Is the Sauvie Island Bridge Worth Saving?
mtrichardson
We were recently contacted by the City's Supervising Bridge Engineer, David O'Longaigh, about an opportunity to save the current Sauvie Island bridge and turn it into a bicycle/pedestrian walkway across I-405 at NW Flanders St. We want your input on this issue.
Multnomah County is in the process of replacing the existing Sauve Island bridge. The new bridge is in the process of being built alongside the old one; when it has finished construction, the old bridge is slated to be demolished. The reason that the county is replacing it is that the old bridge cannot support freight trucks weighing over 40 tons. Aside from that, it is in good structural condition.
This is what the current bridge looks like:
The center span is what would be saved by the city.
David writes:
"The Burnside/Couch Transportation and Urban Design Plan called for a Bike Boulevard along NW Flanders from NW 24th to the Steel Bridge, with a new bike/ped bridge across I-405.
The crossing of I-405 at NW Flanders is the location being considered at this time for relocating the arched center truss of the Sauvie Island Bridge."
The project would, of course, cost money. Here is the breakdown, again from David:
"(a) To physically move the bridge from Sauvie Island to Flanders, $1.6 million. (provided by Emmert).
(b) To remove the old lead paint and repaint the bridge - $1.0 million
(c) New foundation supports and site improvements - $1.0 million
Confidence in cost estimate: it is a ball park. There are still some unknowns that could drive up the cost.
For example, do we re-use the old conc deck or replace it with a new deck? Are there storm water issues?"
In the end, the price tag for the overall project is probably within the range of $3 to $5 million. Building a 12 foot pedestrian bridge from scratch would only cost between $1.5 to $2 million. This would be similar to the bridge that is currently being built over McLoughlin Blvd.
But, If we were to build a bridge with similar dimensions to the Sauvie Island bridge, that would cost between $12 to $14 million.
It is anticipated that a substantial amount of the funding would come from the private sector, though the public would likely foot most of the bill. It is possible that TEF (Transportation Enhancement Funds) or SDC (System Development Charges) funds would be able to help offset the cost. Depending on your point of view, the completed project would either be an old, not especially special rural bridge strangely plopped down in an urban area, or an iconic addition to the neighborhood that sends a strong message about Oregonians' commitment to rural preservation which creates a public space where there previously was none. If people agree with the latter, a great many businesses and developers in the Pearl District may wish to help sponsor or donate services to the effort.
On other issues we turn once again to David O'Longaigh:
Are there engineering flaws?
"There are challenges but no fatal flaws yet discovered. HDR Consultant Engineers and myself have explored the challenges and found potential solutions to ADA issues, Foundation Issues and Lead Paint removal issues, etc..."
What about moving the Bridge from its existing location at Sauvie Island?
"Preliminary discussions with Emmert International indicate that the existing bridge could be lifted from its existing supports using a barge mounted crane. It would then be floated up the Willamette River to Portland's Waterfront Park. From the Waterfront Park location, it could travel down NW Everett Street until it intersects I-405. There it could slide onto preconstructed foundations at Flanders Street."
What about lead paint issues?
"The existing bridge structure is currently coated with lead paint. It seems prudent to remove the lead paint and repaint the bridge prior to re-positioning it at the proposed NW Flanders Street location. This could be done at a dry dock somewhere along route or at Waterfront Park in a sealed and secure tented structure."
The deadline to apply to the county for the bridge is March 31, 2006. If Portland chooses not to save the bridge, then it will be scrapped and Multnomah County will recover the scrap metal costs, as they have no plans to use it anywhere themselves.
Right now, I am leaning towards letting the county scrap the bridge. Especially considering the current budget situation, this is not a high priority. That said, I am open to considering the contrary if I hear good arguments in favor of saving the bridge. What are your thoughts on this?
Posted by mtrichardson on March 15, 2006
(88) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (1)
Filed Under Downtown Portland, Front Page, Northwest Portland, Transportation
Comments by site visitors
Larry,
As I understand it, the money recovered from scrapping the bridge would go to the county, not the city. I'll confirm that and get the actual amount.
Posted by: Michael Richardson | Mar 16, 2006 3:35:23 PM
Does moving the bridge to I-405 avoid any costs of decommissioning for the County? If so, could these savings for the County be used to defray the project costs?
Posted by: Chris Smith | Mar 16, 2006 4:07:12 PM
Sam,
I have mixed feelings on this subject. First, I believe society in general should place a much higher priority on the reuse of things and less on recycling just the materials. In all cases however, it must make reasonable financial sense. Like many Portlanders, I also believe bicyclists should pay their own way and not expect government subsidies for their lifestyle or exclusive and non-motorist use infrastructure.
In that the bridge has previously been painted with lead based paint, it can not just be dropped into the river. I question the scrap value in that precautions must be taken even to take it apart or cut it up, and I doubt it can be done in place.
