No tolls - it's public infrastructure! One of the things I love about Portland is that we haven't turned into one of these East Coast cities with toll roads everywhere. Tax me at the pump to pay for highways.

I like the idea of swapping the labels on I-5 and I-205 - genius.

My daughter, who got her first undergrate degree in land use policy and planning says that recent studies show that whenever cities a new freeway or major thoroughfare, it doesn't decrease congestion, it increases it. New traffic patterns emerge and new arterials to feed the new freeway and fewer resources are directed towards alternatives to highway auto traffic.

Tolling may be a fine way to generate revenue for maintenance or future infrastructure funding, but under our current workforce housing situation, it'll do almost nothing to relieve highway and bridge congestion. People making up the workforce have to be able to get to work, and they have to be able to afford a decent place to live. They'll pay the toll if that's what it takes, unless it was raised to an astronomical amount that would make it cost prohibitive.

Creating conditions where affordable housing is virtually available only across the river via one or two bridge crossings guarantees continued congestion. By some means, affordable housing on the same side of the river, within a 10 mile, maybe 5 mile radius of their place of employment should be made available to working people. Lots of money needed to build a bridge could be saved if the single occupancy vehicle commuter volume were drastically reduced.

I believe there are already Federal dollars earmarked for this project.

Tolling that bridge is a great idea because it puts the tax directly on the people who use it to maintain it. Overwhelmingly that's going to be Vancouver drivers since they are the vast majority of people who use the bridge day in and day out.

For instance, we hear all the time that car travel is reducing in reaction to gas price increases, and that increases are likely to continue, but we also hear that the crossing will increase sprawl and car usage. Those two positions are contradictory, aren't they?

No not really. Likely people will simply cut their spending on entertainment and in other non-essential areas to cover the increase at the pump. Vancouver is a community where a car is essential to life. Biking is a stretch because of the sprawl, frankly it's dangerous in Vancouver and their public transportation is practically non existant. It would take a sea change to get our northern neighbors to get out of their cars.

Here's some ideas:

First, the major employers should build satellite facilities in the Vancouver area and provide shuttle buses to connect these folks to the main campus(es). How many people are driving from Vancouver to Beaverton just to sit in a cubicle all day and never attend a single meeting? Oregon would lose some income tax revenue, perhaps, but that may be a justifiable price to pay...

Second, we should use the river to move people. If someone could drive or bus to downtown Vancouver and take a ferry to downtown Portland and then have shuttle connections to the downtown core (and Tri-met), that would also help to alleviate congestion. One hydrofoil can carry a couple of hundred people and travel at 30-40 mph...

Third, it might be a good idea to ban heavy trucks from I-5/I-205 during rush hours. My commutes have typically been from NE Portland to Beaverton or Lake Oswego. This takes me up either the Sylvan or Terwilliger hills. I have noticed that a lot of bottlenecks are from trucks driving up these hills at greatly reduced speeds, frequently in the middle lane. Cars behind them must slow down and pass them on either the right or left and this causes all traffic behind the truck to slow down. Banning trucks would almost certainly reduce congestion. In addition, trucks take up more physical space on the road. One eighteen-wheeler could be replaced by at least two cars...

Fourth, we might want to consider disincentives for people to move here. A million more people is going to put considerable strains on our infrastructure and the costs of upgrading that infrastructure are going to be borne by all of us, not just the newcomers. New developments rarely pay the full cost of the impacts they impose on the community. For starters, maybe they should.

It seems highly unlikely to me that federal funding would not be available for this project. It isn't a parochial project, but a major infrastructure investment that has commerce implications for the entire West Coast.

In terms of freight traffic, we should certainly encourage through traffic to use I-205 (although I suspect most truckers already have a very clear understanding of the cost/benefit of each route). However, you can't ignore the commerce generated at the Port of Portland. This is a major port, and it employs quite a few people, many in good union jobs. If we fail to do anything to improve the flow of freight in and out of our city, shippers will stop using the Port.

It terms of induced demand, of course building a bigger, better bridge will induce some people to drive who might otherwise have taken light rail, and it will encourage some to move to Vancouver who might have otherwise stayed here. But that's the whole point of imposing tolls, right? By increasing the relative cost of the commute, you're trying to mitigate that induced demand.

