The report indicates two major demographic trends: Baby Boomers are “aging out” of driving, while Millenials are adopting it at much lower rates. The report also makes policy recommendations (review large highway projects) in response to the trends.
A NYTimes article today includes coverage of the report.
26 responses to “U.S. PIRG Report Documents Decline in Driving”
Interesting, Chris. However as I have said many times, and now the Brookings Institution confirms, the biggest job growth in the area will be in the Beaverton-Hillsboro area—-in the ‘burbs. Which is probably why they will be setting their own course on transportation policy, at least where they can.
http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/152018-study-jobs-heading-to-the-burbs
However, a west side route—-not a freeway—could keep our tax dollars flowing in from Clark County, in addition to the $150 million per year they already are bringing. Moreover, I think some transit oriented development could still take place with this route: The Rivergate area of North Portland has lots of land for future industrial siting, and I expect the residential population of downtown Vancouver to continue growing. It might grow even faster if their waterfront development takes off. So a third bridge, sometimes derided by environmentalists, could actually link the two; and link to the METRO West Side trail.
A few years ago, people on this discussion forum criticized me out on my statement that within five years there would be a huge selection of high mpg vehicles. How many hybrids or all electric cars do we have on the market today? But I might wait for the 46 mpg Chevy Cruz coming this fall—-or maybe just sit back until a really high mpg hybrid comes out.
I’m not urging people to drive cars. If they can find another means, fine. I’m just trying to be realistic. The ‘path’ we are presently headed in local transportation solutions could be billions, or even tens of billions. I can see some much less expensive solutions accomplishing the same end.
Ron, there is a 1000 foot range of hills and 2 large rivers between Clark County and Washington County. Due to basic geography, it will never make much sense for people to commute between those places in great numbers. There is plenty of open farmland in Washington and Yamhill counties if we want to build more exurban sprawl, and the amount of developed land in Washington county is already enough space for 4 times as many people at a moderate density.
If a private company wants to build a new not-freeway over the west hills and willamette and columbia, I’m all for giving them the chance. But it will never pay for itself; it would make the WES look cost-effective in comparison.
@Joseph E,
Spot on. The “Northwest Passage” would be a hyper-boondoggle.
Anyway, most of my fellow Clark Countians have that typical redneck Republican hatred of a progressive city. Portland really churns their gastric juices.
But that doesn’t mean they don’t want to have a whole series of new bridges — paid for by someone, anyone else, of course — to get to jobs in that despicable city. Also, they love to shop there and pay no sales tax.
So forget about them. Let them stew in line waiting for the narrow, dangerous and over-crowded — but free — existing bridges.
“No Tolls”? “No Loot Rail”? Then No Bridge, Suckers!
And Ron, the people who will be living in the new waterfront development will not be working at Rivergate. Not only will Rivergate workers be unable to afford the units, the “Yuppiness” factor would be way too high for their taste.
The Rivergate/North Delta area would have a variety of occupations—-for men and women. It already does, as do both Port facilities. Improving the port-to-port connection is a well established concept, and because it adds another crossing it has a general appeal. If you want to see how much traffic from the west side of Portland joins I-5 north, you can observe the confluence of I-405 and I-5 in north Portland. I think there are more vehicles from I-405, and I also have taken photos that show that. A good portion of these do come from US 26, and some come from inner NW Portland.
Now that WDOT is purchasing their own tunneling machine could they not let us use it to bore a tunnel under NW Skyline Bv? South of Skyline it is then easy to connect to Kaiser Rd and Cornelius Pass Rd. Beginning in Washington I would connect to the 39th St/Hwy 500 interchange and then to Fruit VAlley Rd and then across the Columbia, incorporating the MArine D/Columbia Bv, loop.
Sure there would have to be a toll; but drives would avoid the congestion on I-5. I also see a possibility of light rail on this route, sweeping through more of DT Vancouver and eventually intersecting with the Westside MAX. Or it could be served with express buses. And this has been endorsed by high level planning types, too.
(Back from Airport car rental place; via MAX and Line 70). A third bridge route,as I described
Ron, there is a 1000 foot range of hills and 2 large rivers between Clark County and Washington County. Due to basic geography, it will never make much sense for people to commute between those places in great numbers.
