the currently-distorted funding/spending picture.
    JK: since transit subsidies appear to be 100 times automobile subsidies (per the amount in the present discussion) does that really make a significant difference to the outcome?

    After your suggestions, would the transit subsidy only by 50 times automobiles? or 25 times,or ten times?

    Thanks
    jk

  19. JK, your “50 times” or “100 times” numbers just don’t work out.

    Are you seriously suggesting that 30 trillion to 60 trillion ($600 billion x 50 or x 100) has been spent on transit subsidies? Come on now.

  20. I’ll beat JK to the punch and invalidate my previous comment by saying that JK must have meant 50x to 100x “per passenger mile” and not in total.

  21. Why do Portland”proper”ites find it necessary to dog the burbs? What is so “great” about overpriced living in the equivalent of a giant dormitory (or prison) concrete jungle with tall buildings all around, noise and fumes? I’d be willing to bet that a great number of those who think its great aren’t even from here in the first place. Portland is just as sprawled out as anywhere else. My neighborhood is walkable, and it’s not as dense and there aren’t panhandlers at every turn begging for money.

  22. Just who is dogging the burbs around here, anyway? I asked the last time this came up but didn’t see any examples.

    The majority of comments of any kind of urb’ vs. ‘burb battle around here seem to be of your “prison” variety. Pot kettle black and all that.

  23. And…

    “Portland is just as sprawled out as anywhere else.”

    Please define “anywhere” and provide data. Thanks.

  24. This is what I was referring to

    the infamous sprawlevard that is Canyon Road

    What about the numerous sprawlevards in Portland, like Sandy, MLK, Broadway, I5, 26, I-84, 205, just to name a few?

  25. Well, Portland certainly has its share of sprawlevards, though of the examples you gave, only Sandy is a good one. “Sprawlevard” is a term which generally refers to at-grade urban thoroughfares which are called upon to serve both urban access and regional mobility roles, and which present a poor pedestrian environment (and frequently a poor automotive one as well). Freeways don’t count (they’re another matter altogether), and MLK is better integrated into the urban environment. Good examples of sprawlevards in Portland proper include 82nd, 122nd, parts of Powell, parts of Barbur, parts of Lombard/Killingsworth, Beaverton-Hillsdale, etc.

    Greg is correct in that parts of Portland are certainly sprawled out. But significant parts of it are not. Beaverton is better than many other suburbs at building nice walkable environments (at least it tries), but it has more than its share of sprawl. Oh, and it also has plenty of panhandlers working the interchanges along 217…

  26. I will note that the author of the tongue-in-cheek* “sprawlevard” comment did not mention urban vs. suburban, and happens to live not too far from said “sprawlevard”, I’m assuming by choice.

    Check out the KATU comments section if you’d like to see non-tongue-in-cheek slams of urban Portland from non-residents for comparison’s sake.

    (*)Relative tongue-in-chkeekness supported based on the remarks vis a vis Portland, Light Rail Lines and Groundhogs.

  27. I live in Beaverton for a simple reason: I work there. (Nowadays, I’ve also put down roots, so it isn’t quite so simple, but there you have it).

    But Canyon’s a sprawlevard. It’s a difficult case to fix, too, being a state highway of some regional importance–many of the usual tools of calming down the road will raise objections from ODOT on the grounds of interference with regional traffic. TV Highway, of course, ends just west of downtown Beaverton, and the traffic on it really has nowhere else to go. (Possibly up Murray to US26, but that’s not really an attractive option either).

  28. What irritates me about these city vs suburb arguments is the “why would I want to live in some cramped apartment in the city when I could live out in a large house out in the quiet suburb?” Well, I can sympathize with wanting space and quiet, except it just doesn’t work if everyone who wants live like this gets to. You get pollution, congestion, etc, and it brings down the quality of the area overall.

  29. What bugs me about the “why would I want to live in some cramped apartment in the city when I could live out in a large house out in the quiet suburb?” or “What is so ‘great’ about overpriced living in the equivalent of a giant dormitory (or prison) concrete jungle with tall buildings all around, noise and fumes?” mentality is the idea that there’s only one possible way people would want to live. It’s quite obvious that even if YOU don’t want to live in an apartment in an urban neighborhood, there are a LOT of people out there who do.

