The GPS tax is the most hair-brained dumb-assed idea for a tax since the French taxed you for your windows.

Agreed:

GPS receivers operate via radio signals. It would take the average techie a couple hours to build a GPS jamming device that turns of your car's GPS mileage log whenever you decide to drive on that expensive toll road during an expensive time of the day.

If these units are mandatory I suspect it will take a matter of hours before instructions are on the internet describing how to disable them. And imagine the tech bureaucracy required to maintain the millions of GPS tracking units in the state, install them, maintain them, collect and process the data collected by them, make sure it is secure etc.

GPS tracks SPEED as well as location. Do you really want the state to have a permanent record of your driving speed for every second that you have ever driven your car anywhere?

If you think your GPS data will indeed be private you have another thing coming. First it will be the police investigating something like a high-profile murder who go to court and get the identity of all the vehicles that were tracked in the vicinity of the crime. Then it will be a slippery slope. Pretty soon they'll be tracking hit-and-runs then just simple fender benders in the parking lot and parking fines.

Finally, what is to prevent your employer, crazy ex husband, or anyone else to download your GPS data without your permission? Are you CERTAIN that the state will be the only one that can download the data at the gas station? Are you certain that the state will be able to devise hack-proof data download devices? I imagine they are planning some sort of bluetooth thing as it makes no sense to be plugging in USB cables or some such when you fuel up. I expect that good hackers will quickly be able to break into these systems and will be able to drive around the city downloading GPS data from any car they want. Private detective agencies will do this for certain. Want to track your ex-wife or girlfriend? Hire someone to download all her car's GPS data and you have a perfect time and location log.

All this to replace a far simpler and more elegant solution. The gasoline tax.

I totally Agree With you that It is a Hair Brained Idea. Our Governor Has Been Pushing it for a While and now with the Shift To Blue power in the senate and house in Oregon It seems inevitable. Someone ought to ask those folks what it is they do already with the 14.4 cents per mile for commercial vehicles in Oregon. I have not gotten an answer. This is Oregon money None of it goes to the Federal Government. The Highways in our State should be Smoother than a Baby's Cheek and Heated in the winter.

I totally Agree With you that It is a Hair Brained Idea. Our Governor Has Been Pushing it for a While and now with the Shift To Blue power in the senate and house in Oregon It seems inevitable. Someone ought to ask those folks what it is they do already with the 14.4 cents per mile for commercial vehicles in Oregon. I have not gotten an answer. This is Oregon money None of it goes to the Federal Government. The Highways in our State should be Smoother than a Baby's Cheek and Heated in the winter.

Chris--tolling is one thing. toll-tag technology is mature and easy to implement. It's used all over the US and the world. Using GPS to track every movement your car ever makes is an entirely different proposition that generates enormous privacy and security concerns.

There are three problems with the gas tax:

1) The amount of gas used is only marginally related to the amount of driving someone does. The mileage on autos varies dramatically. While heavier, presumbably less fuel-efficient, vehicles do put more wear and tear on roads, this is "heavier" as in comparing semi-truck to pickup truck, not SUV to a hybrid.

2) How much it costs the public to provide space for someone to drive varies dramatically depending on where and when they choose to drive. Most new construction is only serving those who create congestion by where and when then choose to drive. Yet everyone pays for it.

3) The gas tax is not producing enough revenue to even maintain the existing road network. And there is no political support for raising it. Part of the reason for that is the inequities created by the first two points. Folks with 50 gallon tanks that last less than a week think an extra $.10 per gallon is a lot of money. People with 13 gallon tanks that last a month may not. And why should someone who takes the bus to work pay more to relieve the congestion others create for themselves?

Part of the problem is that the gas tax does not provide an accurate economic signal for people about the real public costs of their choices. People think roads are "free". Thus "first come, first served".

If you think of roads as a buffet, we have become used to the idea that we should all be able to eat steak and lobster. The problem is that there is no steak and lobster left for most people during rush hour, but the cost of providing it to those first in line means a bunch of people at the end of the line are getting almost nothing to eat. The rest of the day there is plenty of steak and lobster wasted because we provide the same amount of expensive roads at 5:00 am as we do at 5:00 pm even though no one is there to use them.

In urban areas, it is simply unrealistic to suggest that we can create unlimited, uncongested roads everywhere, all the time. So we are going to "ration" them in some fashion. Right now that rationing is based on how much congestion someone will tolerate, given the alternatives. Some people come to the buffet earlier so they will get their steak and lobster. Some put up getting whatever is left on the buffet. Some come later, when the competition for steak and lobster is over. And, when its available, some people decide to use the alternative buffet that in many cases has healthier food anyway.

So what the gps system and congestion pricing are trying to do is to get what people pay back in line with the costs so that they are making economically rational choices.

The new toll road ideas are an entirely different issue, as becomes clear whenever real proposals get made. The Newberg-Dundee bypass is a good example. There is a lot of people who sit in congestion every day or when they take a trip to the coast who want something done. They want their steak and lobster, but they are not about to pay the cost of a new buffet line to get it if there is still a free one available whether it has steak and lobster or not.

And, sure, the steak and lobster lobby has a lot to do with the proposals to build all the new buffet lines. And so do organized workers in the steak and lobster industry. One of the reasons light rail has worked is that it has a similar local construction industry which stands to benefit.

I think the issue really is how to make the alternatives to creating congestion more attractive. That includes everything from housing and employment choices, to transit, to pedestrian and bike facilities. The more attractive it is to live within walking distance of work the more people will make that choice instead of using their vehicle to create more congestion. The higher the quality of transit, the more likely people are to use it.

I think there are a lot of low income people that would love to save the cost of parking, gas and insurance if they had cheap, high quality transit available to get them to work. Or if they could find affordable housing within walking distance of their job. The problem is how do you get those who get most of the benefit - the folks who are still driving their cars - to pay for those better alternatives. Tolls and congestion pricing seem like they could be a good way to do that. Although probably not in Oregon with vehicle taxes dedicated to roads.

Without tolling, that rationing occurs on the basis of who is willing to sit in traffic the longest. That's not very rational.

What is irrational about it? The people creating the congestion are paying the consequence of their decision. Its an almost perfect market. You can make an argument about the external costs to air quality, etc. But I don't see anything irrational about having people who create congestion paying the costs by sitting in traffic.

