Chief
05-22-2008, 02:08 PM
http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1210960504229760.xml&coll=7
Sunday, May 18, 2008
ROBERT LIBERTY
This spring and summer the Portland City Council and Metro Council will vote on recommendations from the Columbia River Crossing Task Force. The task force has been studying how to address rush-hour congestion caused by commuting on Interstate 5 between Portland and Vancouver.
Most task force members have indicated they prefer demolishing the two existing I-5 bridges, which are structurally sound. The six lanes on those two bridges would be replaced with a new 12-lane freeway toll bridge coupled with an extension of light rail from Portland to downtown Vancouver.
Many serious questions remain to be answered about the proposal:
Does building a 12-lane bridge just move the traffic jam south to the Rose Quarter's four lanes?
How can widening I-5 to handle 40,000 more car trips a day be consistent with a new Oregon law that calls for a 10 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020?
Are the study's methods and assumptions appropriate?
But taxpayers need answers to a different set of questions about the task force. At an estimated cost of $3.1 billion to $4.2 billion, the project is easily the most expensive transportation investment ever proposed for our region.
Oregon taxpayers will be startled to learn that elected officials are being pressed to endorse the $3 billion to $4 billion Columbia River Crossing before there is any agreement about how it will be financed and who will pay for it.
The idea that our federal gas taxes will pay for all, or even most, of the new bridge is unrealistic. At best, those taxes might fund one-third of the total project cost.
Another third of the cost would come from charging tolls of $2.50 to $3 each way to bridge users, tolls that will also help reduce traffic volumes. (Should we spend billions to widen I-5 and then impose bridge tolls to discourage people from using it?)
That leaves about $1.2 billion to be paid by Oregon and Washington taxpayers. How should we allocate these costs between the two states and two parts of the region?
Oregon officials apparently assume that Oregonians should pay one-half of the cost not covered by tolls or federal gas taxes, about $600 million. However, Clark County commuters are the primary cause of the congestion and the primary beneficiaries of the project.
A regional gas-tax increase of about 7.5 cents a gallon, imposed in Clackamas, Washington and Multnomah counties, dedicated solely to the Columbia River Crossing for 20 years, would generate $600 million. A 2-cent statewide tax, imposed for 10 years, also could generate enough money -- but should residents of Bend, Eugene, Coos Bay, Ontario and Klamath Falls subsidize Clark County commuters?
Should Oregonians spend $600 million on the project when we don't have enough money to fix the three bridges over the Willamette River that are older than the I-5 bridge, to fix the Sellwood Bridge or to repair and maintain our existing roads?
Late last year the Metro Council officially concluded that even if the Oregon state gas tax were increased by 1 cent every year for the near future, and even if the vehicle registration fee were increased by $15 every eight years, the region still faced a $7 billion shortfall for various proposed transportation projects in the region -- not counting the Columbia River Crossing.
Should the crossing be our region's top transportation priority, especially if other projects might do a better job, dollar for dollar, in reducing congestion, moving freight or focusing jobs and housing in places where we want growth? Shouldn't we be comparing the freeway bridge's costs and benefits with other projects before we commit to building it?
Before agreeing to spend as much as $4 billion on the bridge and sacrifice other projects and opportunities, elected officials need to explore some cheaper alternatives. We could impose more modest tolls on the I-5 bridges now (reducing congestion immediately) and use the revenues to make the bridges stronger and rebuild ramps that delay trucks and contribute to accidents and congestion.
The next step would be to build a two-lane bridge from Hayden Island to Portland for cars and light trucks, so that residents don't have to use I-5 during rush hour. The also bridge could carry light rail to Jantzen Beach, where buses from Vancouver could provide connections.
Building another bridge across the Columbia and extending light rail could be carried out later as needed.
That's just one approach; others probably are worth considering.
This election year voters should pay close attention to see whether their elected officials ask the tough questions and explore all of the alternatives to ensure that their taxes are prudently invested in addressing the region's most important transportation needs.