    My own view is “why would I want to live in some enormous house that costs a fortune to heat, filled with crap I never use, and surrounded by a lawn I need to maintain ALL THE TIME, with absolutely NOTHING to do in walking distance and the need to pay for a car so I can get ANYWHERE at all?” And the answer is, I wouldn’t, and I don’t. But for other people, that’s the life they want. I don’t expect everyone to share MY view of the good life, but what’s so bewildering about wanting to have no lawn, no wasted space, and about fifty restaurants in walking distance of my front door?

  30. There are a whole lot of choices between “large house in quiet suburb” and “cramped apartment (or condo) in the city”. Suburbia has plenty of “cramped apartments”, certainly.

  31. Well, Portland certainly has its share of sprawlevardsBut Canyon’s a sprawlevard. It’s a difficult case to fix, too, being a state highway

    M.L.K. used to be Highway 99E – as in, United States Route 99E (pre-Interstate). The City of Portland took over jurisdiction of this road (along with Interstate Avenue, formerly 99W), rebuilt the street, gentrified the area through generous tax incentives for developers – its current appearance didn’t just magically happen. It is very much a “sprawlevard” that was redeveloped because its purpose had changed – regional traffic moved to I-5, and U.S. Highways 99W and 99E were downgraded to state highways – and now Highway 99W is no longer in existence north of downtown Portland; the Highway 99E signs still remain but who knows for how long. (The U.S. 30 Business route signs on Sandy Boulevard have been removed when Sandy was turned over to city jurisdiction.)

    Canyon is a different case. Yes, it is a state highway – Highway 8, the Tualatin Valley Highway. T.V. Highway officially starts at Sylvan with the interchange with U.S. 26 and officially ends at the junction with Highway 99W, just northeast of McMinnville where it carries the Oregon Route 47 marker.

    The problem is that many of the urbanized areas considered to be “Beaverton” aren’t within city limits. So why would Beaverton assume responsibility for a road that is outside its’ city limits; and in an area where the residents do not want to be within the city?

    Washington County would be more logical to take over “Canyon Road” (the stretch of T.V. Highway/Oregon Highway 8 between Cedar Hills Boulevard and U.S. 26), but what’s in it for the county? Generally speaking highways swap jurisdictions; Portland is the exception in which it takes over a state highway (Sandy Boulevard, M.L.K., Interstate) so that it can control the road itself for redevelopment of the surrounding area. Washington County has taken over several roads – Farmington Road (Oregon Highway 10) and Scholls Ferry Road (Oregon Highway 210) in particular, in exchange for state funding of various county projects. And a jurisdictional swap took place in Forest Grove – with Washington County building the north Forest Grove Bypass, then turning it over to ODOT as part of the Nehalem Highway (Oregon Route 47) in exchange for the old routing of Highway 47.

  32. I don’t expect everyone to share MY view of the good life, but what’s so bewildering about wanting to have no lawn, no wasted space, and about fifty restaurants in walking distance of my front door?

    I know of very few people who are truly against developing condos/apartments – they serve a true and real purpose, and I know many people who prefer them. More power to them.

    What I am opposed to is Metro’s land use policies that have all but eliminated the ranch home from being built. That’s what suits me; yet it took me three years to find an affordable ranch home to purchase. Builders won’t build them because they’re not profitable enough – they’ll either build McMansions, or townhomes. Nothing inbetween. I finally found a home that suits my family’s needs, has room for my children to play in, a decent yard, close to schools (within walking distance with sidewalks, unlike my old S.W. Portland home that was flat out unsafe to walk from), close to transit…

    What’s wrong with that? Oh, I don’t live in Portland, I don’t live in a Condo, I don’t live near a Streetcar line, I have a garage… I have grass and trees, a place for a garden, a roof for solar panels if I wanted to (unfortunately it is still not cost effective), places for rain gardens and rain-water collection systems so that the rain water doesn’t flow down a four lane wide downtown city street and collect all that crap that ends up in the Superfund site known as the Willamette River…

  33. Fine, ignore the police costs, if you want. Local roads are very much subsidized. You should try addressing the general point of my comment.

    I am addressing the comment and I wish to address the points brought up in my comment, so if you need to reply with the word “you” you’re focusing on me, not the point. The point is that vehicles are subsidized by police costs per the original post:

    Scenario 1: I live on a cul-de-sac in low-density East Gresham. I drive my car 6 miles to WinCo. It costs me $2 and the government $1 in road, police, etc subsidies.

    And I am addressing the post, not an individual.

    That said, I remain to my point that if we are to insist that motorists pay “their full share”, so must transit systems. Why should motorists be accused of a police subsidy, when TriMet does not cover the full costs of security on its system? Why should local police departments spend money spending officers to calls related to TriMet when TriMet does not pay property taxes to pay for that service?

