More from CPI: Calls on Congress to block MLR, but still build the bridge


Our friends at Cascade Policy Institute have been busy, with a letter being sent to House Transportation chair John Mica (R-FL) asking that funding for Milwaukie Light Rail be deleted from future federal appropriations. While Mica and the GOP is known to be targeting discretionary funding, including infrastructure, as part of budget cutting exercises, whether the House would attempt to “reverse-earmark” a specific project (blocking appropriations for it via legislation, rather than simply reducing FTA budgets and letting the FTA figure out where to make cuts) is unknown. One suspects that Mica gets plenty of similar letters from engaged partisans all over the country, asking him to promote or quash a wide variety of projects.

More interesting, though, is the letter that Cascade sent to Governor John Kitzhaber–asking the gov to support an alternate, low-cost plan for transit in the corridor. The plan is detailed here; but includes the following items:

  • Finish the new bridge over the Willamette River
  • Cancel the light rail portion
  • Connect the streetcar loop
  • Offer more “express” bus service to Milwaukie

CPI thinks that this will cost about $300 million or so, the bulk of which is the cost of the new bridge, freeing up a bunch of money for “other projects”.

Intriguing.

The projected cost of the bridge is indeed in the $300M range, if memory serves me, though I suspect “completing the loop” will cost more than couch change. Having the bridge would improve bus operations downtown even if no light rail ran across it. However, I can’t imagine this idea meeting FTA cost-effectiveness critera–the MOUS for Milwaukie MAX only removes the Park Avenue section. (OTOH, were a project to be paid for out of local funds only, then the MOUS is irrelevant and the project can be whatever the region wants it to be).

Obviously, more runs of the 99 aren’t really a replacement for light rail (or vice versa); express bus and rapid transit (whether rail or bus) are two different services which provide two different functions. I’ve long been open to the concept of BRT in the corridor–given the lack of a strong anchor in the Milwaukie area, and the “funneling” effect the river has on the perpendicular bus service, a good quality open BRT line (which, to me, means more than a space-age looking bus with a distinctive paint job and the occasional signal override) would make an attractive option in the corridor, particularly if it could reach Oregon City instead of Milwaukie. (And express busses can use a busway to provide more reliable service than the 99 barreling down McLoughlin; one advantage of bus over rail is that it is far easier for express vehicles to pass locals). Of course, replacing light rail with BRT–something which was considered early on in the South Corridor Project, then dropped when the city of Milwaukie expressed a preference for light rail–would require significant more planning work.

,

55 responses to “More from CPI: Calls on Congress to block MLR, but still build the bridge”

  1. I’m not necessarily opposed to this, but what would become of having an intelligent connection from the yellow line to somewhere south of downtown?

    Also- how many people lobbying does it take to get a reverse-earmark?

  2. It probably isn’t the number of people, it’s the number of $ that the people have in their wallets, that gets you attention in Washington. :)

  3. The $250 million of state lottery funds were largely appropriated due to the hard work of the Clackamas County legislative delegation: Carolyn Tomei, Kurt Schrader (when he was a state senator), Dave Hunt, Rod Monroe (who represents a part of the County) and Kate Brown (district included Milwaukie). It would certainly violate the spirit of the funding, if not the actual letter of the legislation, to use the money for a streetcar bridge in Portland, but not build the light rail line. Further, it would poison the well for the next time TriMet asks the legislature for funding. Bad idea.

  4. There is certainly an argument to be made for BRT, but that would still require a large capital expenditure to buy and build the right-of-way. True BRT should be almost exactly like light rail (exclusive ROW, prominent stations with wide stop spacing, etc), just with cheaper vehicles that may be able to run more frequently due to lower operating costs. The main reason to go with rail is capacity, and obviously we don’t know yet if Milwaukie will generate that kind of ridership in the short term.

    It is clear that CPI is not talking about BRT, but simply running more express buses. Express buses are fine for what they are, but they are very expensive to operate and they do nothing to really get people out of their cars in day-to-day life. Clackamas clearly wants to go in a different direction than typical suburbia, and express buses aren’t going to push them in that direction.

    This is a case where it makes more sense to go ahead with light rail since it has advanced so far and since it is a good idea for the long term. We should at the same time be realistic that the age of federal transportation investment may have come to an end, and accept that this may be the last light-rail line for awhile. Priority in the future should be on restoring and enhancing core bus service and on building enhanced-bus or BRT systems in select corridors.

  5. zefwagner Says: This is a case where it makes more sense to go ahead with light rail since it has advanced so far
    JK: It hasn’t advanced anywhere. It is only on paper. It is about $1500 MILLION away from completion.

    zefwagner Says: and since it is a good idea for the long term.
    JK: If it is for the future, then build it in the future, if actual demand materializes.

    Before this lines meets its ridership projections (if it ever does) we have a good chance of driverless cars that provide better mobility, at lower cost, to the handicapped and non-drivers. Probably a lot cheaper too!

    You don’t buy a computer for the future, and you shouldn’t lock in public transit “for the future”.

    Thanks
    JK

  6. At $30,000 per car, that $1500 million would buy about 4000 cars EVERY year (8% amortization). Forever. At an average life of 20 years, that would provide a perpetual fleet of 80,000 cars. That will serve a LOT more needy people than that MAX line ever will.

    And those cars would probably be cheaper to operate than LRT.

    The above got me to thinking: Suppose we had put all previous LOCAL LRT money into cars for the needy?

    Local match annual cost of the present LRT system: $66.65 million
    How many deluxe/driverless cars for the needy would this purchase?

    66.65e6 / 30 e3 = 2200 per year. For a total fleet of 44,000 cars. That is probably a LOT MORE than the total number of needy MAX riders. And they would have fast, door-door service – a much better way to improve transport services for the needy!

    Thanks
    JK

  7. jk: 66.65e6 / 30 e3 = 2200 per year. For a total fleet of 44,000 cars. That is probably a LOT MORE than the total number of needy MAX riders. And they would have fast, door-door service – a much better way to improve transport services for the needy!

    Adding 44,000 cars to our current auto traffic strikes you as a good idea?