"If we agree that we can't build our way out of congestion"

I can agree we build our way into congestion by encouraging density instead of distributing population centers. WHat do you expect when we knowingly build projects like SoWa with ONE entrance/exit besides a lack of foresight.

As far as the state not having money for roads, I think it is more a priority issue. Like the CoP has neglected infrastructure for 15+ years to fund things like trams and rebuilding downtown for the umpteenth time, Ted would rather spend money on things other than roads. I mean we can't even maintain what we have much less build new roads.

The GPS idea is dumb and an invasion of privacy.

Yeah Chris, price the poor off our streets. Perfect. And make them help pay off the debt for streetcars and light rail which cost too much and serve too few. Freight trucks wear our roads out not cars pickups. The lower fuel efficiency the higher taxes are paid. The recent cost of congestion report says we need to better accomodate the needs of growth in traffic. And we better do it soon. The perpetual drum beat of "we can't build our way out of congestion" as a way to ignore the needs of growth has proven to be bad for the region. Pretending otherwise will only serve to repeat the same mistakes. There is only one way to address the rising congestion. Add capacity and do it as a priority ahead of more light rail,streetcars and the subsidized development patterning that has failed to accomodate growth.

Ross writes: There are three problems with the gas tax:

1) The amount of gas used is only marginally related to the amount of driving someone does. The mileage on autos varies dramatically. While heavier, presumbably less fuel-efficient, vehicles do put more wear and tear on roads, this is "heavier" as in comparing semi-truck to pickup truck, not SUV to a hybrid.

In an age when global warming is the greatest threat facing this planet, I fail to see how a tax that is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to CO2 emissions is problematic. If you assume that all gas purchased is actually burned, then a gas tax accomplishes this perfectly. I would argue that it is actually the gas tax is already the perfect tax, and rather than obsess about when and where people drive we should really be taxing their CO2 emissions.

2) How much it costs the public to provide space for someone to drive varies dramatically depending on where and when they choose to drive. Most new construction is only serving those who create congestion by where and when then choose to drive. Yet everyone pays for it.

This is a silly argument. I have never used the fire department yet have always paid taxes to support it. Many people don't have kids in school yet still pay school property taxes. It is foolish to think that you can perfectly correlate the users of government services with the payers for that service. And if you managed to do so you would end up creating some sort of highly regressive perfect Darwinian Republican world where each citizen only pays for their own little bubble of services.

3) The gas tax is not producing enough revenue to even maintain the existing road network. And there is no political support for raising it. Part of the reason for that is the inequities created by the first two points. Folks with 50 gallon tanks that last less than a week think an extra $.10 per gallon is a lot of money. People with 13 gallon tanks that last a month may not. And why should someone who takes the bus to work pay more to relieve the congestion others create for themselves?

This argument really mystifies me. Do bureaucrats actually think it will be easier to raise revenue through some sort of hugely expensive Orwellian GPS tracking tax agency as opposed to simply raising the gas tax? If this was coming out of Texas I'd be suspecting that Haliburton and other crony contracting firms were queuing up to soak up billions of dollars in no-bid public contracts to build this GPS monstrosity. But Oregon? Who do they think is going to build and maintain such a system? As for the people riding the bus. What do they have to do with anything? I fail to see how they get taxed under either system. Unless you are proposing that bus fares also go up to pay for road improvements.

Part of the problem is that the gas tax does not provide an accurate economic signal for people about the real public costs of their choices. People think roads are "free". Thus "first come, first served".

But it does provide a PERFECT economic signal to people to reduce their CO2 emissions. And I would argue that this is a far more important objective than somehow forcing people to understand that driving on the road is not free.

Russell seems to delight in making faulty intellectual connections between a legitimate and serious concern --- in this case, the threat of governmental power, the surveillance society, and anti-egalitarianism --- and some goofball NW dystopian idea --- in this case, that old coded chestnut about " alternative transportation and housing models".

He never quite develops the theme. A few of the commentors, though obligingly fill in the non-progressive, anti-Democratic themes prevalent on Blue Oregon that that code phrase represents:

1) Some folks are just elitist, anti-car dystopians who dream of a community that would be rigidly structured and controlled in their own image. The limits of their imagination and world view are circumscribed by that cramped little mental cage.

2) A lot of folks in government who label themselves as "Democrats" --- starting with our governor --- simply aren't. The policies they advocate actually aren't of the Democratic party. Quite the opposite, they are elitist, provincial, and anti-working people.

I draw the line at having any kind of tracking device in my vehicle. I even turn my cell phone off before each trip. That also solves the problem of being distracted by the ringing phone while driving.

Why is it Democrats always seem to be the ones to come up with cocamamie ideas to increase taxes in new and creative ways that impose on our basic right to privacy?

In an age when global warming is the greatest threat facing this planet, I fail to see how a tax that is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to CO2 emissions is problematic.

I agree. But the gas tax in Oregon is constitutionally dedicated to promoting driving that creates even more emissions. So if your concern is emissions, the problem with raising the gas tax is that it gets spent on increasing the amount people drive. If you want to reduce the amount people drive, stop building more and wider roads for them to drive on.

It is foolish to think that you can perfectly correlate the users of government services with the payers for that service.

I agree. But that is the way we have, in theory, funded automobile facilities. That is why you see things like the "Highway Trust Fund" and the Oregon constitution's limitations on spending gas taxes.

To be clear, we are making kids pay to participate in sports, we have people with drug and alcohol problems who have to pay for treatment, we have kids who don't have any medical care short of the emergency room because their parents have to pay for it. Why are we even talking about spending money on new roads that encourage people to increase the amount of pollution they create?

The answer is because "everyone" uses roads. But that is a false argument. The new spending is not for everyone. Its only for the folks who are in the buffet line during rush hour. Making the economic signals work will reduce the number of people in line and save money for all our other public needs.

Do bureaucrats actually think it will be easier to raise revenue through some sort of hugely expensive Orwellian GPS tracking tax agency as opposed to simply raising the gas tax?

I don't know what bureaucrats think. But it certainly couldn't be much harder. I think the last proposed gas tax increase lost by a margin of 7 to 1.