    The issue of motorists is actually not an accurate comparison; many police agencies actually use traffic citations as a revenue source, and some districts make quite a bit of money off of traffic citations – Coburg (north of Eugene on I-5) is one example; so is King City (which has been historically property tax poor). Regardless, property values are in part due to having access to property which is most often by vehicular access, therefore those who own property benefit from the roads, and thus the police property – AND pay the property taxes that fund the police departments.

    ODOT, by state law, is an operations agency, not an enforcement agency (until it took over the Motor Carrier Division from PUC). Don’t like it? Change the law. I have no problem with Oregon having a gas-tax funded Highway Patrol. In fact, Kitzhaber is looking to change it. But the voters in Oregon voted a Constitutional Amendment back some years ago to make State Police funded by the income tax. Unlike many states, State Police is not a “Highway Patrol” but it is a general police agency, which has the jurisdiction to enforce any law, anywhere in the State of Oregon. It can enforce laws within cities. It is also the campus police force for Oregon State University, the state Fish & Game Wardens, the State Fire Marshal, the security for the Oregon Lottery, the oversight agency for the tribal casinos, the bomb squad for most of Oregon, and often acts as a local police agency with the lack of nearby police officers. It’s “highway patrol” function is just one of the many hats OSP wears – why should OSP do all of that, but only motorists subsidize it – when hunters and fishers don’t pay for the part of OSP they use?

    Of course, I routinely ignore those indirect costs and look only at direct costs, but if we’re going to involve indirect costs – they must be applied to transit projects as well. The lost time and productivity, the social costs, the negative benefit costs of forcing riders to change modes and transfer, the lost property taxes by taking over formerly private property (this is especially true for WES)…we can go on and on for both transit and highway modes.

  34. Erik,

    Good comments on the various types of highways. I’m of the opinion that Barbur north of the Tigard interchange ought to be turned over to local jurisdiction–not to mention oddities like Hall Boulevard (!!!) which is still technically a state highway south of Progress. (The wisely-unsigned OR141 then continues down Durham to Boones Ferry and into Tualatin, where it peters out, IIRC). The roads which ought to be owned and operated by ODOT ought to be highways of regional significance, not highways of former regional significance.

    Conversely, there’s a few roads in the area which might benefit from ODOT operation. Roy Rogers Road comes to mind as one example, as do Edy Road/Tualatin-Sherwood Highway and Cornelius Pass Road, at least between US30 and Cornell.

    Canyon has some level of regional significance, far more so than does Farmington just to the south. It doesn’t have a parallel freeway which has obsoleted it (US26 is too far away to be a useful alternative), unlike the former routings 99E, 99W, and US30, and as such serves a lot more regional through traffic than is ideal for an urban boulevard. Barbur south of the Tigard Interchange has the same problem, as does McLoughlin through Gladstone and Oak Grove, as does Powell in Gresham and East Portland (though Mt. Hood Highway traffic tends to disperse through the street grid when entering Gresham rather than concentrating on Powell), and W 11th down in Eugene.

    WRT ranch homes: What (legally) prevents them from being built? Most of the zoning regulations in place specify maximum densities, not minimum densities. OTOH, if developers have made the decision (which many of them have) that subdividing into 5000 square foot lots is the most financially productive way to build, it should be obvious that a multistory home and not a ranch is going to go onto said lot. (Ranch houses seem to be out of style as well, a matter of taste I won’t touch any further). I’ll concede that this behavior is likely driven by the presence of the UGB, which limits the amount of buildable area–but still, ranch houses are not to my knowledge, illegal to build. Developers building on spec just prefer to build something else that a) they can cram more of in a given development, and b) they think will appeal to more homebuyers.

    There are plenty of ranch houses available in the metro area. Older neighborhoods in Beaverton (say, Hyland Hills) have tons of ’em. And many of ’em are far better built than much of the more recent housing stock (for reasons having nothing to do with architectural style or land use laws).

  35. This is why I tried to separate the police expense issue from my main point… which is…

    Using cost per passenger mile alone is a terrible way to rate transit modes.

  36. TriMet uses boarding rides per hour as its main productivity standard. So we end up with relatively packed long express runs where almost all riders board downtown having middling br/h scores compared with circulators with people constantly getting on and off.

    It’s not that br/h is bad; it just doesn’t tell the whole story. No one measure does. Same thing with cost per passenger mile.