  8. The Dems can retake Congress in a matter of months
    and Mr Mica can go back to the minority.
    MLR will cruise along and be built over time and over budget , nothing to see hear ,move along…

  9. @E. Scotty:

    Cost of TriMet’s bridge is $135M, not $300M!

    Cost of the Eastside streetcar project is $150M, sans new bridge.

    JC’s endorsement is as well thought out as Portland Streetcar’s planning. Logical bedfellows.

  10. The main reason to go with rail is capacity, and obviously we don’t know yet if Milwaukie will generate that kind of ridership in the short term.

    Agreed, which is why I’m not completely sold on MLR unless it’s extended to Lake Oswego (a much better option than the ill-conceived LO Streetcar) and/or Oregon City. I am glad the multimodal bridge is becoming a reality, however.

    Express buses are fine for what they are, but they are very expensive to operate and they do nothing to really get people out of their cars in day-to-day life.

    This, plus without a dedicated ROW, the buses are only as “express” as the rest of the traffic they’re sharing the road with.

  11. Wow, I was wondering when I would first hear “driverless car” as a reason not to build mass transit. Are you kidding me? The whole point of mass transit is to give people alternatives to driving! A car is still a car, even if it drives itself. Electric cars are still inefficient in terms of energy per person and roadspace per person. If Milwaukie wants to become more than just a typical suburb, it will need mass transit at some point.

  12. zefwagner Says: The whole point of mass transit is to give people alternatives to driving!
    JK: No it isn’t. It is to provide mobility to those with no other choices, primarily the low income handicapped and under 16 people. And to export parking spaces from downtown.

    To simply give people alternatives, is bad policy because the transit alterative:
    1. Is slower than driving. (See: portlandfacts.com/commutetime.html)
    2. Costs about FIVE times the cost of driving (actual cost.) (See: portlandfacts.com/transit/cost-cars-transit(2005)b.htm)
    3. Uses more energy per person transported each mile than new cars. (See: portlandfacts.com/top10bus.html, portlandfacts.com/transit/busvscartedb.htm)

    zefwagner Says: Electric cars are still inefficient in terms of energy per person
    JK: Small cars AND electric cars are a lot more energy efficient than transit. Under BHO’s latest auto mandate, transit will be a huge energy waster compared to the average car.

    zefwagner Says: and roadspace per person.
    JK: Providing more road space is a heck of a lot cheaper than providing transit. I hope you realize that Trimet sucks up $320 million from non-users every year. That would build a lot of increased road capacity. Heck it would even build a new Columbia River bridge in two years!

    zefwagner Says: If Milwaukie wants to become more than just a typical suburb, it will need mass transit at some point.
    JK: It already has mass transit: BUS!

    Thanks
    JK

  13. Did CPI’s proposal include converting an motor vehilce lane on McLouglin to exclusive transit use? Without ROW you can’t have real BRT; just throwing move buses out there doesn’t get you much except more expenses for operators. The high cost of LRT to Milwaukie is ROW, so going with BRT does not save much as the Metro study demonstrated. Indeed, cost per ride for buses is significantly higher than for rail as the cost center is the vehicle operator. CPI and others of that ilk want to kill high quality public institutions…schools, transit, etc. to demonstrate their belief that everything would be better in private hands.

  14. The proposal appears to be for express bus only; no physical improvements. Of course, taking away lanes of auto traffic on McLoughlin would be the low-cost way to implement higher-quality transit (compared to building a new ROW, whether road or rail), but that ain’t gonna happen.

  15. BRT would be an excellent choice as an alternative to Milwaukie MAX.

    It can be extended to Oregon City with little effort. Planning a MAX extension to OC would entail probably another billion dollars, months of citizen involvement, political wrangling in METRO, more input from the Legislature, more political wrangling in DC.

    Simply following the lead of Everett WA, ( pop 103,000) and inaugurating a double decker service (used during peak times and parked in the garage at others, saving on wear) to Milwaukie (pop. 20,000) and then to Ore. City ( pop. 32,000). would cost about one percent of the proposed MAX lines, excluding any special lanes on the four miles from Tacoma St. to Portland and, also, sufficient park and ride lots. (Although there are plenty of underutilized lots on the route.)

    we have a good chance of driverless cars that provide better mobility, at lower cost, to the handicapped and non-drivers.

    Who is going to get the traffic ticket? Municipalities apparently can’t survive without imposing big fines, so who is going to be to blame? R2D2? They are going to be looking for something to fine you on. If you send your car out on instructions to go get your 18 y/o offspring, who is legally responsible? And if your 18 y/o doesn’t have a driver’s license but is the sole occupant of the car, how do you determine who is operating the vehicle legally.

    Although these things may very well be technically possible, I can see a lot of legal hurdles. And above all you need a person to extort revenue from—or at least a bank account.

    Did CPI’s proposal include converting an motor vehilce lane on McLouglin to exclusive transit use? Without ROW you can’t have real BRT; just throwing move buses out there doesn’t get you much except more expenses for operators. The high cost of LRT to Milwaukie is ROW, so going with BRT does not save much as the Metro study demonstrated. Indeed, cost per ride for buses is significantly higher than for rail as the cost center is the vehicle operator. CPI and others of that ilk want to kill high quality public institutions…schools, transit, etc. to demonstrate their belief that everything would be better in private hands.

    Can you provide evidence, please?

  16. Another option would be to run the LO streetcar over the Sellwood bridge and to Milwaukie. ( It’s about 1.7 miles) If the Sellwood Bridge were rebuilt instead of replaced, federal money could POSSIBLY help fund a streetcar line (assuming federal allotments remain????) The total cost would be a lot lower than the present plan of a total bridge replacement.

    And use Hwy 99E for BRT.

    I can see how street car tracks on the Sellwood bridge could actually be used to IMPROVE the stability of the structure—-but I guess it takes a construction guy to point that out. (Hint: There is almost no chance that any more than four parallel lines on the bridge will ever bear significant load.)

    Not sure if there would be further federal money available beyond the SC funding. And then add BRT, as discussed elsewhere…using a federal grant as Everett, WA did. (assuming such grants continue to exist). Rep. Mica sensed dissatisfaction with the CRC plan during his visit in February. But maybe a much more sensible overall plan would get somewhere.

    And after the 2012 election better get ready for some realpolitics.