But it does provide a PERFECT economic signal to people to reduce their CO2 emissions.

It sends a very weak signal. I think the current average cost per mile of driving is about $.49 with about 1 cent of that being the gas tax. The economic signal from how it is spent is probably stronger.

We all know there is no silver bullet to the mobility issues so I ask; "is anyone considering the potential of more effective telecom strategies? Given the changing nature of the US Economy, we might consider that class of the daily commuting public known as 'information worker' could be better served by finding more effective and permanent workforce deployment methods. To consider more holistic approaches we must move beyond the limitations of home based telework and modest use hoteling services to a more methodical infrastructure strategies as part of our sustainability efforts and methods of expanding access. If the ICT (Information and Communication Technnologies)revolution inadvertanly changed the face of the globe in a little more than a decade, imagine what we will be able to accomplish when we begin to consciously consider ICT in the re-engineering of our local economies. Workforce Deployment in one area of immediate gain. I'd like to hear others' thoughts on our telecommunications opportunities to move information, not people.

Intercaust:

The GPS tax is the most hair-brained dumb-assed idea for a tax since the French taxed you for your windows.

Bob T:

I don't know if it's a hair-brained dumb-assed idea, but it's a very bad one, particularly from a free society standpoint. Keeping track of government vehicles, however, appeals to me. I'd also like to keep track of their speed so that we can see if a work crew (or bureaucrat) drives 25 mph in a 55 mph zone to a job-related site.

By the way, the Brits also taxed windows. That's government for ya. And that was Big Government, too, despite the tiny fraction of the population on the state payroll (recall Gore and Clinton claimed that government shrank because fewer people were (allegedly) public employees when the Clinton Admin ened than when it began. Tha's not how it works.

Bob Tiernan

My gut feeling about GPS and associated tax schemes is queasy to nauseating. The gas tax system in place, were it not for it being "Constitutionally Inequitable", seems the simplest way to fund road construction as well as the infrastructure needed for transporting oneself around by means other than driving.

The automobile presents such a severe impediment to other modes of urban/suburban travel (walking, bicycling and mass transit), that travel by automobile is an impediment even to itself. Most states have written into their constitutions this inequitable funding mechanism. It doesn't matter that gas taxes seemingly should fund only road construction. The "Constitutional Inequity" is that this tax funding mechanism places an impediment on all means of travel. It's no different than signs that read "Colored Entrance".

Were transportation planning departments constitutionally directed to construct infrastructure for all modes of transportation, development of metropolitan areas would more closely follow the planning guidelines of the 2040 Regional Plan.

It's long past time for the great state of Oregon to address its "Constitutional Inequity" regarding the gasoline tax "limitations" on how these funds are spent.

Waste of money - these GPS tracking devices would be easily hacked and defeated. This sounds like an Eric Sten idea to me....

We're grownups. We know if we want good roads we have to pay for them.

I think an awful lot of people suspect that raising the gas tax won't lead to good roads, just more roads and more traffic and more congestion and more pollution. Then there are the people who will vote against any tax increase. And then there are a large number of people who have good roads now.

Let's fix the Constitution.

I think there is a lot of confusion about the gas tax. Is it a user fee to pay for roads or is it a tax to be used for whatever public purposes we think are most important? If its a tax, then I would argue there are a lot of higher priorities than adding road capacity. If we are going to charge a user fee, then the gas tax has little connection between who pays and what its costing to provide for their use.

As for the GPS and privacy issues. I tend to think people are closing the barn door after the horses are out.

Ross Williams I think the issue really is how to make the alternatives to creating congestion more attractive. That includes everything from housing and employment choices, to transit, to pedestrian and bike facilities. The more attractive it is to live within walking distance of work the more people will make that choice instead of using their vehicle to create more congestion. JK: Wrong again. High density CAUSES congestion, it does not relieve congestion. Here is web page, that I composed based on a Sierra club chart, that proves that density causes congestion as it reduces driving: DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm

Ross Williams I think there are a lot of low income people that would love to save the cost of parking, gas and insurance if they had cheap, high quality transit available to get them to work. JK: Of course you are advocating a massive welfare program since, 80% of the actual cost of Trimet is paid by taxpayers, not users - I would love to have someone else pay 80% of my car costs.

Ross Williams The problem is how do you get those who get most of the benefit - the folks who are still driving their cars - to pay for those better alternatives. JK: What better alternative? Transit costs more than driving. Transit uses more energy than driving and therefore it pollutes more. The real better alternative is to encourage small cars. See: DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit.htm See: DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/BusVsCarTEDB.htm

JK: the sad part is that, had we not wasted two BILLION dollars on toy trains, we could have, just like we are building the city up instead of out, spent that money building a few key roads up. Two billion would have built 38 miles of 4 lane double deck road at 13 mil/lane-mile using Tampa FL as a model. That is probably enough to have cured the congestion problem on I-84, I-5, I-405, US 26 and maybe even started to build I-605. Instead we wasted it on toy trains that carry less than 1/4 of one lane of freeway’s worth of people at a many times the cost per mile of a freeway. See: DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/RailAttractsDrivers.htm See: DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/10LaneFreeway-2.htm

Thanks JK

Kari,

When you suggest adding carpool lanes, are you proposing sensible highway expansion or are we just labeling an existing lane with a diamond?

Those who constantly promote mass transit as being the cure-all for clogged highways are deluding themselves. Many people have jobs that do not logistically allow the use of mass transit. And mass transit does not go close enough to many places of employment for workers to efficiently use it. Then there are all those other than work transportation needs that mass transit cannot be used for such as furniture moving, grocery getting, doctor visits, recreation, etc.

I too, think the best answer for the forseeable future is a move to smaller, alternative fuel and electric cars.

If if we didn't add a block's worth of capacity, Ross, we still need the funds to maintain what we have...which we're not doing very well.

No doubt, but that brings us back to the question of how the money will be spent. Will it be used to add capacity or to maintain existing facilities? The record at ODOT and the legislature is that it will be used to expand the system at the expense of basic maintenance.

A regular toll isn't congestion pricing, it's just a revenue scheme.

Precisely. And I think it is important to remember that none of the tolling plans pay for themselves. They either require additional public funds or tolls on existing public facilities to work.