Robert Liberty is a member of the Metro Council, representing portions of Northeast, Southeast and Southwest Portland.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
ROBERT LIBERTY
This spring and summer the Portland City Council and Metro Council will vote on recommendations from the Columbia River Crossing Task Force. The task force has been studying how to address rush-hour congestion caused by commuting on Interstate 5 between Portland and Vancouver.
Most task force members have indicated they prefer demolishing the two existing I-5 bridges, which are structurally sound. The six lanes on those two bridges would be replaced with a new 12-lane freeway toll bridge coupled with an extension of light rail from Portland to downtown Vancouver.
Many serious questions remain to be answered about the proposal:
Does building a 12-lane bridge just move the traffic jam south to the Rose Quarter's four lanes?
How can widening I-5 to handle 40,000 more car trips a day be consistent with a new Oregon law that calls for a 10 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020?
Are the study's methods and assumptions appropriate?
But taxpayers need answers to a different set of questions about the task force. At an estimated cost of $3.1 billion to $4.2 billion, the project is easily the most expensive transportation investment ever proposed for our region.
Oregon taxpayers will be startled to learn that elected officials are being pressed to endorse the $3 billion to $4 billion Columbia River Crossing before there is any agreement about how it will be financed and who will pay for it.
The idea that our federal gas taxes will pay for all, or even most, of the new bridge is unrealistic. At best, those taxes might fund one-third of the total project cost.
Another third of the cost would come from charging tolls of $2.50 to $3 each way to bridge users, tolls that will also help reduce traffic volumes. (Should we spend billions to widen I-5 and then impose bridge tolls to discourage people from using it?)
That leaves about $1.2 billion to be paid by Oregon and Washington taxpayers. How should we allocate these costs between the two states and two parts of the region?
Oregon officials apparently assume that Oregonians should pay one-half of the cost not covered by tolls or federal gas taxes, about $600 million. However, Clark County commuters are the primary cause of the congestion and the primary beneficiaries of the project.
A regional gas-tax increase of about 7.5 cents a gallon, imposed in Clackamas, Washington and Multnomah counties, dedicated solely to the Columbia River Crossing for 20 years, would generate $600 million. A 2-cent statewide tax, imposed for 10 years, also could generate enough money -- but should residents of Bend, Eugene, Coos Bay, Ontario and Klamath Falls subsidize Clark County commuters?
Should Oregonians spend $600 million on the project when we don't have enough money to fix the three bridges over the Willamette River that are older than the I-5 bridge, to fix the Sellwood Bridge or to repair and maintain our existing roads?
Late last year the Metro Council officially concluded that even if the Oregon state gas tax were increased by 1 cent every year for the near future, and even if the vehicle registration fee were increased by $15 every eight years, the region still faced a $7 billion shortfall for various proposed transportation projects in the region -- not counting the Columbia River Crossing.
Should the crossing be our region's top transportation priority, especially if other projects might do a better job, dollar for dollar, in reducing congestion, moving freight or focusing jobs and housing in places where we want growth? Shouldn't we be comparing the freeway bridge's costs and benefits with other projects before we commit to building it?
Before agreeing to spend as much as $4 billion on the bridge and sacrifice other projects and opportunities, elected officials need to explore some cheaper alternatives. We could impose more modest tolls on the I-5 bridges now (reducing congestion immediately) and use the revenues to make the bridges stronger and rebuild ramps that delay trucks and contribute to accidents and congestion.
The next step would be to build a two-lane bridge from Hayden Island to Portland for cars and light trucks, so that residents don't have to use I-5 during rush hour. The also bridge could carry light rail to Jantzen Beach, where buses from Vancouver could provide connections.
Building another bridge across the Columbia and extending light rail could be carried out later as needed.
That's just one approach; others probably are worth considering.
This election year voters should pay close attention to see whether their elected officials ask the tough questions and explore all of the alternatives to ensure that their taxes are prudently invested in addressing the region's most important transportation needs.
Robert Liberty is a member of the Metro Council, representing portions of Northeast, Southeast and Southwest Portland.