Tell that to the 200,000 or so daily vehicles on the 101 between Hollywood and Burbank. A little range of hills is nothing. In Europe, they’d just blast a couple tunnels through.
A new four-lane freeway or even arterial is not that unreasonable over the West Hills; especially if it replaced Cornelius Pass Road. Not saying I support or agree with the road, but it is not as unreasonable as one may think.
WDOT will own a tunnel boring machine. The route I envision could have a tunnel at 39th/I-5/Hwy 500 interchange to connect to Fruit Valley Rd. There is enough of a ground rise to allow it, IMO. Likewise tunneling under Skyline seems feasible. Cornelius Pass Rd. could be a feeder—I don’t see why anyone would want to make it a main route—I don’t think there is enough traffic on it to warrant that. It does have a bad switchback on it though that could be corrected.
I can understand concern over any freeway type plan, but I don’t think such a concept would be necessary. Anyway, it is just in theory that highways should be opposed. By establishing a shortcut route, you produce a benefit to alternative transportation, too and to cyclists.
Surface transport vehicles are cleaning up their act, as I have posted many times with excerpts from the Green Car Congress. And those new, greener technologies can apply to mas transit, too, as my posting on the Volvo hybrid bus shows.
As I’ve mentioned previously whenever the subject of a new Clark-Washington Co. route has come up, I’m not opposed to a highway in theory as long as it retains its original purpose of getting people from Point A to Point B and not become a catalyst for more development (and therefore more congestion, severely curtailing its appeal as a quick bypass). It could be a boon for recreational travelers bound for the north Oregon coast, so its benefits would extend well beyond commuting — though, **ahem**, commuting would be less of an issue if Clark Co. were to follow Washington Co’s example and do more to develop its own employment base.
Commuter rail is another possibility along this corridor — only the last few miles of trackage from approximately Helvetia to a connection point with MAX would need to be rebuilt. Congestion issues along the busy BNSF-owned stretch might be a sticking point, however.
Just one question: where exactly would this third bridge cross the Columbia?
Commuter rail is another possibility along this corridor — only the last few miles of trackage from approximately Helvetia to a connection point with MAX would need to be rebuilt.
Actually the entire route would need to be rebuilt; much of it is FRA Excepted Class (meaning: speed less than 10 MPH, no hazardous materials, no passengers).
Even if you improved the track, sharp curves and steep grades would restrict speeds…and the right-of-way of the old OE line from West Union south to Evergreen is all but obliverated thanks to post-MAX widening of Cornelius Pass Road and the Sunset.
A new westside bypass, from Millersburg to Kalama via Independence/Monmouth, McMinnville, and west Hillsboro and St. Helens, would be a wise investment to move through traffic (and freight) away from downtown Portland and thus the Interstate Bridge.
There’s no reason for a new highway or transit route between Hillsboro and Vancouver, even though it is technically feasible, because the current routes are not that much longer than the shortest feasible bypass on the east.
It is 22 miles from Intel to Vancouver via Hwy 26 and I-5:
http://goo.gl/maps/6HAn4
Taking a “shortcut” via Germantown road is 19 miles, only 3 miles shorter: http://goo.gl/maps/ge0ZH
Building a tunnel and 2 new bridges would save another 2 miles to central Vancouver, or 5 minutes at free-flowing freeway speeds, at the cost of billions of dollars.
The only reason people talk about this is that highway 26 and 405 and I-5 are full of traffic, at least at rush hour in the peak direction. The solution to that problem is increasing the price charged for use of the roads (currently set at $0.00 a mile…) until demand meets supply of roadway.
Re: transit; there is again no need for new transit bypass via the west hills, which would only save a few miles, and would have too few riders to justify frequent service or the capital costs. If those existing freeways weren’t congested, we could run express buses…
Gas tax increase or congestion pricing should do the trick… Gas taxes are probably the better political and practical choice
@JosephE;
I measured twenty miles from Vancouver to West Union presently. But about 13-14 miles on our route using the Marine Dr/Columbia Bv. loop and then a canyon just south of Newberry Rd, a tunnel to NW Kaiser and then into NW Cornelius Pass Rd. So you could ride from Vancouver and get on the METRO Trail and to Cedar Hills at about 15 miles. This could also connect downtown Vancouver (which will infill) to the aforementioned loop—3-5 miles.