And I think as others pointed out on the other thread, it's not like by failing to build a bridge you're going to hold driving at constant levels. More people are moving here, and more will drive, and congestion will get worse. We need to plan for that or we will be mired in gridlock, which is not good for the environment.

The goal here is to find a balanced approach that acknowledges people's current behavior, builds in incentives to change/improve that behavior, and meets existing regional and national needs while keeping environmental concerns in the forefront. This is incredibly complex, but those advocating the status quo aren't much better than those advocating for a super freeway.

Expanding the bridge won’t increase sprawl – population growth compels that. Just like the spotted owls that scientists say need a range of old growth habitat, the elephants at the Oregon Zoo where zoo keepers claim they need a larger compound to roam around in; and with an exception of some of the singles hipster crowd, most (family) people rebuff the confinement of cubical living associated with high density heat island people warehouse districts and development; moreover aspiring to single family homes that have full attached yards for family activities. Instead of legislating from a bubble with a bias one-sided agenda that attempts to socialistically dictate lifestyle, housing and mode of transport choices, including attempting to restrict motor vehicle travel that only harms the economy, the elected public servants of the people need to stop ignoring, confront and address the real issue facing the environment – the necessity to reduce and stabilize population growth.

Furthermore, the purpose of any bridge is to bring the two sides of the river closer together. Tolling motorists only divides the community farther apart and will negatively impact small businesses and the local economy, a subject that has not been properly addressed. If tolling is implemented, then it must have a larger base than just motorists to keep the dollar amount at a minimum and be all inclusive of all vehicular modes of transport including transit passengers and bicyclists paying their share of the bridge and congestion costs. A real bridge in a reality check world necessitates an equitable cost sharing financing plan.

Some more random thoughts: The biggest obstacle to moving freight is SOVs in the peaks, but freight is less than 10% of peak hours vehicles, so its close to a non-issue. Trucks move thru Portland on I-5 because it is quicker and more direct, despite some slowing at the bridge and the freeway loop. Port of Portland moves wheat and bulk minerals out and brings autos in...all get to and from docks via rail. Containers moved last year, 260K, were about 1% of west coast total. Biggest container export...air. Traded sector jobs? How many shoes and jackets are shipped out of adidas NA HQ in North Portland? "0" There is actually plenty of capacity on I-5, even in the peaks...its in the passenger and back seats of all the SOVs. HOV/Freight lanes striped tonight would take care of things in pretty short order. Getting folks to live closer to where they work means NOT making it easier and cheaper to live farther away by doubling motor vehicle capacity on I-5. People move and/or change jobs, on average, every 5 years; change can happen pretty fast, not over generations. Member, Governors' I-5 TF, 2000-2002

There's a toll (407) road in Toronto without toll plazas. Frequent users get transponders and a reduced rate; others have their license plates photographed and get bills in the mail. Personally I think it stinks, as the road was built with public money, then sold by a conservative government to buddies of the premier for a bargain price, with no control of the tolls, which are high -- high enough that the trucks mostly take the alternative free highway, imposing the high maintenance costs on the public.

That said, the concept of a toll on I-5 is reasonable, and a 407-type system would take no extra space and keep traffic moving. I would advocate something like, say, three free trips per month for a given local (OR/WA) vehicle, but in general tolls are a reasonable way to control use and fund bridges, etc.

I also object to tolls on bridges and highways that have been paid for many times over, such as charged on the PA and NY turnpikes, so any legislation implementing such a toll should have a firm sunset when the bridge construction bonds have been paid off.

Kari,

Actually, I wouldn't be that upset if a toll was introduced only for the period of time to pay off construction bonds.

I can understand (though I don't agree with) your point about charging a toll as a way of "adjusting behavior". However, that would be more reasonable on a regular highway through a city when other routes are available for those that don't want to or can't afford to pay the tolls. Drivers don't have any other choice when crossing the river - they have to take either I-5 or I-205.

Congestion pricing is generally viewed as regressive, so its hardly a panacea for the peculiar desire to "limit" mobility demand.

Chisholm's "let's start today" with tolls on I-5s is dangerous thinking. Any traffic demand reduction is exclusively borne by those for whom a dollar or two is burdensome: namely lower income folks.

