Metro weighs in on CRC phasing


At yesterday’s CRC work session, which as Chris noted was intended to be about issuing a Land Use Final Order, instead got diverted to the subject of financing, and in particular, the subject of phasing the CRC project which was suggested last week by The Oregonian

Bottom line: The Metro council wasn’t keen on the idea, as the project FEIS is about to be published–and it only includes one phasing option. In this phasing propsal, most of the project would be completed, including the entirety of the bridge itself, the Yellow Line extension to Clark College, and most of the interchange work on I-5 in the ‘Couv. In phase 2 a few additional ramp improvements are built. Needless to say, this phasing would do little to improve the financial situation of the project.

Any other phasing proposals, it was pointed out, would require the FEIS to be modified, and likely cost many more years and dollars beyond the $130 million or so already spent on public relationsanalysis and design. (When phased projects are built, federal regulations require that each phase have “independent utility”, so that if succeeding phases are cancelled, the public isn’t stuck with a white elephant, and so public officials don’t go and do the least important parts first, knowing they are more likely to get the whole thing done than if they do the most important parts first. At least, in theory).

Given the present political situation in Washington, its somewhat understandable that local leaders seem eager to get a deal done, any deal, lest a mood of national austerity result in the money hose being shut off. (Of course, if there’s a default, all bets may well be off). But as we’re also finding in DC–while deadlines may result in deals getting done, they don’t often result in good ones.


26 responses to “Metro weighs in on CRC phasing”

  1. Phasing makes perfect sense:

    1. Spend under a Billion build highway bridge for 81,000 daily drivers. Finance from 50% Federal funds (about $400 mil) and $200 mil from each or OR & WA. No tolls needed.

    2. Rebuild some intersections.

    3. Build light rail when transit ridership increases, from current (DEIS) 1650 people, to point where there will be enough riders to justify spending another billion dollars.

    Thanks
    JK

  2. JK’s plan looks good to me, except the order. :)

    At minimum, the item “rebuilding some intersections”, when the existing intersections are perfectly usable, ought to be the lowest priority of the three. And the creation of a lengthy “bridge influence area” extending for several miles, ought to be seen for what it is: an attempt to elevate the priority of a low-priority collection of projects by bundling it with a high-priority one.

  3. I don’t agree with JK’s funding mechanism. There SHOULD be tolls on this facility. There should be tolls on EVERY highway that vary to spread out congestion and improve the efficiency of the system.

  4. There should be tolls on EVERY highway

    Getting maybe off topic, all freeways should arguably have been/be funded with tolls and not the gas tax as (the actual Columbia River crossings being an exception) freeways aren’t needed to get anywhere or access any properties but are instead a “premium” level above and beyond the basic road system. In addition, it would mean that people who don’t get to benefit from them wouldn’t have to pay for them.

    As for congestion, how many people and businesses value time more than money?

    The same can’t be said for rail transit lines, since some stations aren’t accessible by other transit and, moreover, many times the old parallel transit service isn’t continued.

  5. re: Tolling roads

    Then lets have transit riders pay the actual cost of their transportation too. (With subsidies for the low income.)

    And use variable transit fares to keep seats always available. That will spread out transit seat availability and improve the efficiency of the system

    thanks
    JK

  6. And the creation of a lengthy “bridge influence area” extending for several miles, ought to be seen for what it is: an attempt to elevate the priority of a low-priority collection of projects by bundling it with a high-priority one.
    JK: I think that serves a dual purpose:
    1. Raises the price tag of the project which makes the tolls higher so that they can be used as a credit to the local match for light rail to get the feds to pay 100% of the light rail cost.

    2. Since one option (since dropped) was to run light rail beside I5, the WA interchanges would have to be modified to accommodate light rail. This just shifts that cost from rail to roads, a typical ploy in the spirit of shifting rail expenses to bus. Note the light rail’s path to the Kiggins Bowl Terminus: http://www.nobridgetolls.com/option_a_map.html

    Thanks
    JK

  7. JK–

    It’s easier to get matching funds for smaller projects than larger–New Starts, for instance, matches 60% on projects less than $1B, but as TriMet discovered (leaving aside the question of WHEN they discovered this), larger-ticket projects only get 50%.

    At any rate, the FTA share for light rail is based on the local match for light rail work. Rebuilding the interchange with Fourth Plain Boulevard is not going to bring in additional light-rail dollars; any more than building tracks through downtown Vancouver is going to bring in highway dollars.

    Dropped plans don’t figure into the funding equation.

  8. Dropped plans don’t figure into the funding equation.
    At the time of the DEIS, that was not a dropped option. The option of running LRT beside I5 is plainly described in the DEIS and that is the basis of my guess that including rebuilding of the interchanges as part of the highway project was to shift costs from rail to highway which justifies higher tolls and keeps the LRT money down. A win-win for the LRT people and lose-lose for everyone else.