  17. I seriously doubt that an impediment to autonomous cars will be the prospect of municipal governments losing revenue from traffic tickets. While some local governments have managed to turn traffic enforcement into a profit center (Coburg comes to mind as a notorious example), it’s not a particularly lucrative gig.

    If it were, someone ought to tell TriMet so they can fund MLR by nailing fare-jumpers. :)

  18. Where is the ROW for BRT to Milwaukie? Are you advocating taking a traffic lane off 99E? If not, its “phony BRT” a totally 2nd class option. Its common knowledge that the right wing in this country has at best distain for public tax supported institutions…schools, transit, and for all I know parks and libraries to name a few.

  19. Lenny Anderson Says: Where is the ROW for BRT to Milwaukie?
    JK: The same place as the right of way for the rest of us – four general use lanes.

    Lenny Anderson Says: Are you advocating taking a traffic lane off 99E?
    JK: NOPE.

    Lenny Anderson Says: If not, its “phony BRT” a totally 2nd class option.
    JK: What is wrong with transit riders being in the same congestion as drivers? After all it is the drivers that pay for most of the cost of transit. Why should people getting 80% of their transport bill paid by others expect faster service too?

    Lenny Anderson Says: Its common knowledge that the right wing in this country has at best distain for public tax supported institutions…schools, transit, and for all I know parks and libraries to name a few.
    JK: You forgot to mention that the 80% subsidy for transit is the real objection. The “right wing” has no problem with mass transit. Their objection is to wasting tax dollars paying a dollar a mile to move people on transit while a car cost 1/4 that AND are 110% paid by users (http://www.portlandfacts.com/roadspaidbyusers.html). Lets get transit paid 100% by users and you’ll find little “right wing” objections.

    As to schools, I note that many of our political leaders choose private schools. DEMOCRATS included. Even BHO(?). Maybe the “right wing” and major Democrats agree on schools.

    And, the “right wing” didn’t put thousands out of work and into poverty by shutting down entire Oregon industries.

    Thanks
    JK

  20. “CPI and others of that ilk want to kill high quality public institutions…schools, transit, etc. to demonstrate their belief that everything would be better in private hands.”

    So…CPI “and their ilk” are turning public schools into public hazard zones? Drugs, molestation, violence?

    Didn’t know that.

  21. There’s no point arguing when basic values are so far apart. Most of us here want fewer cars on the road, don’t want car capacity increased, want to get more people walking, biking, and taking transit, and want to make transit work better and move faster.

    CPI and JK want transit to remain a second-class service for the poor and feeble, want to endlessly build and widen highways, want everyone to have their own car, and seem obsessed with the idea that only drivers should fund roads and only transit users should fund transit.

    We thankfully live in a country where people pay taxes for all kinds of things that do not personally benefit them, but rather benefit society. That is a question of values, and CPI and JK here do not share my values. I suspect they do not share the values of most people in the Portland area, either, based on the kinds of politicians who tend to get elected locally. They are fighting a losing fight, considering flat VMT over the last 8 years, likely to drop over time in the future.

  22. There’s no point arguing when basic values are so far apart. Most of us here want fewer cars on the road, don’t want car capacity increased, want to get more people walking, biking, and taking transit, and want to make transit work better and move faster.

    CPI and JK want transit to remain a second-class service for the poor and feeble, want to endlessly build and widen highways, want everyone to have their own car, and seem obsessed with the idea that only drivers should fund roads and only transit users should fund transit.

    We thankfully live in a country where people pay taxes for all kinds of things that do not personally benefit them, but rather benefit society. That is a question of values, and CPI and JK here do not share my values. I suspect they do not share the values of most people in the Portland area, either, based on the kinds of politicians who tend to get elected locally.

  23. There’s no point arguing when basic values are so far apart. Most of us here want fewer cars on the road, don’t want car capacity increased, want to get more people walking, biking, and taking transit, and want to make transit work better and move faster.

    CPI and JK want transit to remain a second-class service for the poor and feeble, want to endlessly build and widen highways, want everyone to have their own car, and seem obsessed with the idea that only drivers should fund roads and only transit users should fund transit.

    We thankfully live in a country where people pay taxes for all kinds of things that do not personally benefit them, but rather benefit society. That is a question of values, and CPI and JK here do not share my values. I suspect they do not share the values of most people in the Portland area, either, based on the kinds of politicians who tend to get elected locally.

  24. zefwagner Says: Most of us here want fewer cars on the road, don’t want car capacity increased,
    JK: Why? How does that improve people’s lives?

    zefwagner Says: and taking transit, and want to make transit work better and move faster.
    JK: Why would you want more people to get a free ride at the expense of others? (Actually 80% of a free ride.) Especially since that almost free ride is slower than a car, costs more than a car and does not save energy compared to a small car. What is thw social good that you are promoting?

    zefwagner Says: CPI and JK want transit to remain a second-class service for the poor and feeble,
    JK: Please quit accusing others of not caring. The best way to serve the poor is to help them get a car – it is faster, cheaper and greatly widens their job choices. Those poor who cannot drive would be better served with transportation voucher so that they could use low cost, deregulated, cabs and jitneys. It appears that you are arguing for the current wasteful, monopoly transit system as people’s only choice.

    zefwagner Says: want to endlessly build and widen highways, want everyone to have their own car,
    JK: What is wrong with that? Do you think it is proper for you to tell others how to get around? How about telling others what to eat? Where to live? Who to sleep with? Who to marry?

    zefwagner Says: and seem obsessed with the idea that only drivers should fund roads and only transit users should fund transit.
    JK: What do you have against people paying their own costs. Or do you thing others should pay for YOUR choices? Should others pay for your food? Your rent? Your Blackberry? Your TV? If so, I hope you don’t mind paying for others “needs” in return. Why don’t you start right now by buying a bike for a homeless person?

    zefwagner Says: We thankfully live in a country where people pay taxes for all kinds of things that do not personally benefit them, but rather benefit society.
    JK: You mean like all those Millionaire condos paid for by tax money? Or the light rail lines to the millionaire property in downtown? Or the soccer stadium for the millionaire team owners?

    zefwagner Says: That is a question of values, and CPI and JK here do not share my values.
    JK: Yeah, we believe in freedom and NOT expecting others to pay for our toys.

    zefwagner Says: I suspect they do not share the values of most people in the Portland area, either, based on the kinds of politicians who tend to get elected locally.
    JK: I would call that your delusion.