@Jim H: If I recall correctly, it would take something like 20 years at a relatively high toll per trip ($5-6) to pay off the cost of the construction of the bridge. Also, by suggesting that "drivers don't have any other choice," you've already ignored the biggest choice they (should) have: whether to drive their single-occupant vehicle or to take alternative transit.

In general, I'm happy to pay extra taxes to fund public-works projects that I think are actually going to improve the quality of life in the region. I'll happily accept supplemental taxes for light rail, school construction, or even the much-maligned tram, but the megabridge proposal strikes me as just another way to prolong the illusion that expansion into suburbia is a solution to our land-use problems.

There is an exhibit of Artworks depicting a Park Roofed Columbia Bridge at the NW Lucky Lab Brewpub on NW Quimby above NW 19th st. By building a 'covered bridge' we protect drivers/bikers/walkers from fierce winter weather [reducing accidents] , we collect all the rainwater [eliminating most pollution runoff] , and minimize expensive maintenance and wear and tear for decades. Imagine a picnic in a beautiful and vast public park floating high above the mighty Columbia. A world class Green Centerpiece for our region.

Expanding the bridge won't reduce traffic, but it will increase sprawl.

Maybe, maybe not. While increased capacity is one factor in making exurban living more attractive, it is not the only one.

Look at China: its massive increases in capacity have had a negligible impact on sprawl simply because stringent land use laws limit development. On the other hand, Sydney: a city that more or less has no freeways, just a patchwork of suburban streets. Yet it sprawls in all directions due to historically lax planning regulations.

A perhaps stronger causal relationship can be found between sprawl and rising incomes, or sprawl and urban crime, etc.

My objections to tolls have nothing to do with the money, the major complaints about carbon emissions. I lived several years in Marin Co and had to deal with the Golden Gate Bridge. Toll boothes create traffic jams, period. This results in idling vehicles and the energy loss of stopping from and returning to highway speed. These are the dirtiest periods of internal combustion engine usage.

The highway expansion studies that show traffic increase involve roads with less efficient alternatives that are abandoned to use the new road. Growth impacts take years to emerge except in extraordinary boom conditions.

I'm not taking any position on this bridge other than to try to steer discussions regarding emissions away from self-defeating arguments. Discouragement of behavior through economic sanctions does work, but is better addressed at the pump than on the roadway with tolls if your goal is emissions. The fact of a local disincentive such as a toll on such a interstate throughway will simply increase your negative effect and have minor positive effects.

Modern engines, post mid '90s range from pretty efficient to very efficient at highway speeds but those efficiencies go to 0 at idle and very bad at a crawl. Hybrids have to go to fuel to move back to highway speed. Traffic jams are the absolute worst offenders in carbon issues regarding vehicles. Reducing the number of vehicles is a good idea, but you will not realize the gains you hope for by increasing congestion with choke points.

Regarding rail transport of freight, the price of diesel is already a powerful incentive but once again you quickly run into additional economic costs and again the fuel costs involved in marshalling and distribution in and out of the marshalling yards which aren't located just anyplace. What people tend to forget is that in any gallon of fuel there is exactly so much energy available and whether it is used to run an electric generator on a train or a truck engine, there are just that many BTUs available and just that amount of work can be done. Trains work because they stay at a near constant speed and load with large loads whose inertia tends to even out power draws.

Lennon,

Is your 20 year figure based on the entire cost of the bridge, or just the portion that doesn't already have funding (from the Fed/State)? That said, I really am against a toll. I was just saying if they do decide to implement a toll - it should only be to pay off any construction bonds and not a permanent general revenue source.

Also, I'm all for public transit, but for a lot of people it just doesn't make sense - depending on where/when they are going.

For example, I used to live in the Woodstock area in Portland and attended evening classes twice a week at WSU in Vancouver. Classes started at 6:00. I could leave home shortly after 5:00 and make it there in time in my car. Now, I just tried to figure out how long it would take to use TriMet & C-Tran to get there, but C-Tran doesn't have the handy Trip Planner that the TriMet website has. Looking at their map, it appears I would've had to take at least 3 or 4 different buses to get there - and that's now that there is a bus to WSU. For awhile, C-Tran stopped service to the campus - making for a LONG walk/bike ride. I would wager that it would take at least 2 hours to get from inner SE Portland up to WSU and another 2 hours coming back. So 1 hour of my day commuting turns to 4 hours and I have to beg my boss to let me leave work an hour or two early.