  37. Builders won’t build them because they’re not profitable enough – they’ll either build McMansions, or townhomes. Nothing inbetween.

    That’s sort of true, although I wouldn’t call the typical new two-story home on a tiny lot a “McMansion”. As EngineerScotty pointed out, ranch houses need a fairly large lot. They can also cost more to build simply because of the need for a larger footprint and more roof. If you want a 2500 square foot home, you can put one story on a 2500 square foot foundation with 2500 square feet of roof, or two stories on 1250 square feet with 1250 square feet of roof (oversimplified for the example).

    In fairness, you could build a 2500 square foot single-story home on a 5000 square foot lot — just don’t expect to get very much yard with it, particularly once you’ve taken into account various setbacks from the street and adjoining property lines, and the need for a driveway. And from the point of view of a developer, it probably makes more sense to put a pair of 2500 square foot two-story homes on 2500 square foot lots with almost no yard at all — as long as zoning will allow it and there are enough people willing to buy that kind of home.

    When you buy a home, you aren’t just paying for the house itself, but for the land it’s sitting on … and that cost is a function of both location and size. You want a ranch home, you need to pay for a larger lot (all other things being equal) or accept a smaller yard than (probably) a lot of people want.

    Anyway, I’m glad you found the home you wanted. A three year search must have been a pretty discouraging process.

  38. Builders won’t build them because they’re not profitable enough…

    That’s the entire thing. It’s not profitable enough. This is true everywhere in the US. Portland and Oregon policies have little to do with it.

  39. I should have reloaded before posting. Anyway, I wanted to address this:

    Unlike many states, State Police is not a “Highway Patrol” but it is a general police agency, which has the jurisdiction to enforce any law, anywhere in the State of Oregon.

    In most states the Highway Patrol also cover a number of other crimes. The CHP for example helped recover stolen computers (more than once that I personally worked on) for a prior employer as the operating agency working with the FBI and local officials. The did so because they were goods shipped from Texas, so it was an interstate matter. The CHP also investigated a threat against the director of the CA lottery that originated from a computer I managed, so I think they’re probably quite similar in scope to the OSP even though official it sounds like they only enforce traffic violations.

    I know in NY that sworn officers include state prison guards, the State Troopers, etc. The State Troopers work with the FBI and US Marshals regularly, etc.

    In both cases any sworn officer, regardless of the agency who employed them, had jurisdiction statewide. I’m not sure that the OSP are that out of the norm.

  40. One thing Eric H does have right is we cannot expect car operators to pay their externalized costs and NOT transit riders. That is not fair. We also need to factor in court costs, police labor/benefits costs, etc. when assessing if a ticket actually is a net gain in terms of revenue for cities. Probably not, and especially not after you factor in other safety services that are needed to clean up and accidents (fire response, police, property damage, etc.).

    Speaking of property damage from cars, I noticed some vehicles ran the median on Naito Parkway over newly two or three planted trees. I wonder if they will ever get replaced…and where does that money come from (it should be from auto user fees).

    My conjecture, that with installing a fair market transportation policy, we will find that more neighborhoods will have very good walkable amenities.

    I don’t think it would make driving punitive, either; it’s too good of a transportation tool for different kinds of trips.

  41. Does this mean were only stuck with 18 more years – about $88 million going down the WES hole (if Wilsonville keeps up with its subsidies)?

  42. R A Fontes Says:Does this mean were only stuck with 18 more years – about $88 million going down the WES hole (if Wilsonville keeps up with its subsidies)?

    ~~~>That’s exactly what that means!

  43. A Multnomah County judge will issue a verdict later today in the case against fired TriMet bus driver Sandi Day, who ran over five pedestrians with a TriMet bus last April, killing two. Day’s defense team apparently has conceded on the charges of illegal left turn and failure to yield to pedestrians (those charges are open-and-shut cases); but is contesting the most serious charge, that of “careless driving”, arguing that Day’s conduct didn’t rise to the level of negligence needed to sustain that charge.

    As all of the charges (like most traffic violations) are “offenses” under Oregon law (as opposed to “crimes”, a category which includes misdemeanors and felonies), a bench trial as opposed to a jury trial is being conducted. (Were she charged with a more serious offense such as reckless driving–a misdemeanor which carries a potential prison sentence–Day would be entitled to a trial by jury).

  44. Day’s defense team apparently has conceded on the charges of illegal left turn
    JK: Wasn’t that mandated by the route and locations of bus stops, both our of the control of the driver?