For example, the Sunset Highway is regularly jammed up at rush hour. Let's add free-to-use carpool lanes and then add congestion pricing that's limited in time and space to precisely those moments when congestion is a problem.

If transit and diamond lanes are available, then congestion pricing is a luxury tax - not a regressive mandate.

There is a difficult balance here. Because that luxury tax is not a tax at all - its a fee where the people paying it are getting a direct benefit in return. And the benefit they are getting is costing more than the fee they are paying. There have to be real benefits to the people who no longer use the priced lanes, not just the folks paying the extra fee.

Many people have jobs that do not logistically allow the use of mass transit. And mass transit does not go close enough to many places of employment for workers to efficiently use it. Then there are all those other than work transportation needs that mass transit cannot be used for such as furniture moving, grocery getting, doctor visits, recreation, etc.

All true. But you don't need to shift every trip to transit.

Congestion will always be at a level the people in it are prepared to tolerate. If more people have better alternatives, their tolerance will be lower and so will the level of congestion.

Poor land use planning, like L.A. and Measure 37, make mass transit more difficult. Countries with sound land management, DO have GOOD mass transit. Toll roads: Calculating fuel consumption vs toll costs, toll road fees equal a gas tax of between $27 and $48 per gallon, yes, that is DOLLARS per gallon!! Increasing gas tax to up to $1 per gallon could provide for highway improvements, OSP, AND assist in building a mass transit system. Gas Tax: Oil companies have no problem sticking it to the public every driving season for from 50 cents to two dollars a gallon in increased profit, so what is the problem with a 10 cent or fifty cent gas tax to serve all of us? I think the only "oil refinery fire" that really increases fuel cost is the flame when an executive in his plush office lights his Cuban cigar.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned regarding the gas tax: we've had a long slow tax cut since 1993, as the per-gallon rate has been eroded by inflation and increasing average mileage. Road users now pay about half as much (in real terms) per mile driven as they did 14 years ago. And we have the road and bridge conditions to show for it.

"Poor land use planning, like L.A. and Measure 37, make mass transit more difficult."

Good grief is this not a bizarre planet?

First, Metro has actually been planning for LA densities, (Ignoring all the problems that represents)and, Second, M37 hasn't even produced a single structure or development yet. How has it made transit more difficult? Even after some M37 development occurs it is pure balderdash to say it makes transit more difficult. What we have here is excuse making for our transit and planning failure to accomodate growth.

Road users now pay about half as much (in real terms) per mile driven as they did 14 years ago. And we have the road and bridge conditions to show for it.

That is part of the problem. But part of the problem is that money is being spent on new capacity instead of on maintaining the existing infrastructure. As the infrastructure ages that problem is going to get worse. But instead of planning for that future, the legislature has been busy taking money from future gas tax receipts to finance borrowing for new construction.

This is an interesting topic. I don't think anyone has good answers to the problems with traffic congestion at this time.

I really don't think that using a GPS is a solution to anything, it's just another way to create a tax nobody wants.

Toll roads actually just make the underlying problems worse. There is a cost to transportation. The highway side of the issue is at this time a "non-profit" governmental arena - at least in Oregon. Introduce "for-profit" into the highway side of transportation, and it will have to increase costs above benefits to pay shareholders their profit. I just don't see how that solves anything, except making everything in transportation more expensive. I know there is a myth out that that somehow private business has some magical power to do things in a more cost effective way than government - but to the degree it is true (it mostly isn't) the cost saving are in lower wages and cutting corners - which isn't really good social policy.

My solution, some might note is ironic, given what I just wrote above. I would let this be a free market issue.

That is to say, let the congestion be. People will find solutions. It might mean that people put a higher priority on living closer to their jobs. It might mean that businesses decide to move closer to their employees. It might mean that people decide to invest more in mass transit.

In some ways, the only true democratic thing to do is to let this problem solve itself according to the will of the people. I know that where I live was in part decided upon my transportation needs. When I moved back to Oregon after four years in the San Francisco Bay area, I wanted to live some place where I didn't have to be in my auto 2 hours a day getting to and from work. So, I now live in a place where I am 5 minutes away from any service I need. If all I did was work in town and shop there, I wouldn't put more than 15 to 20 miles on my car in a week. As it happens, my job changed after I moved here, and I now travel all of Central Oregon to visit houses for appraisal. Still, even those business miles are less than what I drove in California.

But my point is that the one concern - commute time - was up high on my list because of four years of spending 2 hours a day in my car, and I then made a consumer decision to shorten my commute to 5 minutes by my selection of where I lived. Just as I did, so can the people who drive through congested areas.

JK: Of course you are advocating a massive welfare program since, 80% of the actual cost of Trimet is paid by taxpayers, not users - I would love to have someone else pay 80% of my car costs.

***Well it might be nice if YOU started paying all of your car costs. I assume the $.49/mile figure is simply the out-of-pocket costs to operate a vehicle. Take off your green visor and step back and look at the big picture. If economic costs are your standard, how about including the health effects of increasing numbers of smog days? I don't want to turn this into a global warming discussion, but I'd guess the true economic costs of the United States providing 25% of the world's carbon emissions [that's the figure I remember -- from a cite I cannot remember], will dwarf the revenues raised through a carbon emssion tax.

***Approximately 8 months ago I moved to a residence 8 blocks from my office and 10 blocks from Max. The convenience of using Max and avoiding I-5 traffic and downtown parking fees has saved me money to the point where I spend the money I previously would have spent on driving on other things, like dinner out more often. Having eliminated 90% of my freeway driving with this move has made me much less tolerant of ever having to drive on I-5 and in those instances I have to use the freeway, I have shifted my travel times whenever possible to avoid as much traffic as possible. Cost of these behavioral changes to my transportation footprint: priceless.

To the topic at hand: The GPS scheme scares me to death. Private toll roads are a close second. A carbon emissions tax makes a lot of sense to me given the options I have for transportation. What worries me is what that would do to those people in Oregon who don't have the public transit/denser living options. Was it 3 years ago that Greyhound slashed their services to the majority of their small Oregon towns? Would carbon taxes on those folks result in increased economic hardship? I don't know the answer, but it does worry me.