    Thanks
    JK

  25. Drivers don’t pay for all of the costs of roads, not even close. They are enormously subsidized, more than transit in many cases.

    “Do you think it is proper for you to tell others how to get around?”

    No. I support roads, cars, transit, bikes, pedestrian improvements, etc. Each has it place. You are the one denying people a choice.

    “Yeah, we believe in freedom”

    Certain sorts of freedom. Not others, not by a long shot. Of course, liberals are opponents of many freedoms as well. Y’all really aren’t so different.

    “Should others pay for your food? Your rent? Your Blackberry? Your TV?”

    Should others pay for the sorts of spending that conservatives like? Like the military, the surveillance state, police, prisons, subsidies to farmers, subsidies to drivers, subsidies to homeowners?

    The answer is yes they should, because all of these things are necessary and useful to the public as a whole, they increase the quality of life. Much as high-quality rail transport does.

  26. ryan Says: Drivers don’t pay for all of the costs of roads, not even close. They are enormously subsidized, more than transit in many cases.
    JK: Wrong.
    1. Federal highways were built with gas tax money: fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.cfm#interstate_funding

    2. Currently Federal highway users pay MORE than their actual cost. Here is a summary of a Federal report with link to the actual report:
    portlandfacts.com/roadsubsidy.htm

    3.Pew Charitable Trusts looked at highway revenues and, after correction for a couple mistakes, show a subsidy of about 1.1 cent per passenger mile. Compare this with over 60 cents for transit.
    ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2199

    4. The former CFO of the Los Angeles transit system did a study and found that overall road users pay 109% of their actual cost.
    portlandfacts.com/roadspaidbyusers.html

    5. I assume you know that road users pay for mass transit through the Feds giving over 15% of the 18.4 cent/gal gas tax revenue to transit. taxfoundation.org/research/show/2048.html

    6. I also assume you know that cars cleaned up American cities: uctc.net/access/30/Access%2030%20-%2002%20-%20Horse%20Power.pdf

    ryan Says: “Do you think it is proper for you to tell others how to get around?”

    No. I support roads, cars, transit, bikes, pedestrian improvements, etc.
    JK: Glad to hear that. But you left out who is going to pay. Are you really supporting that everyone else pay for your favorite form of transportation?

    ryan Says: Each has it place. You are the one denying people a choice.
    JK: Wrong. Please don’t accuse me of things I didn’t say. I support any mode of transportation that someone wants to pay for themselves. Like road users pay about 109% of their actual cost. Lets do the same for transit and bikes.

    Or are you expecting someone else to pay for your choice of transportation?

    ryan Says: Should others pay for the sorts of spending that conservatives like? Like the military,
    JK: The military is the reason we are conversing in English instead of German, Japanese or Russian. (The reason many progressives hate the military was that Johnson, a Democrat, misused the military in Vietnam – much worse that Obama’s current misuse of the military.)

    ryan Says: the surveillance state,
    JK: It was Clinton that signed the law that makes banks spy on you.

    ryan Says: police,
    JK: Are you seriously saying we don’t need police? (Unfortunately, the politicians of both parties have subverted them into enforcers of social policy & engineering.)

    ryan Says: prisons,
    JK: Are you seriously saying we don’t need prisons? (Unfortunately, the politicians of both parties have subverted them into enforcers of social policy & engineering.)

    ryan Says: subsidies to farmers,
    JK: Lots of Democrats vote for farm subsidies. Didn’t farm subsidies start under a Democrat (Roesevelt)?

    ryan Says: subsidies to drivers,
    JK: I don’t know of any. All I know of is drivers subsidizing transit. See above.

    ryan Says: subsidies to homeowners?
    JK: I thought Barny Frank (D-NY) was forcing banks make more loans for home ownership. ( I argue that this was a minor part of the housing bubble – the big part was the price run up caused by planners’ artificial restraint on supply.)

    ryan Says: The answer is yes they should, because all of these things are necessary and useful to the public as a whole, they increase the quality of life. Much as high-quality rail transport does.
    JK: So is food. We don’t subsidize food for the well off. Why should we subsidize transportation for the well off. And that is 71% of TriMet’s ridership (the “choice riders”- see Trimet’s fact sheet on their web site.)

    Thanks
    JK

  27. “Glad to hear that. But you left out who is going to pay. Are you really supporting that everyone else pay for your favorite form of transportation?”

    Yes, because everyone pays for everyone else’s form of transport. Everything is subsidized–cars, transit, bikes, pedestrians, air travel–all of it. Nobody pays for these things individually, and the users of each don’t pay for the total costs.

    Here is a link which indicated that 51% of highway spending is paid for by user fees–rather far off your 109% figure. Allocate all the fees to roads, and it’s still only at 65%.

    http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/direct-expenditures/highways/funding/analysis/

    Also note that in the US most money for local streets comes out of cities’ general funds, which largely come from sales and property taxes–not automobile user fees. Then there are externalities such as pollution which are borne by the public.

    Here’s a link to a book that explains the very non-market rates that people pay to park, such subsidies are in addition to those above:

    http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/1884829988

    Btw, Republicans (and some Democrats) rage whenever the concept of market-rate parking is proposed, or when the idea of not forcing developers to build parking is brought up. Conservative business owners are also in the habit of thinking that they own and control the public spaces near their businesses.

    “JK: The military is the reason we are conversing in English instead of German, Japanese or Russian. (The reason many progressives hate the military was that Johnson, a Democrat, misused the military in Vietnam – much worse that Obama’s current misuse of the military.)”

    Ok…and I agree, the military is absolutely necessary. But it certainly does not pay its own way, as you demand of transit.

    “ryan Says: the surveillance state,
    JK: It was Clinton that signed the law that makes banks spy on you.”

    I’m not referring to banks (though I know they have to report transactions over ten grand) but to the NSA, CIA, DIA, the various military intelligence agencies, etc. Necessary, and again–they don’t pay their own way.

    “Are you seriously saying we don’t need police? (Unfortunately, the politicians of both parties have subverted them into enforcers of social policy & engineering.)”