    What choice did she have, except to refuse to violate the law and risk firing? Of course this is what anyone at Trimet (or any other job) should do – too bad the law does not vigorously defend such employee actions.

    Thanks
    JK

  45. No, JK–the stop she made was an unscheduled one.

    And while the general path the route takes (including the location of scheduled stops) is specified by TriMet, nothing prevents a driver from going around the block to avoid an unsafe turn, or otherwise deviating from a route to avoid an incident or an unsafe condition. Drivers have a duty to obey the traffic laws at all times.

  46. EngineerScotty Says:: An interesting article by Edward Glaeser: How Skyscrapers can Save the City.
    JK: A great way for millionaires that don’t like lawns and yards to live. However they tend to be unaffordable for the average person.

    For instance one of the promoters of Vancouver’s towers admitted that they cost about $1000/sq foot, or about $2 million for a condo the size of the average house.

    see http://blip.tv/file/2622938/ and portlandfacts.com/housing.html

    Thanks
    JK

  47. A great way for millionaires that don’t like lawns and yards to live. However they tend to be unaffordable for the average person.

    For those interested in reading the actual article Scotty referenced, you’ll see that it addresses issues of affordability and size and what it does to make other housing stock more affordable as well, contrary to JK’s assertion about millionaires.

  48. Bob R. Says:
    A great way for millionaires that don’t like lawns and yards to live. However they tend to be unaffordable for the average person.

    For those interested in reading the actual article Scotty referenced, you’ll see that it addresses issues of affordability and size and what it does to make other housing stock more affordable as well, contrary to JK’s assertion about millionaires.
    JK: Indeed it does address issues of affordability (quoting Bob’s reference):
    but for ordinary skyscrapers, it doesn’t cost more than $500,000 to put up a nice 1,200-square-foot apartment. … If there were no restrictions on new construction, then prices would eventually come down to somewhere near construction costs, about $500,000 for a new apartment. That’s a lot more than the $210,000 that it costs to put up a 2,500-square-foot house in Houston
    I think that pretty much reenforces my point:
    2500 sq ft ordinary house……$210,000 ($84/sq ft. house and a nice yard)
    1200 sq ft in high rise…………$500,000 ($417/sq ft. and no yard)
    That’s a 5:1 difference!

    But as Bob says he does discuss ways to bring down the, even more expensive, cost of NYC high rises to the $500,000 figure.

    Thanks
    JK

  49. Here’s a few interesting things from Bob’s source (bold added):

    Again, the basic economics of housing prices are pretty simple—supply and demand. New York and Mumbai and London all face increasing demand for their housing, but how that demand affects prices depends on supply.

    An increase in the supply of houses, or anything else, almost always drives prices down, while restricting the supply of real estate keeps prices high.

    Of course our UGB restricts the supply of land, making housing more expensive. (A builder won’t sell a house for $200,000 when he paid $100,000 for the vacant lot)

    Simply put, the places that are expensive don’t build a lot, and the places that build a lot aren’t expensive.

    Building up is more costly, especially when elevators start getting involved.

    This is another contributor to Portland’s expensive housing.

    Finally, individual neighborhoods should have more power … Rather than regulate neighborhoods entirely from the top down, let individual neighborhoods enforce their own, limited rules that are adopted only with the approval of a large share of residents. In this way, ordinary citizens, rather than the planners in City Hall, would get a say over what happens around them.

    A nice thought on cutting the power of city planners!

    Thanks
    JK

  50. jk, quoting: Again, the basic economics of housing prices are pretty simple—supply and demand. New York and Mumbai and London all face increasing demand for their housing, but how that demand affects prices depends on supply.

    JK:Of course our UGB restricts the supply of land, making housing more expensive. (A builder won’t sell a house for $200,000 when he paid $100,000 for the vacant lot)

    And, of course, our UGB creates a desirable environment in which to live — accounting for the constantly increasing DEMAND for housing, the other half of the equation.

  51. Interesting story in today’s O.

    Quotes that jumped out:
    “‘The old adage that everybody’s headed to the central business district just does not hold true,’ said [the head of Vancouver’s long range planning department], whose own 12-minute commute starts in east Vancouver. ‘There’s as much crosstown commuting.’”

    “From 2001 to 2009, [Vancouver] added 74,000 people and 9,400 jobs. In the same period, Portland’s Multnomah County added 78,000 people but lost 24,000 jobs.”

    Food for thought.