***As always, Russell, a well-researched, well-reasoned and well-written article.

Randy

Tom, You need to do some homework. You have absolutely no data to support your statement. Although the rate per gallon has not risen, the number of gallons sold has gone up. In addition, we receive more back in federal returns of our tax dollars.

Our bridges are in great shape. Kulungowski made a lot of noise about bridges being in bad shape and spent a lot of money on bridge repairs and a few replacements (no additions). A recent audit showed that we didn't need to replace or repair most of the bridges.

Our roads are crowded because none have been added. Our maintenance lags because we allow studded tires. However, the main reason we haven't better or more roads is because the money is being DIVERTED.

40% of gas taxes go to cities and counties and they are spending it on "main streets," medians, bubble curbs, trolleys, roads to rail stations, city beautification and anything but roads. There is a constitutional restriction on restricting gas taxes to roads and roadside rests, even those passed on to cities and counties. That is not adhered to according to a Sec of State audit. The 60% that goes to ODOT has gone to maintenance and preservation but D Guv's have not allowed spending on new roads. Tom, we have no more roads to maintain than we had in 1993. Added VMT's have little effects on roads except for the studded tires . Cars , because of their weight have little effect on roads. Trucks cause damage because of weight but they are NOT taxed by means of the gas tax . They are charged by weight mile. Call AAA and ask for the booklet on the weight mile tax. Tom, you haven't done your homework.

Tom is absolutely correct. The primary reason there is not enough revenue for Oregon's roads is the massive DECLINE in the gas tax. For those who do their homework, they would find that gas tax revenues per mile traveled in Oregon have declined 50.3% from 1970-2003.

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/OIPP/docs/AppendixB.pdf

The GPS idea should be dropped immediately. The gas tax is the best proxy for measuring impact on roads AND on the environment. It is the least intrusive mechanism. It costs the least to administer.

Time to move on and let Oregonians decide the future of their road system - Gas Tax , Yes or No?

Comments and questions for Mr. Karlock after perusing his Debunking Portland website about congestion:

Are your statements and graphs regarding total daily auto trips accurate? And wouldn't it be more meaningful to normalize things on a per capita basis? There are a lot more people in New York (say) than Portland; how can you make a straight comparison.

Another thing about your website. You argue that "copying" European models is a bad idea. That might be so, but it sort of misses an important point. Big European cities grew up long before the automobile, and roads are commonly the modern, slightly wider versions of old cart tracks. These are completely inadequate to handle the traffic. (I recall this vividly from my time living car-less in England and depending entirely on buses.) This certainly does not describe Portland.

A recent audit showed that we didn't need to replace or repair most of the bridges.

Is this OSU Bridge Study</ad> from last fall what you are referring to. To quote from the news release:

The gas tax is the best proxy for measuring impact on roads AND on the environment. Saying that doesn't make it true. The fact is that the gas tax is no proxy at all for measuring the impact on the demand for roads. It isn't even a very good measure of the impact in terms of maintenance costs. And it certainly is a lousy measure in terms of the cost of providing any new capacity.

Ross, Where do you drive? Not around here fella. Where is any new road? They must be secret roads. You didn't even mention one. The paltry lane additions on Sunset and elsewhere do not equal new roads. What game are you playing? Those lane additions are simply more parking room during gridlock. You obviously NEVER drive them do you. What a crock you dish out. "Each person has been driving more"????? And if we build more roads they'll drive even more so we must keep the status quo and not build any. 1 million more people and trucks can just deal with it?

Ross, the gas tax IS a proxy for road use:

"All three policies discussed in this study would affect congestion indirectly by altering vehicle miles traveled: a higher gasoline tax or a cap-and-trade program would tend to lower VMTs (by raising gasoline prices), whereas tighter CAFE standards would tend to increase them (by lowering the operating costs of vehicles)". CBO, 2002

In terms of maintenance, neither the Gas Tax nor the Mileage Tax is very effective for light duty vehicles - but at least the Gas Tax has some relation to weight. But I urge enactment of a studded tire fee and I support the weight mileage for heavy vehicles.

In terms of new capacity, I mad no claim about that in my comment. But if I did, my claim is that the cost of construction of new roads should be related to the cost of the most critical impact the new roads will have on the environment- carbon emissions - and that is the primary virtue of the gas tax - it is a Direct proxy for carbon emissions.

Randy2 JK: Of course you are advocating a massive welfare program since, 80% of the actual cost of Trimet is paid by taxpayers, not users - I would love to have someone else pay 80% of my car costs.

***Well it might be nice if YOU started paying all of your car costs. I assume the $.49/mile figure is simply the out-of-pocket costs to operate a vehicle. JK: Drivers pay most of their costs. Mass transit typically pay a small percentage of their costs, about 20% in TriMet land. BTW the actual cost of operating a car in the USA in 2005 was $0.331/ mile NOT $.49. When you adjust that for the average vehicle occupancy, it drops to $.25 cents per passenger mile, compared to Trimet’s average $.67 per passenger-mile. See DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit(2005).htm You probably already know that the cost figures given for transit usually DO NOT include construction of the roads/tracks. The car number I gave includes all user paid costs and thus includes most road building expenses. (No data is perfect)

Randy2 Take off your green visor and step back and look at the big picture. If economic costs are your standard, how about including the health effects of increasing numbers of smog days? JK: Tthe number of smog days have been declining for years, not increasing. Besides buses pollute far more than cars. See ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/big_rig_cleanup/rolling-smokestacks-cleaning-up-americas-trucks-and-buses.html

Randy2 I don't want to turn this into a global warming discussion, but I'd guess the true economic costs of the United States providing 25% of the world's carbon emissions [that's the figure I remember -- from a cite I cannot remember], will dwarf the revenues raised through a carbon emssion tax. JK: Hope you want to apply that to transit too because buses use MORE energy pre passenger-mile than small cars. See: DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/BusVsCarTEDB.htm If you want a policy to reduce CO2 that might ACTUALLY WORK, I suggest convincing people to get new small cars, instead of turning their lives up side down.