So, yes, let's have light rail on the bridge and those that can take advantage of it can use it. But recognize there are trips that take at least 3 or 4 times as long by mass transit so it's just not reasonable to expect everyone to use it all the time no matter where they're going.

Tolling one of only two crossings across the river is taking the idea of a sin tax a bit too far.

This interesting discussion confirms the lack of consensus regarding a new bridge. Given the extraordinary turmoil in energy markets, our shaky economy, and a forthcoming new president, I suggest a three-year cooling off period. During that time the basic assumptions now being relied on can be reexamined and perhaps replaced.

Well, you'll note that I didn't suggest a toll on I-205.

No, you didn't (though others have, including our mayor-elect: http://www.commissionersam.com/node/3843). But wouldn't the extra gallon of gas it takes to drive out of your way to use I-205 constitute a kind of "backdoor" toll?

Why should those closest to I-5 have to pay to cross (either through a toll or an extra gallon of gas) while those of us on the east side get across free of charge?

Terry Parker wrote:

Expanding the bridge won’t increase sprawl – population growth compels that.

Nonsense. It all depends upon how you choose to accommodate population growth. In a car-centric world, land used by cities increases many times more than population. (A typical example, from 1960 to 1990, Kansas City's population grew by less than a third, while the its land area expanded by 110 percent.) By contrast, as of 1991, Portland's Urban Growth Boundary had absorbed 95% of the region's residential growth since 1974, but had been expanded in area by only 2%. If we were like KC, our urban area would have expanded by 348%. (Not an exact comparison, of course, since the time-frames are different.)

Miles wrote:

And I think as others pointed out on the other thread, it's not like by failing to build a bridge you're going to hold driving at constant levels. More people are moving here, and more will drive, and congestion will get worse. We need to plan for that or we will be mired in gridlock, which is not good for the environment.

We can't (well, won't) stop more people from moving here, but we can make public investments and policies that will either encourage more driving or encourage other modes of transportation. The UGB is an example of accommodating growth while discouraging sprawl and encouraging transit-friendly development, which increases transit use, decreasing driving. There's a heck of a lot of transit that $4 billion could pay for, that could easily increase the number of trips for which the time and per ride cost of transit is less than driving--moving people out of cars and into transit. A $4 billion bridge (or the $3 billion that's not related to light-rail and bike lanes) does NOTHING to move people out of their cars, or to encourage businesses to ship more by rail. Rising fuel costs may also do those things, but if we don't invest in alternatives, then we're just going to screw the economy because the increased costs will just get passed on. Building up our rail and transit infrastructure both encourages a reduction in driving and trucking AND provides an alternative when other forces discourage it further. Which will help us have a future more like what we (the people) want, and less like what we don't want (more pollution, faster climate change, more environmental destruction, less mobility, etc.).

The 1950's-era status quo has gotten us into this mess; I hardly see how anyone can reasonably expect it to get us out of it.

Jenni Simonis wrote:

Everyone keeps bringing up that you can just use alternative transportation. That isn't always an option for people - not only because some people need their vehicles, but also because not everyone lives/works near areas with good service.

I mean, if you get off work at 5:00 and you kid has to be picked up by 6:00 from daycare, are you going to take you car and have a trip that is 30 minutes or a bus ride that is an hour plus walking time?

Exactly. The fact that your workplace and your childcare are a 30 minute drive apart is a failing of our infrastructure to support any option OTHER than driving. Your employer could offer on-site child care, or you could have more quality child care options that are closer to your work or home. There could be faster, more reliable transit that takes the same or LESS time between those points that driving takes. You have been (effectively) forced to drive because of choices that other people (both public and private sector) have made. So the choice has been in fact made for you.

We're considering spending $4 billion dollars of OUR money. Do we really want to spend it in a way that will continue to force us to drive (or at least not make it any more attractive to NOT drive), given all of the environmental, economic, land-use and quality of life reasons we all have for wanting to drive LESS?