  52. Jeff F Says: And, of course, our UGB creates a desirable environment in which to live
    JK: But is a doubling in the cost of our housing worth it? (Look at the cost of a 2500 sq ft house on 1/4 acre here compared to the one in Houston mentioned above.)
    Has the UGB really helped our daily living environment?
    Has it reduced pollution in our city?
    Has it reduce congestion in our city?
    Has it made our daily commute easier?
    Has it increased green spaces in our city?
    Has it given us better schools?
    Has it given us lower crime?
    Has it given us better social services?

    Exactly what good has the UGB done for the residents of Portland?

    Jeff F Says: — accounting for the constantly increasing DEMAND for housing, the other half of the equation.
    JK: Can you prove this? I suspect that the demand is mostly due to the constant propaganda coming our of the local governments and builders, tricking outsiders into coming here until they run out of money and have to move back home.
    And as bjcefola pointed out, Clark county added almost as many people as Multnomah county and added, instead of lost jobs. That means little Clark county is growing are a faster rate than us. That suggest they are more desirable!

    Thanks
    JK

  53. The quality and usefulness of the land here and the land in Houston is rather different. If you took away the UGB, I’m willing to bet that land here would still be more expensive.

    Houston is no paragon of deregulation anyway. The entire state is hurting for a lack of revenue (the “Texas Miracle” evaporated with the last of the stimulus payments), and their building codes hide many restrictions otherwise suited to zoning laws.

  54. Here’s an interesting paper on the topic of land-use regulation, “sprawl” and Houston:

    How Overregulation Creates Sprawl (Even in a City without Zoning)

    From the abstract:

    In fact, a wide variety of municipal regulatory and spending policies have made Houston more sprawling and automobile-dominated than would a more free-market-oriented set of policies. The article also proposes free-market, anti-sprawl alternatives to those government policies.

  55. JK: But is a doubling in the cost of our housing worth it? (Look at the cost of a 2500 sq ft house on 1/4 acre here compared to the one in Houston mentioned above.)

    Oregon has invested tremendous effort in land use planning since the early 70s and the UGB has been in place since 1980. If the UGB was the single cause for an increase in housing costs, we should have seen an effect a long time ago.

    Why the UGB should have an effect on schools or social services (among others) is a mystery.

    JK: Can you prove this? I suspect that the demand is mostly due to the constant propaganda coming our of the local governments and builders, tricking outsiders into coming here until they run out of money and have to move back home.

    What you “suspect” flies in the face of reality, JK. Where are these flocks of disgruntled immigrants heading back to Iowa? Why does the population continue to grow and why is it projected to grow even more? Why do I constantly meet people who have just moved to Portland? (Yes, that’s anecdotal, but it’s also in line with everything I’ve read or observed over the last 20+ years.)

    How can you reference supply and demand while denying that the latter half of the equation exists? A house in Houston is cheaper, but the downside is that you have to live in Houston.

    And as bjcefola pointed out, Clark county added almost as many people as Multnomah county and added, instead of lost jobs. That means little Clark county is growing are a faster rate than us. That suggest they are more desirable!

    It certainly suggests they’re cheaper. Before you go too far with this, however, why not provide evidence that people are moving to Clark County from outside the region, and why.

    You’re welcome.

  56. Jeff F Says: Oregon has invested tremendous effort in land use planning since the early 70s and the UGB has been in place since 1980. If the UGB was the single cause for an increase in housing costs, we should have seen an effect a long time ago.
    JK: No. The artificial shortage of land only starts when development spreads out to the point where it reaches the UGB. Before that time it has only a little effect. Once we hit the wall, it has a major effect.

    Jeff F Says: Why the UGB should have an effect on schools or social services (among others) is a mystery.
    JK: Because the UGB has forced spending on housing leaving less money for other things. Also, since high density does not make economic sense, the government pours money into developer’s pockets to build things like the Macadam Urban Renewal district with its many million dollar condos (now discounted). Of course the government also spends money subsidizing “affordable” housing which would be less necessary without the artificially inflated prices caused by the UGB. Currently, over $50 million is being taken from schools, social services, police and fire departments to give to developers through urban renewal property tax diversions. Google TIF.

    Jeff F Says:What you “suspect” flies in the face of reality, JK. Where are these flocks of disgruntled immigrants heading back to Iowa?
    JK: Of course, I was speculating, but you woould not see them because they are gone!

    Jeff F Says: Why does the population continue to grow and why is it projected to grow even more?
    JK: They have to project massive growth to justify spending more millions on their politically connected developer buddies.