Randy2 ***Approximately 8 months ago I moved to a residence 8 blocks from my office and 10 blocks from Max. The convenience of using Max and avoiding I-5 traffic and downtown parking fees has saved me money to the point where I spend the money I previously would have spent on driving on other things, like dinner out more often. JK: That makes you a welfare recipient because others are paying 80% of you average transit bill. (Much more for MAX)

Randy2 To the topic at hand: The GPS scheme scares me to death. Private toll roads are a close second. JK: Agreed

Randy2 A carbon emissions tax makes a lot of sense to me given the options I have for transportation. JK: Hope you actually have to pay your share of the tax, because it will be more than if you drove a small car, because buses use more energy & therefore emit more CO2. As to the toy train, it burns coal, uranium and birds. Note that coal plants emit mercury, thorium and uranium.

Randy2 What worries me is what that would do to those people in Oregon who don't have the public transit/denser living options. Was it 3 years ago that Greyhound slashed their services to the majority of their small Oregon towns? Would carbon taxes on those folks result in increased economic hardship? I don't know the answer, but it does worry me. JK: That always seems to be the problem - the poor get screwed even more. For instance our rush to high density is pricing homes out of reach of even the middle class and is probably doubling the rent for most renters. See DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/DensityCost.htm and americandreamcoalition.org/penalty.html

Shouldn’t we be sure that man is a significant source of greenhouse gases first? For instance, the TOTAL greenhouse effect of CO2 is, at max, 30% of the total greenhouse gas effects. ( realclimate.org/index.php?p=142). Of course man only emits a small part of the total CO2. Another fact is that CO2 did NOT start previous warming cycles observed in antarctic ice cores. Something UNKNOWN did. See (realclimate.org/index.php?p=13) BTW that web site has the creator of Al’s hockey stick on its list of scientists, so I presume that you will find theses cites credible. See (realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10)

BTW, did you know that AL Gore makes money off of people investing in “green” things, like CO2 reduction. See generationim.com/about/team.html

Thanks JK

lin qiao Are your statements and graphs regarding total daily auto trips accurate? JK: The graph came from the Sirerra Club’s web site - they are THEREFORE ACCURATE. Seriously that graph is a distorted (by the club) version of that found in the paper that the club credited. See the bottom right of DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm for the original graph from the Dunphy and Fisher paper which is cited on the bottom left of that page. The chart was apparently created from national survey data on driving and density.

lin qiao And wouldn't it be more meaningful to normalize things on a per capita basis? There are a lot more people in New York (say) than Portland; how can you make a straight comparison. JK: Their chart is a comparison of driving per person vs persons per sq mile. All I did was multiply the two to get trips per square mile, which I suggest is a proxy for expected congestion changes with population when road capacity is being held constant as it is in many areas, including perfectly planned Portland. The relationship between driving and density is frequently cited a reason to densify - my addition just brings out the unspoken truth - traffic congestion will increase almost 1:1 with density increase.

lin qiao Another thing about your website. You argue that "copying" European models is a bad idea. That might be so, but it sort of misses an important point. Big European cities grew up long before the automobile, and roads are commonly the modern, slightly wider versions of old cart tracks. These are completely inadequate to handle the traffic. (I recall this vividly from my time living car-less in England and depending entirely on buses.) This certainly does not describe Portland. JK: Which link are you speaking about? Be sure to see DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/EuroTranistShareLoss.htm which is a chart from the EU which states that 78.3% of European trips are by “passenger car”, up from 76.4% twenty years earlier. It also shows that European Union mass transit has lost over 20% in market share over the same years. My question is if you want to get people to switch from driving to Trimet, why on earth would you think copying Europe will do the trick? They pay over double what we do for gas, have about 3/4 of our per capita income and still drive almost as much!

BTW, be sure to check out the realclimate references in my previous posting.

Thanks JK

Ross, the gas tax IS a proxy for road use:

For the reasons I pointed out, it the gas tax paid has almost no correlation to the costs of road use. So its an extremely weak proxy. As a proxy for carbon emissions its pretty good.

Where is any new road?

Well, if you want one that is entirely new, Roy Rogers Road. And then you can go to any new subdivision and find all sorts of "new roads".

You are right, more lanes do usually just create more "parking room". People will tolerate creating a lot of congestion if they have no good alternatives. Adding more lanes doesn't really provide any alternative.

Ross wrote, "one that is entirely new, Roy Rogers Road. And then you can go to any new subdivision and find all sorts of "new roads". " Now that is too funny. That is the ONLY new road and it
proves new roads help. But not according to you and the psychos at Metro who think new roads "induce" more driving. I wonder how many new drivers were created by Roy Rogers road? Oh what a crime. We should tear out that road to reduce traffic. A few more too. Right? If new roads induce more driving, shouldn't taking a few out reduce driving?
Go drive 99W, TV highway, Tualatin Sherwood Road, Wilsonville Road, Scholls Ferry road, or any other planner's chaos and spin those as success stories. You're doing a marvelous job of carrying the Metro cool aid. As far as "new roads" in subdivisions? Those are neighborhood streets. Paid for entirely by the developers. Unlike the chosen developers of smart growth and Urban Renewal schemes.
And people are NOT "tolerating" worsening congestion. They are having it crammed down their throats by the likes of you and the horrible and asinine planning you propagate.

Hi Folks....

I'm a an auto and truck technician specializing in electronic and diagnostic work. Any one of you owning a car or light truck built since 1997 already has built-in the capacity to do fairly sophisticated data recording. 2001 and newer models have increasingly powerful location determination and directional software, some obvious like GM Northstar and some hidden like rental-car spyware for tracking customer violations of location or traffic rules.

I service several rental fleets, truck and car, in my shop and so have access to manufacturers tools and databases. Believe me, I can download information about speed, braking forces, loads and location reasonably easily. Most of these systems have the capability of broadcast even if it is not enabled.

What the state is proposing is in no way a quantum leap in technology.

Regards

If new roads induce more driving, shouldn't taking a few out reduce driving?

Of course it would. But why would you do that?

And people are NOT "tolerating" worsening congestion.

