PDA

View Full Version : We're in trouble, traffic panel says


Chief
12-14-2007, 07:48 AM
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1197608143266020.xml&coll=7

Friday, December 14, 2007

DYLAN RIVERA

Traffic congestion will get far worse over the next three decades unless the region comes up with billions more in spending for highways, roads, light rail and trails, a transportation panel said Thursday.

With Portland-area population projected to grow by 1 million by 2030, the region would need to spend at least $22 billion to keep up with increasing traffic, the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation said.

The committee approved a regional transportation plan that forecasts $9.07 billion in spending through 2035.

"We're in big trouble," said Rex Burkholder, a Metro councilor who is committee chairman. "We have a lot to do."

Four mayors, three members of the Metro Council, Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams and Multnomah County Chairman Ted Wheeler serve on the 17-member panel, which controls spending of federal transportation money in the region.

Many members said they were frustrated that years of traffic analysis have yielded few results. Several faulted the state Legislature and federal government for failing to raise gas taxes or find other money to address an aging, inadequate transportation infrastructure.

Some committee members said they would stake their careers on an effort to educate the public and raise taxes and fees for transportation. The 2009 Legislature will consider new transportation taxes, as will Metro and the city of Portland.

"The public doesn't care," Milwaukie Mayor Jim Bernard said. "I don't care if I lose my job over this; we need to do this once and for all."

Adams said congestion could triple under the plan, and others agreed. A detailed analysis of trips throughout the region was unavailable Thursday but could be completed by next month.

Committee members also talked about endorsing congestion pricing: tolls on roads and bridges that would vary by time of day. Higher tolls during rush hour would encourage motorists to drive during off-peak hours, perhaps reducing the need for wider roads.

Beaverton Mayor Rob Drake said the panel should aggressively endorse pricing and promote the idea for future road projects. "If we're going to get to the reality that we're never going to have enough money for road projects and other kinds of projects, it would seem that the users should be taxed for the use of specific projects."

Wheeler suggested that the group "consider and selectively promote where appropriate" such pricing strategies.

"I've proposed some fairly radical solutions to problems, but I've only been physically threatened once," he said. "That's when I suggested that in the next 50 years there might be tolls on the Willamette River bridges, and what I heard from this table was a resounding silence on that subject."

Wheeler's amendment passed, placing the Portland area on one side of a hotly contested topic in national politics -- and opposite U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, the Democrat from Springfield who will help write the next big piece of transportation funding in 2009.

In interviews this fall, DeFazio has called congestion pricing a scheme by the Bush administration to avoid raising money for transportation. It would unfairly tax workers who have no choice but to commute during rush hour, he said.

DeFazio also has said some environmentalists have formed an "unholy alliance" with the administration in arguing that such pricing would curb greenhouse gas emissions.

"Instead of admitting to some federal responsibility and need to raise more money, they said we can do it by pricing some people off the road," he said. "It's a view shared by hardly anyone on Capitol Hill, only the Heritage Foundation and a few deluded liberals."

The 2035 plan meets a requirement that metro areas tell the federal government the construction projects they expect to undertake with the transportation money they can "reasonably expect" in coming decades. Maintenance and operations spending are mostly left out, but local money for construction is included. Proposed tax increases not already approved were also left out.

The Oregon Department of Transportation haggled with Metro for months, urging it to give more importance to economic development and to traditional rankings for roads.

Numerical road ratings give more clarity than the "narrative" measures Metro proposed, said Janice Wilson, an Oregon Transportation Commission member. "If you don't have that, then it becomes a philosophical discussion on whether you have congestion."

The Transportation Commission has pledged to scrutinize the Portland-area plan, though its authority may be limited to advising the governor.

Metro's Burkholder said the agency was trying to get away from traditional highway planning that rates roads by traffic flow and calls for more lanes as the only solution. It might cost $500 million to widen Oregon 217, but perhaps much less to build smaller alternate routes. "It's a classic example of saying that you're in a bind."

Dylan Rivera: 503-221-8532; dylanrivera@news.oregonian.com For environment news, go to http://blog.oregonlive.com/pdxgreen

Chief
12-14-2007, 07:51 AM
Please notice that there is not one word mentioned about Vancouver, or Clark County in that story, although they refer to the "region" several times....

Congestion is bad and getting worse, so let's divert even more money into light rail instead of improving the highways where the problems really are.

I don't know about you, but this story sure doesn't give me any warm fuzzies...

8)

Waterbuffalo
12-14-2007, 08:20 AM
The report is there about traffic problems, NOT about Light Rail. But I do see your point Chief, it probably will come back on spending more billions on a system that doesn't work.