So this is bicyclable. And an express bus would work very well, since there would be fewer, but major stopping areas, including connecting to some other major thoroughfares. As a last resort, even light rail would have better service: A longer path in Vanvouver, and it could cross to Hayden Island and connect to the Interstate MAX one way, or go south along the route and connect to the West Side max the other way. In this case the land acquisition would be bundled with the highway acquisition; but it is mostly widening of existing routes, so the ROW may already be publicly owned.
The bridge (along the BNSF, and crossing the Willamette just south of Sauvies ISland) would have all modes bundled. This is much cheaper than tearing bridges down, or building a specialty bridge, like the Common Sense ALternative. Robert Liberty’s citizen forum in 2010 gave thumbs up to this proposal, out of fourteen submitted.
“Re: transit; there is again no need for new transit bypass via the west hills, which would only save a few miles, and would have too few riders to justify frequent service or the capital costs. If those existing freeways weren’t congested, we could run express buses…”
There will be new commuters since MAJOR expansion is underway in Washington County. Haven’t you read the news! I don’t know if this wave will be as big as the one that started in the late 1980’s, but it will be big.
With so much misinformation from commenters here, perhaps I should do another article. Much of this route was discussed in 1999 in SW WA RTC’s visioning study. So it is not an arcane idea, by any means. And many people who hear about the “Western Arterial” immediately recognize the value of the idea. Well, maybe not fearmongers who call it the West Side bypass.
Folks,
The bottom line is that you are trying to solve a problem (commuting between Clark and Washington Counties) which should not be solved.
Most of the folks in Clark County would like to “secede” from the Metro area (except that they need the income from their jobs in Oregon. Whoopsie!). They don’t like Portland; they don’t like Oregonians; they whine about paying Oregon Income Taxes.
Let them stew in the daily traffic jams on I-5.
“They don’t like Portland; they don’t like Oregonians; they whine about paying Oregon Income Taxes. ”
>>>> Considering how mismanaged Portland and Oregon are, besides being ‘run’ by the public employee unions….this attitude is probably justified.
Maybe if Clark Co followed Washington Co’s lead and made itself more attractive to an employer like Intel so many of its residents wouldn’t have to work in scary ol’ Oregon.
That’s a testimonial to Washington County – that it’s doing so well DESPITE being in Oregon.
The parts of the country that are doing well seem to be either:
a) Places that have tried to race to the top, attracting knowledge workers and such, and being good places to live where those who can choose where they live will want to come, or
b) Places that have tried to race to the bottom, by engaging in practices such as union-busting, economic deregulation, low taxes, and poor social services, and try to attract companies looking for low costs and a more pliant workforce.
Unsurprisingly, a) correlates well with liberal politics, b) with conservative politics.
A problem Clark County has, is that it’s a politically-red county, but one that is located next to a politically-blue metro across the border–and one that is located in a politically blue state. The ability of Clark County to position itself as a low-cost alternative to Portland, as far as jobs and such go, is limited by politics in Olympia. Washington is not a “right-to-work” state, tax burden is higher than many GOP-controlled states–Vancouver is going to lose in any race to the bottom against places like Tennessee or Texas.
That doesn’t mean it can’t attract industry–it can–but it will be more successful if it touts its proximity to Portland rather than trying to undercut it.
@Scotty,
Spot on, sir. It would be nice if more of the folks here had some relationship to reality.
The truth is that we have better schools than Oregon, on average. If a family has two incomes but one is part-time and secondary, then the smaller earner can avoid Oregon taxes by working over here. There are a lot of ways in which Clark County is already differentiated from Portland.
But the small-minded jealousy of cities so endemic to the South is also endemic here. The wingers are all excited about Integra Telecom moving over here, and it will be a nice boost. But the truth is that half the workforce already lives here because they used to work at Electric LightWave and the company primarily has non-Washington revenues. Hence they’re largely exempt from B&O taxation which is normally a burden for low-margin businesses like bulk telecom provision. So it makes relatively a lot of sense for them to move here.
For most other companies the financial and workforce situation will favor Oregon.
P.S.
Speaking of the jealousy of cities in the South, have you read what Georgia is doing to Atlanta? Talk about killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Without Atlanta the state would be Savannah plus a whole lot of “hinterland”.