One of the first things that needs to be done is talk up the idea of more businesses and government agencies going to ten hour work days. That would cut the number of trips significantly each week.

Second is to open the transportation maketplace to private companies. There is no reaason private companies should be restricted from providing city transportation services. Maybe we need a dozen bus companies in town.

Neither one of these cost the taxpayer much money.

TLG

Report Predicts 'Mass Exodus of Vehicles off America's Highways'

10 million less cars on the road in 4 years is a convincing argument to not build the bridge. Peak Oil, people. What are the cars going to run on? Microbrew?

Give us projections that are based on $3, $4, $5, and $6/gallon gasoline. Only then can we know if it makes any damn sense.

They're paying $8 a gallon right now in Europe. Maybe gas prices in the US will continue to be 5-10 years behind Europe, or maybe we'll catch up faster. In any case, projections should be based on $5, $10, $15 and $20 gasoline, as extreme as that may sound to us now. I know of no reason to think the rate of price inflation will not keep accelerating.

The problem with projecting travel behavior under quickly-growing gas prices is that we don't have much history to guide us. Our grasshopper behavior - burning all this cheap oil and letting future generations go hang - has created development patterns that will be very difficult to adjust. And of course the burden will be greatest on those least able to pay. That's the classic argument against tolls, higher gas taxes and other price incentives.

The answer to that, in my opinion, is a carbon tax coupled with a "carbon allowance" in the form of a refundable tax credit, so that low-income people can have extra resources to help them reinvent their lifestyles, but create heavy incentives so that everyone has to reinvent, the sooner the better.

Second is to open the transportation maketplace to private companies. There is no reaason private companies should be restricted from providing city transportation services. Maybe we need a dozen bus companies in town.

Umm, maybe no reason to restrict them, but how would a dozen bus companies sharing the oh-so-lucrative mass transit market make a profit when the current bus system is highly subsidized as it is?

Do you imagine a system like our garbage collection where each company would operate in different regions of the city? Or would they all compete all over the city so that it would be a nightmare trying to plan a trip?

A dozen companies would eventually merge and go out of business until we were back to one or two big companies that still can't break even (like we're seeing with the airlines).

The City Club's debate from two weeks ago, between Rex Burkholder and Joe Cortright, was very good. While I think that Joe Cortright had the better of the arguments, it's well worth a listen for both sides' view.

http://pdxcityclub.org/forums-events/documents/0627ORCC_I-5_Bridge_Debate.MP3

Jim H. ask "Umm, maybe no reason to restrict them, but how would a dozen bus companies sharing the oh-so-lucrative mass transit market make a profit when the current bus system is highly subsidized as it is?"

Jim without spending some time pulling the info together I have to do this from the top of my head

In the U.S. 90% public transportation is government run. Outside it is about 35% government run. Within that are various models. In London a government agencies contracts out services to a number of private companies. Similar arrangments are made in Stockholm, Helsinki and Copenhagen. Curitiba, Brazil has a system that is similar and is rated as one of the world's best with somewhere around 75% of the daily commuters using it. Japan has a private system as well with little government involvement. Other cities throughout Asia are similar to Japan's from what I read.

Most cities seem to have government oversight of some sort with varying degrees of freedom on the part of the companies.

Here in the U.S. there are a few private companies involved, but not many. Most contract to a government agency, or have a franchise operation.

The oldest, private unsubsidized transit operation in the U.S. is the jitney operation in Atlantic City, N.J. From what I understand it is difficult to enter and cost a bundle to do so. I have read about $80,000, but I don't know how accurate that is. They also make a profit and just increased their fares to $2.25. Seniors ride at a discount. They have been around since 1915.

If others can do it so can we.

TLG

People who choose to live in Washington and work in Oregon are unlikely to be deterred by a bridge toll. But they may think twice about crossing the bridge when they aren't working.

If you want to discourage discretionary travelers (aka "tourists"), then toll the bridges. But don't be surprised if retailers and restaurants in Jantzen Beach and Portland see fewer customers with WA plates, especially on the weekend.

Am I to understand that having a draw bridge over the Columbia River reduces sprawl, lowers GHG emissions, better aligns with Oregon LU laws, and generally makes Portland a better place to live and a "too" big of a bridge will tip the quality of life in Portland, letting sprawl run rampant, GHG spew out of control, and ruin Portland?