    Thanks
    JK

  9. JK–The idea that the rebuilding of interchanges, which costs twice as much as the LRT portion of the project, was added to increase the funding for the LRT section, is flat-out ridiculous. Were that the case, the interchange component would disappear once the freeway-adjacent LRT alignment was dropped.

    Your post suggests a belief that only the pro-LRT “side” of this debate is capable of engaging in pork-barrel politics, and that any dubious items are the result of light-rail logrolling. I would suggest to you that this belief, if you happen to hold it, is utterly incorrect–if you think there’s no backscratching and such in the highway industry, you’re sorely mistaken.

    Light rail is small potatoes compared to the amount of money involved in pouring asphalt and concrete.

  10. This is a freeway project, not a light rail project. The ONLY reason light rail is there is to try to get buy-in from enough key people in the Portland area. ODOT would drop LRT in a heartbeat if they thought they could push the project through without it.

  11. EngineerScotty Says: JK–The idea that the rebuilding of interchanges, which costs twice as much as the LRT portion of the project,
    JK: Wrong. The interchange work, Lrt & highway bridges are each about 1/3 of the project cost.

    EngineerScotty Says: was added to increase the funding for the LRT section, is flat-out ridiculous.
    JK: I didn’t say that. I said they had to change the interchanges to accomodate LRT, so doing a rebuild for traffic flow allows them to hide the cost of the LRT construction in the highway budget, which justifies increased tolls.

    EngineerScotty Says: Were that the case, the interchange component would disappear once the freeway-adjacent LRT alignment was dropped.
    JK:
    1. Not until the next EIS comes out. Right now the DEIS is the latest information. The FEIS is only a draft.
    2. They still need lots of highway spending to keep the tolls high enough to be a credit for the local march to get the Feds to pay 100% of the LRT.

    EngineerScotty Says: Your post suggests a belief that only the pro-LRT “side” of this debate is capable of engaging in pork-barrel politics, and that any dubious items are the result of light-rail logrolling.
    JK: Pretty much so. The fix for LRT was in from the selection of the CRC task force by Blumenauer’s right hand man Marcroft. You recall Blumenauer, the bike guy that drives a SUV. http://www.portlandfacts.com/earl/earlinsuv.htm

    EngineerScotty Says: Light rail is small potatoes compared to the amount of money involved in pouring asphalt and concrete.
    JK: Not in the fantasy land or Oregon’s Metro.

    Thanks
    JK

  12. “ODOT would drop LRT in a heartbeat if they thought they could push the project through without it. ”

    Which could be a likely scenario on the N/NE Quadrant project. The bike/ped lobby will get some concessions, and an overwhelming number of I-5 users will support the plan. If that goes first, no CRC.

  13. You recall Blumenauer, the bike guy that drives a SUV.

    What the heck does that have to do with anything?

    Once again you’ve leaped to the false assumption that being pro-transit or pro-bike while not being 100% car-centric is somehow being anti-car.

    For the record, in case anyone cares at all: Our household owns a car, a van, and three bikes. On Friday, my partner who usually takes MAX to work, rode his bike instead. Does that make him an anti-transit hypocrite? Or is he only a hypocrite on the days that he drives instead of taking MAX?

    Really, JK, for someone who so often insists that people only use facts and figures to make an argument, and not arguments by authority or association, to call someone a “hypocrite” (which you do, under your own name, on your own web site) because of what they drive at a particular point in time, is real danged, well, an exercise for the reader.

  14. Bob R. (quoting JK) You recall Blumenauer, the bike guy that drives a SUV.

    What the heck does that have to do with anything?
    JK: Earl is a major bike promoter. He gets himself photographed riding his bike in Washington. He wears a bike pin (which was mentioned in a European newspaper). He is involved in organizations that promote bikes as a primary mode of transport. He advocates policies to discourage driving.

    And he drives a SUV.

    And after the linked picture came out, he issued a press release. None would have been necessary if the popular impression was that he drove like everyone else, but also biked (like your case you described.)

    Does that explain it?

    Thanks
    JK

  15. None would have been necessary if the popular impression was that he drove like everyone else, but also biked

    None would have been necessary were it not for the popular misconception that people who advocate pro-bike, pro-walking, or pro-transit positions are “anti-car”.

    It’s similar to the popular misconception, which I know you’ve been on the receiving end of (unfairly), that people who advocate for policy change in their own area should just move somewhere else. (This misconception affects people who point toward Houston for examples regarding zoning and auto travel, just as it affects people who point toward Denmark for bike travel.)