    Jeff F Says: How can you reference supply and demand while denying that the latter half of the equation exists?
    JK: No one is denying that demand exists. If fact it is demand, above the supply, that raises prices. Neither operates independently. Given the level of demand, Metro’s artificially constrained supply is driving up prices (or was before the whole scheme started to unravel.)

    Jeff F Says: A house in Houston is cheaper, but the downside is that you have to live in Houston.
    JK: That region that is growing faster than ours, proving that more people want to live there than here.

    Jeff F Says: It certainly suggests they’re cheaper. Before you go too far with this, however, why not provide evidence that people are moving to Clark County from outside the region, and why.
    JK: The fact that people are moving there is all the evidence one needs to show that it is attractive. The why is irrelevant – the people made their choice. And YES, price DOES matter to most people. Only the rich (and many planners) don’t seem to worry about price.

    JK: You’re welcome.

  57. Only the rich (and many planners) don’t seem to worry about price.

    Care to name some of the “many” planners who “don’t seem to worry about price”?

    Hint: Not viewing the impact and/or mechanism of the UGB in the same way that you do does not mean that those people aren’t concerned about housing affordability. This tactic of constantly deriding “planners” as being out-of-touch meddlers is tiresome and offensive.

    I suspect that you would feel equally insulted were someone to trot out the tired line that libertarians don’t care about the poor and their policies only benefit the rich, right? So drop the derision.

  58. I noticed this in the MLR FEIS:

    “The LPA Phasing Option also includes other cost reduction measures that would not affect the analysis of environmental effects. These include not building system features such as switch heaters and overhead wire ice-caps, and deferring a contribution to a system-wide electronic fare system replacement previously assumed to coincide with the Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail Project”

    There’s an electronic fare system in the works? Anyone have details?

  59. New CRC news about the Vancouver side alignment just went up at OregonLive:

    New Columbia River Crossing options could throw off alignment in Vancouver

    The cable-stayed would look nice, especially if the Boise-Cascade site gets developed as planned, but if it costs more and will wind up cutting through downtown Vancouver it seems like the decision is obvious.

    Oh, and they have an article about the perceived increase in traffic here. I don’t see as much traffic as I expect, but I’ve rarely needed to drive anywhere at peak hours recently.

  60. The other day I cheated on the Streetcar, I went one stop beyond the limit without paying. I knew I did wrong, and had accepted my punishment when for the first time ever I saw a fare inspector checking peoples fares. About time! My hero! He got up to me and asked if I had fare. I said I didn’t… and then nothing happened. He didn’t even warn me or figure out who I was or anything. I didn’t come up with any excuses or talk my way out of it.

    I did go ahead and validated a ticket I found deep in my wallet, but that was after he’d apparently decided not to enforce the rules. I’m definitely a jerk for cheating, but what the heck? I almost wanted to complain about the guy for not doing a good job.

  61. From what I understand, the fare guys on the street car are only taking a “fare survey” and are not enforcing fare. It’s a way to track fare evasion, encourage folks to purchase fare (which I have witnessed many times – guilt works), and I’m pretty sure since they are PS Inc employees, they are not union employees – so the surveying vs. enforcement probably saves money.

  62. Does anybody have any information about commuter rail between Vancouver and Portland? I looked around and couldn’t find any mention of the subject, except for a brief mention in an old ODOT study about commuter rail in Oregon.

    I ask because it seems intriguing to me: the UP line is double-tracked between Vancouver Station and Union Station, the ride is only 15 minutes, deposits people right in the middle of downtown, and unlike WES, actually seems to go somewhere, on a route that is over crowded. Am I missing something here?

  63. In other news, Dominique Fong of The Oregonian reports on a national electric car project which will install over 1000 charging stations through the state of Oregon, in the cities of Portland, Eugene, Corvallis, and Salem.

  64. Does anybody know how many of the Sellwood Bridge users live in Clackamas County (and for that matter other places outside Multnomah County)?

    I ask because its noted that many users of the bridge cross the county line in their trip, but the vehicle registration fees for it can’t consider that–just where the vehicle is registered. Its not like a sales or income tax which can hit visitors. If a good amount of the vehicles used are registered in Clackamas County, than they really are getting a juicy deal.

    Maybe tolling should be looked at.

  65. Please pass this suggestion along to anyone you know who is opposed to the CRC project.

    Governors Chris Gregoire and John Kitzhaber will be meeting with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood during the National Governor’s Conference, Feb 26-28. Since this starts on the weekend I am assuming that they will meet on Monday Feb 28.