"No one goes there any more, its too crowded." Yogi Berra

Equity must be an essential part of any tolling methodology; be it a per mile charge, a toll road or a toll bridge like proposed for the Columbia Crossing, If tolls or per miles traveled are charged anywhere, the charge must be applied to all modes of transport, including bicycling and transit. Additionally, alternative modes of transport like bicycling and transit must no longer be allowed to sponge off and siphon away funds from motorist paid taxes and fees to cross subsidize and pay for specialized alternative mode specific infrastructure. Transit operations too must become more financially self-sustainable with the ridership paying the majority of the costs. The money derived from tolls/mileage charges must stay with and only pay for infrastructure for the mode of transport being charged.

Any proposed tolling that only charges motorists and/or freight carriers must be viewed as DOA (Dead On Arrival).

We really need to do something in Oregon to better match up with the improvements that are part of the transportation investments in the State of Washington. They identified real projects that solve problems in the State of Washington and raised the gas tax and voters approved it.

We need to take a lesson and get targeted gas tax dollars going to targeted transportation projects.

Currently we have the vital I-5 corridor through Portland forcasted with backups of 6-miles in length lasting 14-hour per day by the 2030-time frame with nothing on the books to solve the problem.

How are we going to maintain our economy if we cannot move our trucks even our basic freight needs with those conditions.

The proposed replacement of the Interstate Bridges will make these conditions in the I-5 corridor even worse with the creation of 8 to 10 lane wide bridge (equal to a football field) that will induce more vehicles into the already congested 2 and 3-lanes of the I-5 corridor. Just envision what a funnel looks like and that is what the CRC TAsk Force recommendation create.

I agree with the recommendations coming from the CRC Task Force to extend Light Rail into Vancouver if they can get the approval of the citzens of Clark County. Light Rail into Clark County does not solve the I-5 corridor congestion problems that are killing people and businesses. It in its self might reduce the number of vehicles in the I-5 corridor by 2%, but with double digit growth in Clark County compounded each year the problems get worse with nothing coming out of Metro or ODOT to solve the problem.

We must create new alternative to the use of the I-5 corridor. This new alternate bi-state multi-mode arterials. We can do this by creating a affordable alternative to the projected $6-Billion Dollar cost of the CRC Project.

First thing is to create new freight specific lanes as an alternative to our trucks setting in 14-hours of backup. We must keep our economic engine running or jobs go by - by.

We have an ideal location for this activity and when combined with a replacement upgrade to the BNSF Rail Road Bridge with a connecting alternate bi-state multi-mode arterial along the BNSF track and North Portland Street we can connect to highway 30 on the west side of the Willamette River to the North side of the Columbia River running through our industrial and work centers and eliminate the need for people and trucks to use the I-5 Freeway.

Double the capacity of the I-205 corridor making it a 4 and 5-lane capacity for its full circumfrance, I-5 to I-5. That will provide a real alternative to trying to stuff more people into the I-5 corridor.

Fix by eliminating most every choke point on the I-5 corridor and we can double the number of vehicles that need to be using it. But when we create new alternatives to the use of the I-5 corridor like this BNSF/N. Portland Street arterial corridor, the widening of I-205 out to a minimum of 4-lanes and dramitic expansion of transit, including the extension of Light Rail into Vancouver we initiate TDM (tolls) for 4-hours in the AM and PM peak period rush hours in the I-5 corridor.

The I-5 corridor between Portland and Vencouver currently has the 3rd worse air quality conditions in the nation. We must reduce the number of vehicles in the I-5 corridor. We can only do this and save our economy by creating alternatives.

We really need to do something in Oregon to better match up with the improvements that are part of the transportation investments in the State of Washington.

I think this idea is very dangerous.

One of the problems with I5 is that WASHDOT has built seven freeway lanes converging on a three lane bridge. And they designed the SR14 interchange so that it actually uses one of those bridge lanes as a merge lane. There is simply no way Portland can absorb all that traffic.

No one with any sense wants to see Seattle traffic problems repeated in Portland. But WashDOT looks at Seattle as its model.

Currently we have the vital I-5 corridor through Portland forcasted with backups of 6-miles in length lasting 14-hour per day by the 2030-time frame with nothing on the books to solve the problem.

How are we going to maintain our economy if we cannot move our trucks even our basic freight needs with those conditions.

This is back to the Yogi Berra quote. The fact is that in a "free market" people will adjust their behavior long before it reaches the levels of congestion predicted. The danger is that some of those adjustments could reduce opportunities for people. What is needed are good, attractive, alternatives for people that they will use long before you see those negative consequences from congestion.

torridjoe You just gotta love Karlock--density increases congestion! Watta riot. So the theory is that because Sierra's calculations don't include the fact that more people overall are taking trips, they're wrong? JK: Who said anything about wrong? Just incomplete.

torridjoe Buddy, you're missing the entire point. In what universe do more people not equal more trips? People will move to Oregon; the population will increase. Accounting for the increasing congestion caused by MORE PEOPLE by foisting the blame on density is flat absurd. JK: It is not the number of trips. It is the number of trips in a given area. The increased number of trips on a given number of lane-miles is what increases congestion. That not flat absurd, it is a fact.

torridjoe Once we grudgingly admit that more people will in fact undertake more trips, the question is what trip patterns look like comparing different densities. Jim essentially concedes that as density goes up, the proportion of car trips falls, and those using transit increase. JK: That is not a concession. It is just data. But the key point is that the number of trips PER PERSON DOES NOT FALL as fast as the number of persons increases. That causes congestion to increase. Also, the number of trips per person does not fall until you get to densities far higher than most of Portland’s.

torridjoe So this means that when more people live closer together, they take fewer car trips than they would if they lived farther out. JK: The data does not talk of further out or closer in, just density.

torridjoe And there's simply no denying that a transit trip is better for Oregon than a car trip, in terms of overall social cost. To say that buses require more energy than cars is true, but similarly abstracted from the point--do they use more energy than the number of cars required to make an equal number of trips? For heaven's sake, of course not. JK: They use more energy per passenger-mile than small cars. That means, on average, that any given trip will use less energy if you drive, instead of take the bus.

torridjoe Furthermore, even if density "causes" congestion, one has to view that in terms of the impact on the rest of the state. The intent is that population centers not bleed out into the hinterlands, gobbling up land forever, and creating sprawling needs for infrastructure much greater than if they were concentrated in a smaller area. Every 10,000 people that move to Portland is another 10,000 that don't move to Newberg or Corbett or Cornelius--and I bet you a million dollars the people in those towns welcome them to their new homes...in Portland. JK: And as a Portlander, I welcome them to Newberg or Corbett or Cornelius. (If we wanted to be Los Angelas or New York, we’d move there.)

torridjoe So where do you want your congestion, Jim--on Burnside, or on 219, spending an hour and a half trying to get to Woodburn from Tigard? JK: Simple concept: since density causes congestion, quit the drive to density. Then increase capacity of roads in the outer areas. For instance upgrade 217 and I-5 instead of wasting money building a toy train that will, by Trimet’s, estimate cost $25 per ride for the 14 mile ride from Beaverton to Wilsonville. That is $1.70 per passenger-mile, over six times the cost of driving.