    No, I’m not, as I made clear in my original post. They are quite necessary–and they also don’t pay their own way, nor should they, as funding-via-seizures/fines leads to corruption.

    “subsidies to farmers,
    JK: Lots of Democrats vote for farm subsidies. Didn’t farm subsidies start under a Democrat (Roesevelt)?”

    Yes they do, as do Republicans. I think subsidies should be shifted to healthier foods, but Democrats and Republicans tend to support grain and large-ag subsidies.

    “subsidies to homeowners?
    JK: I thought Barny Frank (D-NY) was forcing banks make more loans for home ownership. ( I argue that this was a minor part of the housing bubble – the big part was the price run up caused by planners’ artificial restraint on supply.)”

    I refer to things like Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, VA loans, bank bailouts, mortgage tax deductions, first time buyer credits, etc. All of these various subsidies are supported by the real estate industry, which largely supports Republicans. Now many Democrats favor these subsidies too, as well as things like public housing and Section 8. Many Republicans also support low-income housing as it’s a way to funnel public money (via various tax credits and outright payments) to apartment builders.

    “We don’t subsidize food for the well off. ”

    Just about every type of food is subsidized to one extent or another, aside from fresh fruit and vegetables. And even those sorts of farms benefit from immigration exemptions. Everyone, the wealthy included, gets these subsidies in the end.

  28. While general tax funds subsidize roads the public also derives a general benefit, presently not achievable by other means. And I doubt that we will surpass road transport for a large number of needs. Are you going to get to the hospital in a pedal powered ambulance? Ask your wife to pedal when she is going into labor? Expect the fire department or county sheriff to show up, and then go after the bad guys on bikes?

    Furthermore, I doubt that anyone in Portland is going to stick with only one mode of transport throughout their lives. Ever hear of population demographics?

    Trying to divide US society along some Republican/conservative/business owner vs. Democrat/liberal/wage earner fault line is just plainly pathetic reasoning.

    We thankfully live in a country where people pay taxes for all kinds of things that do not personally benefit them, but rather benefit society.

    And that doesn’t preclude looking for way to bring the costs down to affordable levels. Which is a better buy; The brand new LCD tv for $500, or someone’s used one that originally cost $5000?

  29. I’d like to return the conversation to a few main points. First, our suggestion for finishing the bridge assumes 100% local funding, so no permission needed from the feds. TriMet already has the $250 million in lottery-backed bonds, plus money from Portland and more than $180 million in flex-funds from Metro, if necessary.

    Downtown needs a new bridge anyway, especially the South Waterfront which is heavily dependent on road access (at least 91% of daily trips to and from the district are road-based). The current plan to use the new bridge capacity on 6 slow trains per hour and 3 bus lines, with maximum speeds of 25 MPH, is just wasteful. Replacing the LRT capacity with auto/truck lanes would greatly improve total throughput for passengers and freight, without taking anything away from bikes and peds.

    The comments about improved bus service to Milwaukie seem divorced from reality. Right now, Milwaukie already has good bus service to Portland. If the rail line goes through, that service will be degraded due to the forced transfer of bus riders onto the slow train at Milwaukie, and the loss of all express bus service. And buses don’t need exclusive ROW because McLoughlin is not very congested. Even at the peak period, speeding is probably a bigger problem than congestion on McGloughlin. So from the standpoint of transit riders, LRT is a step backwards from the status quo.

    People claiming that “true” BRT requires its own right of way should try riding the Orange line in LA, which is a BRT route using abandoned LRT ROW. It is actually not a pleasant ride due to constant speed changes and was quite expensive. Similar service (in some ways better) is offered at a fraction of the cost via the Metro Rapid bus lines, which operate in general purpose lanes but with stops spaced roughly 1 mile apart.

    Sure, the El Monte busway is great and the Lincoln Tunnel XBL connecting to the Jersey Turnpike is fantastic if you are a bus commuter, but you need a very high transit demand to justify such facilities. Milwaukie is just a sleepy little suburb with modest transit use; any kind of exclusive ROW for either bus or rail is gross overkill for the market there, and completely unnecessary.

    We can have improved transit service to Milwaukie, plus a new bridge, plus a streetcar loop, for a lot less than $205 million per mile, which is the price tag for PMLR.

    And finally, this option would save all the beautiful shade trees on SW Lincoln Street near PSU that are now scheduled for clear-cutting on September 15. That street already has bus service; can’t we just leave the trees, and the businesses that will be closed, and focus on improving the #17 line?

  30. ryan Says: “Glad to hear that. But you left out who is going to pay. Are you really supporting that everyone else pay for your favorite form of transportation?”

    Yes, because everyone pays for everyone else’s form of transport. Everything is subsidized–cars, transit, bikes, pedestrians, air travel–all of it.
    JK: Simply not true. Please re-read my references.

    ryan Says: Here is a link which indicated that 51% of highway spending is paid for by user fees–rather far off your 109% figure. Allocate all the fees to roads, and it’s still only at 65%.

    subsidyscope.org/transportation/direct-expenditures/highways/funding/analysis/
    JK: Again, you didn’t bother to read my references. If you had, you would see that your source makes the same mistake as the Pew Charitable Trusts analysis – assuming that the highway bonds will NOT be paid out of user fees.

    When I finding such an elementary error, I assume an obviouslly biased source and go no further.

    ryan Says: Also note that in the US most money for local streets comes out of cities’ general funds, which largely come from sales and property taxes–not automobile user fees.
    JK: Please prove this. I provided proof that this statement is wrong. Apparently you didn’t bother to look at the work of the former chief financial officer of the Los Angeles transit system that I referred to. Please take a look before you continue spreading transit industry propaganda.

    ryan Says: Then there are externalities such as pollution which are borne by the public.
    JK: You mean like from buses (which use more energy per passenger-mile than cars) and from the Uranium, Thorium and mercury from the coal power plants that power light rail?

    ryan Says: Here’s a link to a book that explains the very non-market rates that people pay to park, such subsidies are in addition to those above:

    amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/1884829988
    JK: Not interested in buying a book to find what error you made this time. However when I looked at the cost of parking claims from VTPI, I found it is tiny (except in obsolete downtowns): portlandfacts.com/parkingsubsidy.html

    ryan Says: Btw, Republicans (and some Democrats) rage whenever the concept of market-rate parking is proposed,
    JK: We already have market rate parking all over downtown Portland. Haven’t you ever noticed all those monthly parking signs? Or are you really proposing yet another, thinly disguised, punitive measure against automobiles?

    ryan Says: or when the idea of not forcing developers to build parking is brought up.
    JK: Agreed it an outrage that Portland does not require 100% on site parking. But that would get in the way of Portland’S utopian plans to densify Portland and make driving more difficult. See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/printables/Disincentives%20to%20the%20Automobile.pdf

    ryan Says: Conservative business owners are also in the habit of thinking that they own and control the public spaces near their businesses.
    JK: Why are you ignoring Liberal business owners all over Portland. Why do you automatically say conservative when you bring up something bad?

