Via Planetizen:
“It is extremely important that we understand the effect that the Big Dig debt service has on overall transportation spending in Massachusetts,” said Representative David P. Linsky, committee chairman and a Natick Democrat. “We’re paying over $100 million a year in Big Dig debt service, and that is obviously $100 million that we can’t spend on other transportation needs.”
If anyone thinks the Columbia River Crossing will not displace other regional (and state) transportation priorities, please think again…
14 responses to “Boston as a Cautionary Tale for the CRC”
To me, this is the real and unarguable reason to oppose the CRC. Debate all you want about whether or not it’s needed or is the right thing to do. If you support the CRC what you’re really saying is that it is not only the most important transportation project for the next __ years (fill in the blank), but is so important that it deserves to be the ONLY project of any size during that time.
Someone ought to tell OR Rep. Tobias Read, still one of the main supporters on the CRC and co-chair of the Legislative Oversight Committee on the CRC. email:
rep.tobiasread@state.or.us
What portion of the CRC’s costs are to be paid off using money from tolling? That’s still debt service, but it wouldn’t be money coming out of state transportation budgets.
The project folks suggest something on the order of 1/3rd. But there has been no investment- grade toll analysis yet.
Part of the recent Transportation Bill was to extend more control to rural areas. Perhaps some of the ultra expensive projects confined to small urban areas will be reined in.
http://t4america.org/blog/2012/07/13/ten-key-things-to-know-about-the-new-transportation-law/
“9. For rural communities, a seat at the table and a focus on the most dangerous roads
Many rural communities feel run over during the statewide planning process with little concern or consideration given to their needs. MAP-21 changes the planning law to give these communities a seat at the table during the planning process. It also authorizes the creation of Rural Transportation Planning Organizations to ensure that they can meaningfully participate at the table – though the decision to create these rests with each state.
The new law also takes steps to ensure rural safety needs are addressed. First it requires states to use crash rates, in addition to crash frequencies, to identify and target areas for improvements. This will help rural areas as they do not have as many crashes but often have much higher rates. It eliminates the high-risk rural roads set-aside which states often did not spend and replaces it with a “pop-up” penalty, so if fatalities on rural roads increase then states must spend at least twice their former high-risk rural roads set-aside to improve safety on those roads.”
I recall that urban areas are net losers in transportation investment…i.e. more gas taxes, registration fees are collected than dollars spent; rural areas are the gainers. If they don’t want the money, they can just send it back; if they take it, there will be strings.
re the CRC, there has never been a plan based on real data nor one for paying for it, just pipe dreams and PR campaigns.
What kind of strings? US food is distributed around the world, often free of charge.
Ron,
Thanks for the excerpt. The rural safety emphasis makes sense to me. There’s very little need to expand the rural road network beyond its current comprehensive reach, and most of them don’t wear out because the Interstates have re-routed the majority of traffic. So they don’t get much except the occasional re-striping and some pothole patches.
So to keep the concrete and asphalt lobbies happy, the state DOT’s have had to come up with lots of new urban roads, which of course immediately get overwhelmed with traffic diverted from existing routes. Using that same resources to remove dangerous places on lots of roads is a (relatively) better use of corruption money.
I still gape at the price tag of the CRC.
The Oresund bridge between denmark and sweden only cost like 7 B, and the toll to make that work is about 60 dollars.
So what will the toll on the CRC be?
Hmmmm…interesting conundrum, in your basic Economics 101 you will come across the term, “opportunity costs” which is the principal that for every opportunity taken, there is a corresponding opportunity lost. For instance if you have $2.00 and want a burger and ice-cream for dessert, but the burger is $1.25 and the ice-cream is $1.50 you cannot have both (unless of course you could figure out a way to toll the waiting line). Now imagine the State, is a great big ol’ supersized Mickey Dees and there are millions of people in line wanting a burger and ice-cream with only $2.00 in their pocket.
That is why the Federal and State government go through a painstaking process to prioritize public transportation projects, and the States compete fiercely for Federal dollars. The CRC is very close to the head of the line for Federal funding, they are going to buy us the ice-cream…now only if the State can come up with funding for the Burger. Make no mistake the CRC project is a top priority and if we miss this opportunity to enhance not only the state but the region, there will come a time we will have our collective nose pressed up against the window begging for a burger that will then cost $10….
Hmmmm…interesting conundrum, in your basic Economics 101 you will come across the term, “opportunity costs” which is the principal that for every opportunity taken, there is a corresponding opportunity lost. For instance if you have $2.00 and want a burger and ice cream for dessert, but the burger is $1.25 and the ice-cream is $1.50 you cannot have both (unless of course you could figure out a way to toll the waiting line). Now imagine the State, is a great big ol’ supersized Mickey Dees and there are millions of people in line wanting a burger and ice-cream with only $2.00 in their pocket.
That is why the Federal and State government go through a painstaking process to prioritize public transportation projects, and the States compete fiercely for Federal dollars. The CRC is very close to the head of the line for Federal funding, they are going to buy us the ice-cream…now only if the State can come up with funding for the Burger. Make no mistake the CRC project is a top priority and if we miss this opportunity to enhance not only the state but the region, there will come a time we will have our collective nose pressed up against the window begging for a burger that will then cost $10….
So? As Elvis sang “It’s now or never…?”
1. We’re not really sure of what this opportunity (CRC)is going to cost if it does go ahead. And according to Cortwright, there are lost opportunity costs in the toll collection, i,e not knowing how much it’s going to be, how long it will last (forever, probably) and what taking that amount of money out of the local economy will do. And there are undetermined administrative costs.
2. We don’t know the costs of job loss as properties are acquired in Vancouver
3. We don’t know how much of the construction work will go to locals (and I’m going to include citizens and LPR’s and valid work visas only, thank you) and how much will go to out of state contractors.
True, it has been a long path to getting up close to the front of the line ( as they claim anyway). But it has taken some extraordinary measures to do that to this point, so why not more if there is a different plan? As a last note, the dateline for which the CRC would actually start paying back the investment is somewhere around 2020, isn’t it. If the property acquisition goes ahead on schedule, that would come to several years of losing 100’s of local jobs, before there is a return, other than the construction and spilloff employment.
My only comment is that I have been to the park that used to be a freeway above the big dig, and if the CRC was going to bury the I-5 through all of portland I’d be a lot more inclined to support it… The big dig even with all of it’s cost overruns did eventually result in a huge quality of life improvement for people living in that area of boston. The CRC will have the opposite impact, people living near the project, especially those living on hayden island will see their quality of life degraded, all to support sprawl for people living in quasi rural areas of washington. I don’t like to see the two compared for this reason.
Maybe common sense will finally prevail and the CRC behemoth will be scaled down to a more manageable project that’s implemented in phases as funding allows? That’s the approach ODOT is taking with the Sunrise Corridor, with a few minor components already completed and a new two-lane highway to be built between I-205 and SE 122nd in the near future (I’m assuming Hwy 212/224 and the corresponding signage directing motorists to Mt. Hood will transfer over to this new highway).