A known issue is the weight restriction on the bridge, but is it related to the condition of the decking, the approach spans/supports or the girder construction of the center span under discussion? If the girder span is structurally sound, then at the very least this span should be saved, stored and banked somewhere if necessary. This however is something the county should do and not be anxious just to scrap it. There is a use for it somewhere.
As for using it over on NW Flanders Street to cross I-405, I like the basic preservation idea, BUT, THE BOTTOM LINE IS: if it is not open to all traffic including most motor vehicles, then it should be the bicycle community and private donations, not taxpayers or motorists, that pay for the relocation and installation.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Mar 16, 2006 4:18:45 PM
Even if there were no immediate use, maybe the county could put the bridge somewhere--for later use or sale. Hopefully somewhere with no storage charges.
Posted by: Ron Swaren | Mar 16, 2006 5:08:38 PM
Terry-
Should we have licenses for pedestrians? Some sort of walking tax? Pedestrians definitely don't "pay their way" in the way that you seem to want. So would should their be a walking tax?
You are disregarding the fact that bikes and peds get a ridiculously small fraction of total transportation dollars when compared with the automobile.
And in addition to only getting a small benefit in terms of dollars invested for bicycle infrastructure, you also have to look at the costs bikes impose vis-a-vis cars. Cars cause way more wear-and-tear to transportation infrastructure, so they should pay more by your "if you use it pay for it" logic. Cars "use" up transportation dollars far more quickly than do bikes or peds.
Plus, automobile drivers get subsidized gas (thanks to many federal tax breaks on oil companies) and don't pay for the pollution you cause when you drive - not for the environmental degredation nor for the health costs attributable to auto exhaust (such as asthma).
Finally, most people who walk also own a car or take transit, too. The same is true for bikers. "Bikers" are also "drivers" who also take transit and walk.
I don't think most Portlanders are as hung up as you are on what is in my opinion a non-issue.
Posted by: Level Head | Mar 16, 2006 5:10:37 PM
Wow...this is a very interesting idea that should be studied in more depth. The size and style of the bridge fits the surrounding area well. The bridge relocation also has a bit of a modern art element to it in that it is spanning a river of traffic in an area where there was widespread displacement for the construction of the freeway.
If the bridge is not used here, could it be used somewhere else? Maybe the bridge should be purchased by the city and mothballed until another project comes along. I can imagine it being used for a future streetcar project for example.
Posted by: Lance Lindahl | Mar 16, 2006 5:13:55 PM
I have mixed feelings about this. I think the goals need to be clearly defined before a decision can be made.
If the goal is to provide a crossing at Flanders which is initially for bikes, but may someday be used for crossing that span by other vehicles such as fire trucks, transit buses, police, and yes, general-purpose autos, then I would see the additional expense as being worthwhile.
But, if the installation of the existing bridge in this new location will not allow for the kinds of structural loads that this would require, then it may not be worth it.
I've seen the bridge going up over SE McLoughlin. It is quite elegant... does not look "cheap". If the goal is simply for a pure bike/ped crossing, then I say definitely go for the lower cost option.
- Bob R.
Posted by: Bob R. | Mar 16, 2006 5:37:45 PM
To follow up:
The county is not giving out a specific answer regarding the amount of money that they'll receive from scrapping the bridge because steel prices fluctuate greatly from week to week.
Any money received from scrapping the bridge would go either to the county or possibly to the contractor who would be carrying out the demolition work.
Terry: It is my understanding that the bridge is in good condition structurally but that it simply wasn't designed to carry heavy freight.
Posted by: Michael Richardson | Mar 16, 2006 5:43:29 PM
I don't know anything about engineering...but if it's feasible to do than I would love to see this possibility given some thought.
I think NW businesses and the Portland community would rally behind an effort to raise the funds to bring the bridge downtown.
It's an exciting possibility that deserves closer scrutiny.
Posted by: Jonathan Maus | Mar 16, 2006 6:07:37 PM
It's hard to imagine another 5 million dollar bridge project that could inspire and reflect Portland community values of reuse, walkability, and plain beauty than this.
(a thousand thousand dollars to blast the paint off ?!!?)
Posted by: John Boyd | Mar 16, 2006 6:22:12 PM
Cities around the country have taken the path of least resistance (i.e. the cheapest) to solve many challenges, and they are not the model city that Portland is. They are filled with wide freeways, and cookie-cutter spans. I am sure the Marquam was the most cost-effective design in it's day, but you won't see it on many postcards of the city.
Re-use of such a bridge is certainly in keeping with Portland's environmental ethic, and it would be a much more beautiful addition than yet another concrete pedestrian span.