  16. “You like it so much, move there” isn’t a misconception, it’s a reaction. It may be fair or unfair, depending on your point of view, but it’s simply an opinion that can’t be disproved.

    A misconception is when someone is demonstrably wrong on the facts — like thinking that someone who advocates the increased use of a particular mode of transport necessarily uses that mode and only that mode to get around town. I suppose one COULD hold the opinion that everyone should choose only a single mode of transport to get anywhere and use that mode exclusively — such an opinion is not necessarily “wrong,” just stupid and totally unrealistic.

  17. Then lets have transit riders pay the actual cost of their transportation too

    If drivers had to pay tolls, as well as their parking and other things they use and cause, transit could possibly get enough use to make that happen. Well-used transit brings in lots of revenue; it’s all of the trips that never get anywhere near full that are a drain.

    I’m not sure there’s many people who truly think that subsidizing the operating of mostly empty transit is the best use of funding; as in if they were king and could do anything reasonable, that’s what they’d like to do.

    Also, its nice to see that you think poor transit riders should get subsidies. But it’s the disabled who really deserve it, as fare discounts for them are written into law and the accessibility features and space needed to transport them create extra expenses.

    And use variable transit fares to keep seats always available

    That’s not unreasonable, and some agencies do that to an extent. Though transit has an ability to scale, and provide extra service when needed. It can mean more vehicles and other capital expenses, but operational costs are the real issue for transit.

  18. Also, its nice to see that you think poor transit riders should get subsidies. But it’s the disabled who really deserve it, as fare discounts for them are written into law and the accessibility features and space needed to transport them create extra expenses.

    Why should a disabled MILLIONAIRE/BILLIONAIRE get subsidies? That’s why I said poor or needy.

    Thanks
    JK

  19. Why should a disabled MILLIONAIRE/BILLIONAIRE get subsidies? That’s why I said poor or needy.

    Your espousal of progressive themes is laudable.

    One counter-argument is that implementing intrusive needs-based testing (to determine if someone is “truly” needy) increases government intrusiveness into private lives, and places a burden on personal freedom.

    Government does not currently determine the “need” to enter a subsidized public library to read a book or access the Internet, our local government does not currently determine the “need” for public fire departments to respond (this is not universally true), government does not currently determine the “need” to walk through a subsidized park or zoo (although some do implement age-based discounts).

    For regular transit, TriMet sells discounted passes (with age-based discounts) to anyone who wants to buy one, but they do not enter into a complicated needs-based analysis.

    However, this has changed for LIFT service. TriMet now operates an assessment and training center, basically an indoor course with sample ramps, lifts, traffic lights, etc., to determine if someone can manage to navigate regular transit service rather than receiving more costly door-to-door LIFT service.

    But that means someone who needs LIFT service for the first time is going to have to go through the bother of scheduling an appointment, being taken down to TriMet’s assessment center (I’m assuming TriMet will at least provide the ride), and going through the course with an attendant.

    That same someone has probably already gone through other lengthy assessments for social security disability, etc., in part because society doesn’t want people who don’t “deserve” a particular subsidy to receive it.

    Thus, “legitimate” users of a service have to jump through a lot of hoops.

    The flip side of that coin, though, is if you sufficiently narrow a service down to just the few, most-needy, least-powerful people, it falls out of the public mindset and is easy to neglect and cut. After all, there’s very few poor, disabled, needy people at the levers of government.

  20. I’ll add the following: On a per-capita basis, there are so few billionaires in the world, that it’s economically inefficient (a waste of taxpayer money) for local governments to spend time ensuring that none receive subsidized LIFT service.

  21. Years ago I would have agreed with you, but he slipped into a screening of “Coraline” almost unnoticed, and several friends who I was elbowing (“Hey, that’s Phil Knight”) didn’t believe me until afterward when he emerged from a restroom (no, we didn’t stalk the restroom, it was a coincidence).

    People look different without their PR persona engaged. :-)

  22. (Although I suppose that if Phil were being judged by the standards being applied to Earl, he’d be a hypocrite because he is publicly known for advocating an active, athletic lifestyle and here he was sitting in a suburban movie theater not burning calories. For shame.)

  23. Given that his studio MADE the dang movie, I kind of find it intriguing that he would go watch it at the multiplex.

  24. We figure it was some kind of studio field trip… there were a few other studio folks in the audience (or their friends/families), as evidenced by random applause for assorted names as they came up in the credits. But the bulk of the audience was regular theater-goers.

  25. “See, honey? Right there! There’s my name–under Assistant Key Grip, Second Unit. Wait–there it goes…”

    “Oh, I’m SOOO proud of you! Let me look you up on IMDB!”

Leave a Reply to Bob R. Cancel reply

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