RE: "congestion". You can have more congestion thru a interchange/bridge and still have reduced travel times. It's called an increase in capacity. Remember the I5/I405 interchange upgrade? Where was all this fretting them?

RE: new traffic patterns. People tend to choose routes that decrease travel time. Hence new traffic patterns are a good thing - even with more congestion (see above).

RE: three year cooling off period. This topic is going on 20+ years now. What is three more years going to do but just increase costs well beyond $4.2M? The engineering assumptions won't change much. Just the political assumption. Yes correlations between sprawl, LU growth, and a bridge are not science but it is political science.

Don't stationary vehicles on an undercapacity bridge increase GHG emissions as a whole over more vehicles traveling at a faster speed? Also, doesn't water vapor account for 95% of GHG's?

The amount of CO2 California just released into the atmosphere makes a mockery of any discussion on highly liberal estimates of increases in CO2 emissions from a higher capacity bridge. Fires >>>>> vehicle emissions.

Kari - How do you the easy and cheap stuff first when the start of the problem (primary factor) is to get rid of the 'draw' part of the current bridge? Everyone wishes it was that easy. However, getting rid of the draw part and meeting current Federal standards is 90% of the cost and haggling on width to accmodate lanes and other multimodal forms of transportation is just semantics.

Seems like the amount of fretting and CO2 emissions from people arguing over this topic will far outwieght impact the CRC bridge will have.

"Creating conditions where affordable housing is virtually available only across the river via one or two bridge crossings guarantees continued congestion."ws

"I keep hearing this line -- that the only affordable housing in the region is in Vancouver. That's flatly not true." Kari Chisholm

So, if affordable housing isn't the issue, why is such a great percentage of the I-5 bridge's daily crossings (I've heard up to %70) a result of people going back and forth between job and home? Is the latter not true either? Keeping people on the same side of the river as their job or home would seem to be the reason for a lot of trips presently made across the river. Possible seismic considerations aside, would this new mega-bridge even by necessary if people were living on the same side of the river as their jobs?

Tolling the new CRC bridge to cover the local "matching" fund makes sense. Assuming the tolls are dropped after the funding committment is satisfied.

Tolling old bridges to pay for the new one (and to decrease toll avoidance if only the new bridge were tolled) is pure social engineering. It's just a new tax on transportation intended to discourage driving on bridges with your car (I guarantee that bikes/peds won't be charged).

If tolling the CRC bridge means that it remains less congested than I-205, then so be it: at least the CRC users will be getting a faster transit time for their fee.

In response to my comment “Expanding the bridge won’t increase sprawl – population growth compels that” jaybeat wrote: ”Nonsense. It all depends upon how you choose to accommodate population growth”.

Another word (synonym) for accommodate is “contain” Making that substitution in the jaybeat’s remarks it reads: “It all depends upon how you choose to contain population growth”. And then there is the question of who is doing the choosing. As I also previously stated: “most (family) people rebuff the confinement of cubical living associated with high density heat island people warehouse districts and development; moreover aspiring to single family homes that have full attached yards for family activities.” This can be easily verified by simply counting the number, or shall we say the lack of, school age children living in places like the Pearl District in Portland. People with families do not want to be “contained”: or warehoused like sardines in a can.

Therefore it is the elitist autocrats and party authoritarians that want to replace personal choice of lifestyles, housing and transport mode with social engineering through the use of subsidies and taxes, and by dictating what is constructed. That is why the autocrats won’t be transparent and tell the public the actual cost to provide light rail service on the Columbia River Crossing will be approximately $9.00 per passenger with most of that subsidized by milking the taxpayers thereby making it unlikely transit fares will reflect the true value of the ride. That is why the autocrats have concealed from the public any price tag for constructing bicycle infrastructure on and around the Columbia River Crossing giving special the interest bicycling community a continuance to freeload by poaching funds from motorists and other sources for the exclusive services they want. And that is why people like Mayor elect, authoritarian ruler of Portland in waiting, Sam Adams, not knowing how the next generation of cars and trucks will be powered or what the fuel source will be, wants to hose motorists with excessive tolls and congestion pricing on both the I-5 and I-205 Columbia River crossings. With the sky rocketing costs of motor fuels, any tolling of motorists at all in today’s economy is for the wrong reasons at the wrong time harming in particular small business people. Moreover, NO outdated, dictatorial and subsidized incentives are needed to promote alternative forms of transport.