As for Terry . . . I give low points for perpetuating the fallacy that cyclists and pedestrians do not pay "their share" for the infrastructure they use. Quite the contrary. Motor vehicle fees and gas taxes pay for a fraction of the combined costs of our love affair with cars. Money from general taxes, which we all pay, subsidizes auto usage to a much greater degree than it does walkers and bikers. Terry I am sure enjoys the extra thousands of parking spaces downtown that are not being used by folks who ride their bikes or Tri-Met. Sad how bad the tunnel vision has become, it seems the positive effects of ever-increasing biking/walking have been so gradual that they do not register for much of the motoring public.
If you want to use the fair accounting angle then the bridge looks even better, and I'd wager it's much cheaper (i'd give that a "high level of confidence" btw) than the city building another SmartPark (might carry more people per day than the aerial tram too), and as I have discussed, bikers and pedestrians in fact deserve more of what they have helped pay for.
Posted by: Ethan | Mar 16, 2006 6:48:27 PM
Why not place it over I-5 at Gibbs Street where the SoWa plan calls for building a $5 million dollar new one?
Well actually the SoWa plan budgeted $1.6 million but now it's $5 million.
I wonder who's fault that isn't.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Mar 16, 2006 10:46:54 PM
I would think something like a recycled bridge crossing a highway would be a nice addition and would help make Portland unique. Recycling a bridge to give cyclists and pedestrians a more connected network would be the type of thing that would probably be recognized nationally. It'd probably be one of those 'must see' items for tourists in Portland.
If the funding isn't immediately available for the project and the bridge needed to be stored somewhere, could it just stay where it is now?
If nothing else and if there is nothing else wrong with it besides a lack of large truck capacity, could it just be left in place and used for ... extra parking, another viewpoint, a new park (with vegetation planted on it)? (We are talking about creative uses right...)
Posted by: Peter W | Mar 16, 2006 11:40:57 PM
Other than Terry, I agree that the west route into Portland needs some attention. Besides the need to continue the Sunset Bike Path from the zoo to downtown, a main "bike freeway" is needed on the west side. I ride to work every day from the westside of portland (I still live in Portland not Beaverton BTW). I dont' mind cruizing through downtown in the middle of a car lane going downhill. However, passing 405 has always been stressfull.
My main point is that if the 5+ mil being spent on this project prevents funding for other projects (like the sunset bike path) then lets go with the less expensive plan and put that extra money in other improvements greatly needed for biking in and to the city.
~n
Posted by: Nick B. | Mar 17, 2006 6:17:34 AM
Great idea to recycle a bridge! Has anyone looked at using it for a bike/ped river crossing between St Johns and downtown?
-John
Posted by: JohnB | Mar 17, 2006 9:42:17 AM
I just thought of something crazy . . . what about a bridge to connect the Springwater Extension with Ross Island? . . . which I hear will somedya revert to the city.
Posted by: Ethan | Mar 17, 2006 10:04:04 AM
Sam,
In response to your questions, as a homeowner in Portland, I already do pay a walking tax, as do most property owners. The property boundaries for street frontage properties normally start at the curb line. These property owners are required to provide a public easement with a sidewalk across the front of the property owned, and must also pay property taxes on that easement. Unlike some downtown property owners, most property owners also must pay for any maintenance costs on that sidewalk. If I was a renter, property maintenance costs would be calculated in the amount of rent I would pay. Therefore the vast majority of property owners and renters in Portland already do pay walking taxes.
On the other hand, and you already know this, taxes that pay for roads, bicycle infrastructure, subsidies to mass transit, and some transit related land development come from two primary sources. The first source is taxes and fees on motor vehicles, primarily fuel taxes. The other source in Portland is from tax increment funding in urban renewal districts where the funds can only be used within the specific district where they are collected, and only pay for capitol improvements. These funds too are at issue because they use money that would otherwise go to support schools or to the general fund to support government services such as police and fire protection. As I stated at the tram town hall, there needs to be a full public discussion/disclosure of the whole idea of tax increment funding (along with tax property abatements and subsidies), and how it affects school funding and funding for other government services, but that discussion is for another post. On the flip side, taxes on properties outside of urban renewal districts for the most part do not pay for roads, bicycle infrastructure or subsidize mass transit. The exception here is when local property owners get together and vote in favor of creating a local improvement district. As you know, this usually applies only to a specific project.
Getting back to the taxes motorists pay; since fuel taxes make up most of the revenue collected from motor vehicles, parked cars, unless temporarily parked at a meter, do not generate public transportation funds. And yes I will agree that a car has a greater impact on a road surface than a bicycle, but cars do not have exclusive right-of-ways that require special cleaning, extra striping and wider streets to accommodate bike lanes, or special bridges to cross over McLoughlin Blvd. and the RR tracks, etc., etc., etc.. Busses on the other hand have a greater impact on the road surfaces than do cars, and yet transit fares only cover about 20 percent of transit operation costs and contribute little to nothing to maintain road surfaces. Given the logic presented as related to road surface impacts, transit riders then too should subsidize bicycle infrastructure with a surcharge on transit fares, in addition to paying more for the wear and tear that busses do to the road surfaces. The only other logic is to throw out all references to vehicle weight and how it impacts road surfaces.