Thanks JK

The new High Density Urban Housing and Transit Center Housing developments are not bad for those who want to live there. I am one of those Oregonians raised and educated in Porland who knows that we can do better, when it come to total quality of life then live where no-one wants to raise a family. You do not find kids in the Pearl or the South Water Front.

But I agree that we need to provide opportunites to those people who accept that this urban life style is living so that they can live their segregated lives without negative impacts on those who believe otherwise.

We must have tolerance with all spectrums of the population.

We must have tolerance with all spectrums of the population.

It has nothing to do with "tolerance" of people. We need housing alternatives close to jobs. But when we invest in encouraging housing development in places where there are no jobs and the only transportation available is the sutomobile, we are asking for trouble. And that trouble comes in the form of more traffic congestion.

Too bad Mr. Sadler has joined Rep. DeFazio and other "transportation protectionist" in anti-toll road demagoguery.

There are three alternatives:

1. Massive coercive social engineering (intimated in Mr. Sadler's last sentence) to take away the choice of driving a personal vehicle.

2. Raise gasoline or other taxes on a large scale to pay for the new roads.

3. Keeping the status quo of increasingly massive congestion without alternative toll roads.

4. Divert all the money spent on mass transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities into roads.

Needless to say, I find all four alternatives unacceptable.

It's possible to have "congestion pricing" without the intrusive ideas Mr. Sadler trumpets as his straw man argument.

Public/Private Partnership as transportation development entities are part of the state laws of both Oregon and Washington. I believe that a Public/Private Partnership is the right entity to build a new alternative bi-state multi-mode arterial along the BNSF/North Portland Street right of way. It could have tolls on it, if the entity needs tolls to fund this project. But lets keep I-5 and I-205 free of tolls except to control congestion (TDM) in peak periods.

http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/04/gpstracked_mile.html#comment-65103762

torridjoe JK: It is not the number of trips. It is the number of trips in a given area. The increased number of trips on a given number of lane-miles is what increases congestion. That not flat absurd, it is a fact.

TJ: Correct--and attributing the increased congestion to density as opposed to more people, is absurd. It doesn't matter whether you have 100 people in 1 sq mile or 10 sq miles; if you add another hundred you will have more trips and thus more congestion in BOTH places. JK: You are forgetting that congestion is the number of cars relative to the road capacity (hence my mention of “a given number of lane miles). 2000 cars per hour is a vacant six lane freeway or a totally locked up Burnside.

torridjoe Regardless, it still misses the point entirely: if increased congestion is a given with increased population, then the correct question is in what areas is congestion best being mitigated? As the data you provide point out, clearly as density increases, congestion is better mitigated--transit and non-powered transport options increase dramatically, and single-auto trips drop just as dramatically. JK: The data does not show congestion being mitigated - the data shows congestion increasing dramatically because the reduced number of trips is swamped out by the increased number of people. Further the effect does not cut in until you have a density above Los Angeles. Even at New York central city density, driving per capita has only decreased about 40%, while total automobile trips have increased by 500%. See the data table below the chart.

torridjoe As a Portlander, you chose to live in a dense urban environment. JK: No I didn’t. I was born here and liked it just fine before Metro decided to “replicate Los Angeles” here. (Metro Measured, page 7)

torridjoe "JK: Simple concept: since density causes congestion,"

TJ: ...and since population increase causes density no matter where people settle, and congestion gets worse when more people move to where density is lower, JK: Wrong - you are forgetting that congestion does not start until you near road capacity. It is a problem of capacity vs demand.

torridjoe I assume your answer is to either cap the population of Oregon(!), or encourage people to live in greater density, so as to minimize the effects of congestion. JK: Encouraging people to live in higher density is a major cause of congestion - did you learn nothing from that chart?

Thanks JK

Very interesting ... much better thought-out than the typical knee-jerk anti-gps article.

I am a full-fledged GPS supporter, but I want to go on record here (I have blogged about this a number of times on my www.satviz.com writings) GPS tracking technology is great, but it is the wrong technology for what Oregon is trying to do.

In addition to privacy issues and etc., the major point folks are missing is, GPS tracking devices do not accurately measure mileage. You wouldn't buy your gas by letting the vendor "estimate" what went in your tank, don't pay taxes based on inaccurate mileage.

torridjoe JK: The data does not show congestion being mitigated - the data shows congestion increasing dramatically because the reduced number of trips is swamped out by the increased number of people.

The data very much DO show it, since the level of congestion is smaller than if the number of car trips were the same as in low density areas. JK: That is the wrong comparison. The correct comparison is how is a given neighborhood (or city or region) is affected by increased density. The answer is that congestion goes up. That’s all.

torridjoe It would take 200+ car trips to equal one mass transit trip JK: Please provide a source for that claim, right after you clarify it.

torridjoe You are asserting that more people = more congestion, which I don't think many people will argue with. JK: That is precisely my claim - why are you continuing to argue?

torridjoe But what you are further trying to argue--that transit is unhelpful because it cannot control the number of people arriving into an urban area to live--is flatly absurd. JK: Where did I argue that, in this thread?

torridjoe It is not density that increases congestion, it is the increased number of trips. JK: That is precisely my claim - why are you continuing to argue?

Thanks JK Whose blog activity and web sites are 100% paid by myself on my own time - can you say the same?

Time to round up all the CEO's and government yahoos behind the idea of employing GPS in this way, along with those behind the electronic voting machine, and load em up with all their devices into the space shuttle. Then blast em off so they can do their "research" during the solar maximum. The closer to the sun the better.