The less money people have in their pockets and the more the government can pick from those pockets through taxation, the more the elitist autocrats can control the people. The conclusion here is that the parties of the people have become consumed with self interest, no longer represent the rank and file of the little guy, are unwilling to address or in some cases even acknowledge the world is becoming over populated by humans, and prefer a government controlled socialistic society over the freedoms of democracy.

"Keeping people on the same side of the river as their job or home would seem to be the reason for a lot of trips presently made across the river." ws

I obviously wasn't thinking when I wrote that.

Try this: Having so many people on one side of the river to work and the other side of the river to live would seem to be responsible for a lot of trips presently made across the river.

Do posters here really know how poorly the PPS does in comparison to other local school districts?

Paul, this is the kind of overbroad statement about PPS that is really irresponsible. PPS elementary schools are, for the most part, exceptional. The academic quality of middle and high schools declines, but that happens in every district. As for your comparison to other school districts, you're failing to take into account differences in income levels, the number of special needs students, and the overall diversity of the schools.

Yes, there are poorly performing PPS schools that I would not send my kids to -- more in PPS than in other local districts. But there are also exceptional schools that provide an excellent education. To simply state that PPS ranks poorly not only ignores reality, it also contributes to the slow destruction of the state's largest public school district.

First, a confession: I haven't read beyond the first couple of responses to Kari's post on this -- so run the risk of offering something already suggested. But since the present proposal is to spend more than $4 Billion on a bridge, to be paid for by money from the public (via taxes), I don't a real ideological difference from charging rush hour tolls, which also costs the public -- just, in this case, primarily the public that chooses to work in one state and live in the other (I suspect, in large part, to minimize their taxes.) Anyway, below is testimony I gave to Metro last month, which suggests how we might get by with a new bridge costing considerably less than four billion bucks.

Testimony of Joe Smith, private citizen, and part of the Ron Buel gang, to Metro June 5, 2008

First Preliminary Point: we do not suggest that a new span of some kind is unneeded. We do strenuously argue that a $4½ Billion mega- bridge is wrongheaded.

Second Preliminary Point: the congestion driving the current debate occurs during rush hours, and the growth of those rush hours, as people adjust their schedules trying to miss the worst traffic. The focus therefore needs to be on alleviating rush hour congestion.

First Question: At the City Planning Commission hearing, a supporter of the mega-bridge, to support building that bridge, said that 10,000 people commute across I-5 bridge to Washington County, many clear to Hillsboro, and that this will do nothing but grow. I asked, and still await an answer from policy makers: does anyone really believe that’s a good thing? I ask today, should we be encouraging more people to drive individual cars 20 miles and more to get to work, given all we know about climate change and peak oil?

Second Question: Suppose we build the mega-bridge, and it relieves the congestion across the river. What will we do about the bottlenecks at Portland Road, and downtown, and the Sylvan tunnels? The mega-bridge will encourage people to think living in Washington and working and shopping in Oregon is still the cool thing to do. Do we really want that?

A major and legitimate concern driving the mega-bridge is the cost to interstate commerce of longer and longer travel times during rush hours, and the expansion of those rush hours. We suggest that an overarching goal should be to reduce the number of private automobiles during those hours, to relieve that handicap.

There are 4 ways that might happen: 1. A severe economic downturn, so that thousands of people lose their jobs and quit commuting. Not good. 2. People decide that living close to their jobs is more important than grabbing the tax benefits of living north of the river, or whatever else it is that beckoned them there. Hopefully that will become more common, and it’s something to seriously promote, but it’s not within the immediate purview of the present decision.