    Thanks
    JK

  31. “Please re-read my references.”

    Please reread mine.

    “Again, you didn’t bother to read my references. If you had, you would see that your source makes the same mistake as the Pew Charitable Trusts analysis – assuming that the highway bonds will NOT be paid out of user fees.”

    I read them. They are unconvincing, biased, and flat-out wrong.

    “ryan Says: Also note that in the US most money for local streets comes out of cities’ general funds, which largely come from sales and property taxes–not automobile user fees.
    JK: Please prove this”

    Look up the budget of very nearly every city in the United States. City streets are largely paid for with general taxes, not user fees.

    “Then there are externalities such as pollution which are borne by the public.
    JK: You mean like from buses (which use more energy per passenger-mile than cars) and from the Uranium, Thorium and mercury from the coal power plants that power light rail?”

    Yes, and the pollution that comes out of automobile tail pipes. There are also non-coal sources of power.

    “We already have market rate parking all over downtown Portland. Haven’t you ever noticed all those monthly parking signs? Or are you really proposing yet another, thinly disguised, punitive measure against automobile”

    Said market rate parking has to compete against heavily subsidized street parking, meaning it’s not market rate in the least. Also, there are areas of Portland that are not downtown.

    “When I finding such an elementary error, I assume an obviouslly biased source and go no further.”

    This applies to all of the sources that you provided.

    “Conservative business owners are also in the habit of thinking that they own and control the public spaces near their businesses.
    JK: Why are you ignoring Liberal business owners all over Portland. Why do you automatically say conservative when you bring up something bad?”

    Liberal business owners definitely do this too. Liberals and conservatives are actually alike in many ways.

  32. And finally, this option would save all the beautiful shade trees on SW Lincoln Street near PSU that are now scheduled for clear-cutting on September 15. That street already has bus service; can’t we just leave the trees, and the businesses that will be closed, and focus on improving the #17 line?

    I’m glad you brought this up.

    The city and TriMet is not mitigating for their loss fairly.

    It would be like cutting down the Transit Mall’s Plane Trees and putting up dinky columnar trees as “mitigating for their loss.”

    What’s being lost here is more than trees, but also architectural history and a functional canopy, something that the city and TriMet does not seem concerned about.

    http://videos.oregonlive.com/oregonian/2010/02/portland-milwaukie_ligh_raid_s.html

    This is something that has not received much attention, if any at all. I disagree with the placement of stop/route there given its negative impact on the existing street.

  33. ryan Says: I read them. They are unconvincing, biased, and flat-out wrong.
    JK: Oh, really?

    What is “biased and flat out wrong” witht he charts and quotes at this refrence:
    http://www.portlandfacts.com/roadsubsidy.htm
    they all came from the U.S. Department of Transportation

    And while you’re at it tell us what is “flat-out wrong” about this work by the former CFO of the LA transit system and founder of the transit audit division of one of the, then, big 8 accounting firms:
    http://www.portlandfacts.com/roadspaidbyusers.html

    ryan Says: “ryan Says: Also note that in the US most money for local streets comes out of cities’ general funds, which largely come from sales and property taxes–not automobile user fees.
    JK: Please prove this”

    Look up the budget of very nearly every city in the United States. City streets are largely paid for with general taxes, not user fees.
    JK: I did. YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN.
    I asked the head of Portland’s budget (or whatever) office a few years ago and he said the only non road user money might be for street lighting. (Please don’t try to argue that street lighting since the 1800s was for cars invented in the 1900s.)

    Please quit believing the transit industry and greenie propaganda and widen your reading.

    Thanks
    JK

  34. I don’t believe in far-left/transit industry/greenie propaganda, nor do I believe in far right/automobile fetishism/residential real-estate-industry-propaganda. What I know is that if you want mobility other than lots of walking and a bit of bicycling, you must support pervasive, generous subsidies to pay for the necessary infrastructure.

  35. ryan Says:
    I don’t believe in far-left/transit industry/greenie propaganda, nor do I believe in far right/automobile fetishism/residential real-estate-industry-propaganda. What I know is that if you want mobility other than lots of walking and a bit of bicycling, you must support pervasive, generous subsidies to pay for the necessary infrastructure.

    Many people have a fatalistic view that good political decisions are also going to require a lot of money. My evidence? Admittedly not a lot; however when I have worked on government projects I hear a lot of people saying “Who cares if its inefficient. The government has lots of money!” Nowadays, we have a lot of PC regulation that further pushes the costs up. And some people say that “You get what you pay for.” I think the explosive growth of companies like “dollar Tree” says otherwise.

    At least we have one person on the Portland City Council—Amanda Fritz—who has started holding up government spending to scrutiny. Some people can figure out ways to make something cost less. That’s why I cited the $500 LCD tvs.

    In Africa, they refer to something called “African technology.”

  36. ryan Says: What I know is that if you want mobility other than lots of walking and a bit of bicycling, you must support pervasive, generous subsidies to pay for the necessary infrastructure.
    JK: Now tell us why subsidies are needed.

    I’ll answer for you:
    Bikes & Transit have to be subsidized because the users do not find them of sufficient value to pay for them themselves so they use the power of government to force other people to pay for their choice of transportation. One way they try to hide their selfishness is to play the “helping the poor” card, but that is an obvious ploy because there are cheaper, better ways to help the poor attain mobility. (Or false claims of helping the environment – but transit does not help the environment compared to small cars.)