The truth is that we have better schools than Oregon, on average. If a family has two incomes but one is part-time and secondary, then the smaller earner can avoid Oregon taxes by working over here. There are a lot of ways in which Clark County is already differentiated from Portland.
Of course, the reason Washington schools are (in general) better is that state law guarantees them sufficient funding–something that anti-tax conservatives cannot take away at the local ballot box. Oregon law, OTOH, caps what local communities can provide for education (no more than 0.% of property values per Measure 5, and with assessed values being considerably lower than real market values per Measures 47/50).
There are many states where the state polity is actively taking a “drop dead” attitude towards the major city; Wisconsin and Michigan are two other prominent examples. Race often as much to do with this.
Well, maybe we should be glad that the military retirees in Vancouver are spending their pension money shopping in Oregon.
But the real bottom line is that METRO’s version of transit oriented development is going to flop. METRO simply can’t control how the world works. I think there can be some opportunities for TOD to arise in conjunction with what the Big Money is deciding to do. But it is better to go with this flow than to try to alter it in a way that doesn’t work. I’m not a fan of suburban sprawl, and now that Clark Co. is trying to simplify business opportunity, I think that could be a downside risk, so I hope the anti-sprawl people will step up and challenge that. For example, ClarkCo commissioner David Madore frequently brings up the idea of a 192nd Ave Bridge, a So. California idea if there ever was one. But SW WA RTC has proposed more economical alternatives; I hope Madore and Co. are listening.
If you don’t like growth in Clark County, it’s very, very simple.
Require close-in housing to be affordable to the median household.
Since that would require eliminating the luxury condos, and artificially reducing the property value of many properties, this won’t happen. Therefore, EXPECT affordable housing to be located elsewhere, and plan for it.
Either that, or eliminate working-wage jobs downtown. That means no more food carts or restaurants, for a start.
Builders are in the money making business, not the money giving away business. If they can’t generate the required rate of return they won’t build. Pricing restrictions (in the absence of offsetting incentives) ensure housing will be built only where it can still generate the required return even at the controlled price, i.e. where land and development costs are cheap. That isn’t a recipe for encouraging close-in housing.
The simplest way of encouraging affordability is to get out of the way and let builders meet demand.
I suspect the easiest way to get more affordable housing in downtown — and everywhere else for that matter — would be to change state tax policy to make real property a less desirable investment vehicle, and to encourage a “one home per person” outcome on the ground. Its a lot harder for a working family to buy a home when they have to compete with cash-rich investment companies bidding up the price.
Not sure what you mean about one person one house, very little of Portland’s housing is vacation homes (about 0.8% per the census). Pricing controls as an instrument of affordability only makes sense if you decide beforehand that you won’t allow more supply. Imagine imposing that rule on another durable good such as cars.
Suppose the mayor announced Portland would no longer allow additional vehicles to be registered to Portland addresses, unless an offsetting vehicle unregistered. To make the allocation of vehicles within the city fair the resale price of registered vehicles would be controlled, using a lottery to match supply to demand. You could call that system a lot of things, but could you say the primary purpose was to make vehicles affordable to people? Would more people have access to cars than they do now?
I’m not talking about price controls, limits on supply, or anything else. I’m talking about changing the tax system to make housing more affordable by making it unattractive to investors — that is, people who aren’t interested in living there, and see it primarily as numbers on a balance sheet. The “one house per owner” outcome would mean that you get some kind of favorable tax treatment for the home that you own and occupy, but not the house you own and rent out for income. The fewer people competing to buy each home, the less housing will cost.
I have no idea what your proposal about limiting cars has to do with anything I said. I will point out that comparing housing to any other durable good is apples and oranges. Land is in fixed supply. No other durable goods are.
Michigan has a what they call a homestead exemption which reduces the property taxes on owner-occupied houses. I’m not sure how much impact that would have on housing prices here if it were implemented. I doubt very much unless the disparity between owner-occupied and non owner-occupied tax rates was enormous.
That said, I’m not sure how much of a factor investment purchases have on prices here. If anything, they are more impacted by rental demand than anything else. There are a lot of other markets where houses are significantly cheaper so in order for an investment purchase to pencil out here, an investor is going to have to have the confidence that they will be able to rent the property out at a high price.