That leaves two that are worthy of consideration. 3. Get people out of cars, and on to transports that eliminate or minimize competition with commercial vehicles during rush hours. Two obvious ways: A. Bicycles; they should be encouraged, but it’s unrealistic to expect folks to bike from Vancouver to Hillsboro, or even to Beaverton, every day, and, even the hardiest biker will yield to really bad weather.
B. Truly effective mass transit. There should be a new passage for commuter rail and buses (to which bike paths could be affixed), and we should do everything we can to make mass transit so convenient and time-saving that it becomes really attractive. (I’ve been saying for four years that when my kids are my age, there won’t be a single city of size in America that really works that doesn’t have an effective rapid public transit system – which in most cases means a subway. Surely we should be thinking about that.) (I’ve watched with dismay for example at the decision to build the downtown transit mall, which will do little if anything to significantly reduce automobile commuting.)

1. The fourth way is to get more – lots more – people sharing rides during rush hours. So, how do we do that?

30 years ago when I ran the Pacific Northwest Regional Commission I commuted the 7 miles from my Irvington home to Officer’s Row in Vancouver. Except when the weather was really bad, I rode my bike, and every day I smugly watched the opposite traffic, moving much slower than I was. And, just like now, almost all cars were occupied by just the driver.

I thought how wonderful it would be if we could cut that traffic in half, by getting just two folks in every car. I had a fantasy – which I actually hoped to make happen: I wanted to hire 100 or so people to do a hands-on survey of cars crossing the I-5 bridge, getting information on their job destination, where they started, and the route they followed, and then match potential car poolers. It was a fantasy then, in part because we were still in the infancy of computers – or at least their early adolescence.

But there are things coming together now that could make that fantasy work -- and by using cameras and mailed or telephoned questionnaires, obviate the initial inconvenience of stopping several thousand cars on a couple of days to do the surveys.

Two obvious things converging are the cost of gas, and the congestion we’re trying to address.  We can make that favorite of the right, the market, produce the solution.

How?   The answer seems obvious: a toll, graduated both by time, and by occupants.

Four in a car, free.  Three, a buck.  Two, Three bucks.  By yourself? You get to pay five.  (Five+ in your car?   Maybe we pay you!)  Adjust that down as you move away from rush hour.  (The fees I give of course aren’t gospel; they explain the concept.)

Then, do a survey, feed it into the computer, and provide every commuter presently driving alone with a list of folks whose travel profiles make them legitimate carpool candidates, and let the market do its work.  Get the average to two in a car, traffic cut nearly in half.  Three?  To nearly a third.

Fantasy?  With gas $4.00 and going north?  With commute times becoming prohibitive?

With growing awareness of climate change and the need to reduce carbon footprints? And, this could be started now.

I end with my first questions: suppose we build the mega-bridge: how does that help with all the other choke points; won’t it just encourage more people to think commuting is the thing to do?  And, don’t we really want to find ways to go the other direction – to reduce the number of private automobiles competing for space?

Lost in much of this debate -- it is approximately: A $1.6 billion bridge A $1.2 billion light rail extension $1.4 billion in interchange/highway improvements on both sides of the Columbia.

For a federally-funded project like this to incorporate light rail is extremely significant. For Vancouver to now be actively seeking light rail is also extremely significant. If our region is to shift more people to non-road modes of travel, we need to build those other modes. As we cannot control the type of growth that occurs in Washington state, in order to have an influence on that growth, and stem the "release valve", a bigger bridge with light rail and tolls that manage demand seems like a pretty good compromise between the two states.

Jim H wrote: No tolls - it's public infrastructure! One of the things I love about Portland is that we haven't turned into one of these East Coast cities with toll roads everywhere. Tax me at the pump to pay for highways./

To properly tax you at the pump would require more than doubling the federal gas tax (now 18 cents) AND raising the state gas tax (now 24 cents). Right now.

We probably need to raise the state gas tax by 12 cents just to maintain what we have. Even more to build stuff.

The problem with gas taxes: cars are getting better gas mileage, and some aren't using gas at all. So, we'll need to increase the gas tax even more to raise the same amount of revenue in the future. In addition, those driving hybrids or electric vehicles aren't paying their fare share for their use of the roads, because they are paying less per mile driven than everyone else. That may be fine for environmental purposes, but not in order to keep the potholes at bay.

Tolling the roads with electronic transponders, or charging for miles driven are probably much better ways to pay for roads in the future than fuels taxes, if you want to keep a user-pays system.

But will the public support having a box in their car that the government uses to track their driving habits? Probably not. Just like they won't support raising gas taxes. Which leaves tolls . . .

<hr/>