    AL M Says: Hey JK, is that your website that you link to or someone else’s?
    JK: Portland Facts is my collection of links to quality data about smart growth and how it harms people. ti.org/antiplanner is Randal O’Toole’s blog.. (Please do not assume we are conservatives just because we do not believe in wasting taxpayer money. In fact we are social liberals, probably more liberal than a lot of people here.)

    Chris I Says: It’s his own. Ask him why.
    JK: I needed a place to explain the meaning of the raw data from sources like Trimet. Initially it was the energy use and cost of a bus compared to a car. You have to calculate the BTU per mile for the car, adjust for average passenger loads and convert gallons of diesel to BTU etc. To put that level of detail on a blog post takes a lot of space and is time consuming. Easier to just lay out the case with supporting links to credible primary data. And it grew over time as I discovered Trimet was lying when they said they brought in the first two light rails lins on time and on budget. Then I found that the AAA cost of driving was just for upscale people and was almost double the average cost. Then there is the safety of MAX. I seems to be a never-ending job to counter all the propaganda surrounding the Portland planning program.

    Thanks
    JK

  37. Admittedly not a lot; however when I have worked on government projects I hear a lot of people saying “Who cares if its inefficient. The government has lots of money!” Nowadays, we have a lot of PC regulation that further pushes the costs up.

    That’s funny. In decades of working on government projects I’ve never heard anyone say anything remotely close to that. It’s almost as if you made it up out of whole cloth.

    As to “PC regulation”, I’ll have to guess that you mean regulations on clean air, clean water, worker safety… boy, that really sounds heinous.

  38. “Bikes & Transit have to be subsidized because the users do not find them of sufficient value to pay for them themselves so they use the power of government to force other people to pay for their choice of transportation. One way they try to hide their selfishness is to play the “helping the poor” card, but that is an obvious ploy because there are cheaper, better ways to help the poor attain mobility. (Or false claims of helping the environment – but transit does not help the environment compared to small cars.”

    No, transit has to be susidized because infrastructure must be subsidized, which is why cars have to be subsidized. No subsidies = no roads = no cars.

    Everybody pays for every form of transport. Non-motorists pay for motorists. Motorists pay for non-motorists. There are cross subsidies in every direction, regardless of mode. That’s the way taxes and government and public goods work, everybody pay for everything. The alternative is to walk everywhere.

  39. ryan Says: No, transit has to be susidized because infrastructure must be subsidized,
    JK: Then how come Greyhound IS NOT subsidized?
    How come Rose City Transit WAS NOT subsidized?

    ryan Says: which is why cars have to be subsidized. No subsidies = no roads = no cars.
    JK: Roads are paid for out of user fees. Have you learned nothing from the credible references I provided? Are you still denying the U.S. Department of Transportation graphs and data I referred to?

    ryan Says: Everybody pays for every form of transport. Non-motorists pay for motorists. Motorists pay for non-motorists.
    JK: You left out the fact that “non-motorists” are a tiny minority receiving a large per person subsidy (ie: getting 80% of their transportation costs subsidized.)

    ryan Says: The alternative is to walk everywhere.
    JK: No the alternative it to have each mode pay for its own costs LIKE CARS DO NOW, like Greyhound does and like Rose City transit used to do and probably still would if Portland had not refused to let them run their business as a business.

    Thanks
    JK

  40. Its clear from J. Charles reponse that CPI favors more roads and status quo transit. They would have loved Portland before the 70’s when we could maybe see Mt Hood on about half the clear days of the year. Has CPI done an article arguing how much better Portland would be if the Mt Hood freeway had been built and SE Portland bulldozed? Would make interesting reading.
    The agenda for Portland’s transportation future needs to be the DE-construction of the freeway network thru the middle of the city; its wearing out and should be de-commissioned. No self respecting community would put up with something like the Eastbank freeway along their river, not to mention all the loss of property taxes from inner city land given over to saving suburban drivers five minutes, if that.

  41. Lenny Anderson Says: Its clear from J. Charles reponse that CPI favors more roads and status quo transit.
    JK: Yep. That is what people actually use because roads and cars are more convenient, cheaper and use less energy that transit. What’s not to like about that?

    Lenny Anderson Says: They would have loved Portland before the 70’s when we could maybe see Mt Hood on about half the clear days of the year.
    JK: You just can’t resist insults can you? You know the reality is that cars were cleaned up, NOT that people reduced driving or switched to transit. Cars are now cleaner than Trimet’s buses. And unlike light rail, they DO NOT emit mercury, uranium, thorium or chop up birds and fish.

    Lenny Anderson Says: Has CPI done an article arguing how much better Portland would be if the Mt Hood freeway had been built and SE Portland bulldozed? Would make interesting reading.
    JK: We would be wasting less time and money in congestion and have cleaner air because of less congestion and have a more efficient city.

    Lenny Anderson Says: The agenda for Portland’s transportation future needs to be the DE-construction of the freeway network thru the middle of the city; its wearing out and should be de-commissioned.
    JK: And replaced with what? Bikes? Walking? $1/passenger-mile transit? How would goods get delivered? How much time would people waste walking or biking?

    The simple reality is that your prescription is a prescription for lowering our standard of living. (Like you & you buddies did to thousands of Oregonians who used to work in the timber industry. Hint: trees grow back!)

    PS: How come the last time I saw you, you were driving a SUV instead of a low carbon foot print hybrid or a bike?

    Lenny Anderson Says: No self respecting community would put up with something like the Eastbank freeway along their river, not to mention all the loss of property taxes from inner city land given over to saving suburban drivers five minutes, if that.
    JK: Naw, the PDC will put up tax-exempt millionaire condos in an urban renewal district that funnels the tax money that does exist into the pockets of Portland’s elite developers.

    Thanks
    JK

  42. JK: Naw, the PDC will put up tax-exempt millionaire condos in an urban renewal district that funnels the tax money that does exist into the pockets of Portland’s elite developers.

    Probably worse than that. A lot of them will be woodframe condos—akin to McCormick Pier—and just as exposed to railroad noise. The only ones that would be safely removed would be those at least ten stories up, a senario not so likely in the CEID—-unless we wait twenty years.