    Those who oppose the CRC may wish to send comments to Secretary LaHood, prior to this meeting, so he will at least be able to critically listen to what the Governors will be recommending to him. I have already sent a message reflecting concerns that were raised by US Congressional members during the Feb. 21 Field Listening Session in Vancouver conducted by US Rep. John Mica.

    Communications can be sent to the Public Liaison:
    lindsey.geisler@dot.gov

  66. Ron,

    Is it also okay to email that address if you feel that a better solution to the I-5 bridges should be available for users in the Northwest?

  67. You can still send comments about the CRC to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood via;
    lindsey.geisler@dot.gov

    Here is what Rep. Peter DeFazio and Bill Schuster had to say on On Feb. 21:
    Referring to the Millau Viaduct he (DeFAzio)saw in France: “Every time some one would come in to talk about CRC I’d say go online and look at this bridge; they did it for $800 million dollars and tell me it’s going to cost $4 billion to go across the Columbia River?” “I’m pleased that both of our governors have said ‘Let’ step back from this; let’s look at the reality of the cost, and of the design and other elements.’ ”

    Rep. Bill Schuster (R-PA):
    “What can we do in the federal government to reduce the cost to build that bridge? As Mr Defazio said: That engineering marvel in France (for) $800 million, and we’re looking at billions of dollars for a bridge here (that is) much smaller than that bridge in France.”

  68. Some good news for Portland, courtesy of The Urbanophile..

    What? Haven’t these people heard that Portland is an anti-business tax hell, that residents and businesses are fleeing like rats from a sinking ship, and that we have a 120% unemployment rate here? What the hell are they doing bringing stuff like facts and numbers to the table?

  69. @Juke: The cost comes because the CRC is actually a bunch of projects bundled together that include (1) an overbuilt bridge, (2) reconstruction of multiple interchanges, (3) unnecessary removal of a perfectly useful bridge, and (4) a light rail extension. If all they wanted to do was build a fairly nice freeway bridge with wider lanes and no drawbridge, they could do it for a fraction of the total project budget.

  70. I hadn’t seen it mentioned yet, but OPB has been advertising a show called Streetcar City that will air Feb 28th. (Not sure what time.)

  71. @EngineerScotty: That article doesn’t really seem to explain why the problem is with social media. In particular:

    Sure, Twitter is just one tool. But Tuesday’s systemwide MAX breakdown didn’t pop up on the agency’s website and text alerts either.

    So it sounds like the issue is with TriMet’s coordination of service alerts themselves, not the use of social media itself, which I just regard as giving more flexibility to riders in how they here the message.

  72. @Douglas K:

    Portland ACS Median Income: $48,053
    Beaverton ACS Median Income: $55,213
    Hillsboro ACS Median Income: $59,061
    Vancouver ACS Median Income: $47,950

    US Median Household Income: $51,425

    source: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/

    Oregon’s high personal income tax is onerous. And Portland and Multnomah Co. both have a business income taxes. If you’re in Portland, you get taxed both at 3.65%.

    2.2% for Portland and 1.45% for Multnomah County.

    http://thevig.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=15870

    No such taxes in Washington or Clackamas Counties.

    This is in addition to the new top Oregon tax rate of 7.9% passed by the recent measures, or 6.6% if it’s less than $250,000.

    Portland being a higher taxed city than the rest of the metro area is not a myth.

    Growth is occurring in the Portland metro area, just not in great numbers inside the city limits.

    I think it’s time the city of Portland has a wake up call and realizes it is losing out on employment opportunities. It is sad that a city with such great potential cannot recognize that it lacks major big businesses — those are all out in the suburbs.

    Portland’s taxes are contributing to suburban sprawl by the way. We need to make Porltand the destination for businesses. Not Hillsboro…

  73. Oregon has a “high” personal income tax because the state does not collect sales taxes like most other states. Sales taxes tend to be more regressive than income taxes, so that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

    According to this table of overall taxation by state prepared by the Tax Foundation, Oregon’s overall state and local taxation (as a percentage of income) is 17th in the nation, right between North Carolina and Ohio, not exactly known as bastions of anti-business attitudes.

    Oregon’s taxes are way lower than California’s, according to that table, by the way. (But higher than Washington’s).

    Portland and Multnomah county do indeed require additional taxes that other locales within the state do not.

    However, at a time of historically low taxation (in terms of actual rates and in terms of a percentage of GDP), much lower than the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s, perhaps the solution is not a race to the bottom by further lowering already rather low taxes.

Leave a Reply to Bob R. Cancel reply

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