If Metro and trimet never addresses that pinch point at the Steel Bridge/Rose Garden, no additional runs are ever going to of trains into Vancouver ARE ever going to be able to run. That includes both the Yellow or Red runs into Vancouver.

<bites his tongue and tries not to go into Light Rail rant because this is a car/truck discussion..>

Chief
12-14-2007, 08:33 AM
Qoting from the very first sentence of that article...

Traffic congestion will get far worse over the next three decades unless the region comes up with billions more in spending for highways, roads, light rail and trails, a transportation panel said Thursday.

This is one of those articles that covers a number of points, which I took the liberty of highlighting in RED, in the hope of discussing a number of individual points. This topic defies one-sentence answers. I also posted the entire text so it will remain in conext, and so I can quote real people.

I will stress to you again, that The Clark County Commission is in active negotiations with Portland's METRO and Rex Burkholder, via the Bi-State Cooperation Committee, on how METRO can tap Clark County for "our share" of things exactly like this. Nevermind that Clark County is already paying well over $100 Million a year to Oregon and Trimet.

I'd like to plow a little deeper on this one please...

Waterbuffalo
12-14-2007, 08:36 AM
Get out your political trowel Chief because I suspect your going a diggin in the political waters.. Should I surmise so?

Chief
12-15-2007, 06:58 AM
bumping....

Contrast what METRO is talking about with what the SW Washington Legislators are talking about....

karma
12-15-2007, 09:44 AM
Chief, traffic is always going to be an issue!! I just can't get there from here without paying thru the nose either from the expense of running a vehicle or tolled or taxed to death!

Waterbuffalo
12-15-2007, 11:16 AM
Chief, I'd say the most of Portlands politicians at many different levels talk a lot in the piece-in-the-sky conceptualization while most of Clark County's are looking into the future but with smaller check books and doing things in phases and many other ways to get it done for cheaper?

Am I wrong?

And to Karma, The only reason traffic is an issue is because the populace here isn't making it an issue in any level of the elections?

Chief
12-15-2007, 11:42 AM
METRO is the Federal authority over there and they wield a tremendous amount of power and influence over what goes on in Oregon. I have no doubt that they would like to tap Clark County for more than we are already paying now.

FACT: Clark County taxpaers are already coughing up well over $100 Million a year in taxes to the State of Oregon, and Trimet. But we are not represented in any way by anyone on that side of the river. I think it is going to be politically expedient for Metro, Trimet, and the City of Portland to shield the people who vote for all of them from paying much of the costs, if they can find a way to make someone else (like us) pay it for them.

Here's a thought problem: If only one direction of the Columbia Crossing Project gets tolled (and that is being discussed right now) which direction do you think it will be??

Waterbuffalo
12-15-2007, 11:48 AM
Now my question is: Is metro the "regional authority" for Portland community like RTC is for us?

tefen
12-15-2007, 03:35 PM
Chief, does it matter which way it is? Most everyone who crosses one way crosses back the other way. Even Portlanders vacationing in Seattle have to come south again at some point.

Also, Metro isn't "federal" it's a regional agency focused around the tri-county Portland "metro" area.

Chief
12-15-2007, 04:18 PM
Pardon, let me clarify my comments... Metro is the only agency in the Portland area who can apply for Federal funding on anything in the area that Metro administers, which includes the City of Portland. On our side, it's RTC who is the controlling agency.

I think it's the perception of fairness Tefen, it will primarily be Clark County residents who are crossing to go to work that the largest burden of tolling will fall upon locally. In my view, tolls ought to be per use, that way you don't miss out on all of the through traffic. With electronic tolling, I think there are ways that may be available to charge Clark County commuters less than the regular fares, as a way to make up for the taxes they are already paing to Trimet, and the State of Oregon.

There's also congestion pricing to factor in as well.

The other big problem is that (as I understand it) Federal Law prevents tolling other highways to pay for new construction on a different highway. It's not likely that a toll will be placed on I-205 to pay for the new bridge on I-5, but look for someone to make that request...

Waterbuffalo
12-15-2007, 04:39 PM
"The other big problem is that (as I understand it) Federal Law prevents tolling other highways to pay for new construction on a different highway. It's not likely that a toll will be placed on I-205 to pay for the new bridge on I-5, but look for someone to make that request..."

If you search in the Clarkblog archives, your going to find the reason why you can't toll both Interstate bridges for just one. This circuitous thought process was done round and round ago months ago? Remember? This question was brought into the forefront on a CREDC event on tolling six months ago?

So it its asked again, maybe some one should go into the archives to look for the link to it.. Might save having to answer it if we "Sticky it now" in our transportation or FAQ's for CRCP dummy handout..