    I agree with the “elite developers” critique. Anyone who lives in an urban condo or apartment is buying mass, corporate produced housing. And a lot of them are working in corporate jobs, too. Unlike on a bare lot or acreage, you can’t build your own home. You just become another cog in the wheel of a big corporation, eventually supporting what they want. This is far different from the individualized homes built in the old part of Northwest Portland.

    not to mention all the loss of property taxes from inner city land given over to saving suburban drivers five minutes, if that.

    How much property tax land does a riverfront park bring in? You really don’t think that Portlanders would be content with the present, narrow Esplanade if the I-5 were removed? And then the best case scenario is to have a two block wide park—–with a heavy freight train cruising by at all hours of the day.

  43. Andersen Construction here on Swan Island built a number of condo tower projects in the Pearl District. Does that make this local, family owned enterprise part of the bad “elite developers” conspiracy?
    I assume CPI et.al. would rid us of the Urban Growth Boundary, reverse the shift to non-freeway transportation policies dating from the 70’s, re-open Harbor Drive, close the Transit Mall, put a parking structure in Pioneer Courthouse Sq., etc.
    Its just not my vision for Portland and not many others either. Has John C. or JK considered running for Mayor or Metro to put some numbers up on how their vision rates with the voters?
    And yes, I co-own a car, once had a BMW I really loved, and until Portland is really outfitted with first class bike and transit, will make use from time to time of a motor vehicle. Gosh, my bad!!

  44. Andersen Construction here on Swan Island built a number of condo tower projects in the Pearl District. Does that make this local, family owned enterprise part of the bad “elite developers” conspiracy?

    Hoffman and Walsh are locally owned also. And Baugh is headquartered in Seattle. Hoyt Group properties is local too. They’re all large corporations; not independent small builders or agencies. And if low rise condos are built in the CEID they probably won’t even be unionized companies. I think it would be cool to have a tenth floor, 1500 sq. ft condo downtown. Can I build one there?

    Who said “conspiracy?” I’m just stating what the facts are.

    As far as what CPI’s goals are, if they are true libertarian they are only considering an individualized, costs/benefits public decision structure (I think I summed up libertarianism) rather than going on the stump for one particular product over another. To put some specific technical weight behind their philosophy I suppose they will step in to the mechanical end of it, too. I’m not a libertarian. Not strictly anyway : )

    I assume CPI et.al. would rid us of the Urban Growth Boundary, reverse the shift to non-freeway transportation policies dating from the 70’s, re-open Harbor Drive, close the Transit Mall, put a parking structure in Pioneer Courthouse Sq., etc.

    How would it be in their economic interest to reverse those things? True, the libertarians are small—I think their candidate got only 20,000 votes in the govs. election. Enough to deny it to Chris Dudley, anyway.

  45. “ryan Says: No, transit has to be susidized because infrastructure must be subsidized,
    JK: Then how come Greyhound IS NOT subsidized?
    How come Rose City Transit WAS NOT subsidized?”

    Greyhound doesn’t even come close to pay its share of the roads. I don’t know about Rose City.

    “ryan Says: which is why cars have to be subsidized. No subsidies = no roads = no cars.
    JK: Roads are paid for out of user fees. Have you learned nothing from the credible references I provided? Are you still denying the U.S. Department of Transportation graphs and data I referred to?”

    Motorists do not even come close to paying their full costs. I have provided links to studies that refute yours. Do you still deny them?

    “ryan Says: Everybody pays for every form of transport. Non-motorists pay for motorists. Motorists pay for non-motorists.
    JK: You left out the fact that “non-motorists” are a tiny minority receiving a large per person subsidy (ie: getting 80% of their transportation costs subsidized.)”

    Tiny minority? Something like 40% of the US population doesn’t drive. Also, motorists receive generous subsidies as well.

    “ryan Says: The alternative is to walk everywhere.
    JK: No the alternative it to have each mode pay for its own costs LIKE CARS DO NOW, like Greyhound does and like Rose City transit used to do and probably still would if Portland had not refused to let them run their business as a business.”

    Cars, of course, have never and likely will never pay their own way. And, of course, neither does transit. Again, if increase mobility is something that you want, you’d better be prepared to subsidize it.

  46. Despite the fact that the bulk of the storm water pollution captured by the Big Pipe project has motor vehicles as the source (oil, gasoline and tire residue from streets and parking lots), owners and operators of motor vehicles paid $0.00 of the $1.5Billion cost. As to our freeways, aka toxic rivers, motor vehicle owners and operators get another free ride as they race thru neighborhoods at 60 mph.

  47. Despite the fact that the bulk of the storm water pollution captured by the Big Pipe project has motor vehicles as the source (oil, gasoline and tire residue from streets and parking lots), owners and operators of motor vehicles paid $0.00 of the $1.5Billion cost. As to our freeways, aka toxic rivers, motor vehicle owners and operators get another free ride as they race thru neighborhoods at 60 mph.

  48. “As to our freeways, aka toxic rivers, motor vehicle owners and operators get another free ride as they race thru neighborhoods at 60 mph.”

    People shouldn’t be driving more than 5 mph over the limit. But a lot of people are in such a rush, apparently because the rest of the world owes them the money to continue their various libational habits.

    And I wish law enforcement would go after the tavern hoppers who race down my street in old (possibly leaking) vehicles with loud pipes at 2 am. (My street has three watering holes in a half mile stretch, plus a few others within a few blocks). Getting more freight up on to the rail tracks would get much of it off I-5, as would a western arterial route. Other toxics like brake dust and diesel exhaust are being cleaned up, by other regulatory actions. Higher fuel economy will decrease the air pollution even more as also would synthetic fuels, electric power or fuel cells.

    And don’t get me started on the out of state traffic that comes through on the “interstate streets.” I hope Portland can pass some laws to stop that.

    About ten years ago when our construction union built a new headquarters in a nearby NW city, I noticed our parking spaces were soon the most contaminated anywhere. Maybe less money on beer and more on vehicle maintenance would help. Most vehicle owners do much better than that. If we eventually perfect the all electric vehicle we should have almost zero fluid spills.

  49. “People shouldn’t be driving more than 5 mph over the limit.”

    Don’t you mean people shouldn’t be driving more than 0 mph over the limit?

Leave a Reply to Chris I Cancel reply

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