The more a person drives, the more money in transportation taxes that person pays out, and the more that same person subsidizes people using privileged modes that are not paying the full costs of the alternative mode they are using. I believe you made the statement bicyclists only take up a miniscule amount of space on streets and roads, yet three to five million dollars or more is a huge amount of money to be spent on a bicycle bridge and an entire boulevard for this miniscule amount of space, and this is only one project. Compare that to the amount of money needed to fill the tram funding gap and just maybe you can see at least part of the issue here: bicyclists pay out zero dollars and receive a huge benefit, motorists contribute a huge amount of money while a needed highway project is sidetracked to a list waiting for funds. Put another way, if there were no taxes on gasoline, other motor fuels or on automobiles, like there are no taxes on bicyclists, nobody would be funding transportation infrastructure except within urban renewal districts. And as you know, just for the record, federal transportation funds and grants are derived from federal gas and other motor fuel taxes.
Simply put, it can not be both ways. If motorists did not pay their own way, funds could not be siphoned off for bicycle infrastructure, to subsidize mass transit and supply funds for other politically motivated uses. If motorists paid for only for streets and roads as the gas tax was originally designed to do, and bicyclists paid for only exclusive bicycle infrastructure including bike lanes and non-motorist bicycle facilities, there would be no issue. But that is not the case. I continue to be vocal because in short I am tired of paying out to subsidize someone else’s life style, be it bicycle infrastructure or tax abated upscale and high end condos. You may not want to believe it, but there are a whole lot of people in Portland that feel the same way I do. So instead of us both talking in circles and getting no where, put it out to the people. Take an unbiased survey that requires response from across the community to be accurate. Ask simple direct questions with no ifs, buts or choices between this or that, and let the people of Portland decide if bicyclists should directly contribute and help pay for bicycle infrastructure. If you are correct, you have nothing to loose. If my assessment is correct, then a procedure to the next step is in order and I can say “I told you so!” My belief is the reason such an action has not already been taken is because in reality you and I both know what the outcome will be, and it is much easier for you and other politicians to continue to defend the bicycle agenda without a public opinion poll that calls for bicyclists to be charged for bicycle infrastructure.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Mar 17, 2006 10:29:38 AM
Sam,
just scratch the Burnside/Couch couplet idea and make the existing Couch St with its overpass the "Bike Boulevard."
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Mar 17, 2006 10:38:57 AM
This Boulevard is one of priority projects in the BTA's Blueprint for Better Bicycling. It should be seriously considered as an option to connecting NW Portland for bikes and peds.
Posted by: Scott Bricker | Mar 17, 2006 11:00:08 AM
Sam,
Nobody has yet mentioned the potential future conflict between this bridge idea and the ultimate goal of capping 405.
If that still is a goal...
I always thought that I-405 would be a great freeway-capping demonstration project. And it should be capped from NW Glisan all the way to SW Naito Parkway, as the ultimate build-out.
It would look kinda funny to have this bridge sitting in the middle of a plaza... but then again, that would be a cool public art piece.
So, what I'm saying is, to the extent that moving this bridge to I-405 doesn't conflict with the I-405 capping project, I fully support the idea. It's kinda a quirky thing to do, it adds to the bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure of the city, it re-uses existing structures... if the money can be found, I don't see any reason not to do it.
What it the status of the capping project, BTW?
Posted by: Garlynn | Mar 17, 2006 11:00:20 AM
Terry and those who think that cars pay their own way:
Anyone who pays federal income tax already subsidizes car-oriented transportation by funding a foreign policy (to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars) that obscures the true costs of petroleum. In effect, this unduly taxes those who use less petroleum.
Are you in favor of taking this substantial portion of the costs our foreign policy out of the commons and putting into the gas pump? I would happily trade you this for what would amount to a paltry bicycle tax required to fully fund bike infrastructure.
Posted by: Clay | Mar 17, 2006 11:31:45 AM
Clay et al;
Drop the foreign policy canard. It's completely unrelated and immaterial to the subject at hand.
The amount of bicycle commuters is a paltry percentage of those who commute by auto. To pour more money into bicycle only infrastructure while ignoring larger problems (like safety and highways) is a major joke.
Auto commuters are tired of having their tax dollars spent on mass transit and bike/ped projects. There's plenty of bike/ped friendly roads in the city, but auto capacity is diminishing.
I know this is manna from heaven to all you car haters, but no matter if we run out of oil in the next 20 years, we're still going to have automobiles as the preferred mode of transport.
P.S. I commute by bicycle 2-3x a week.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Mar 17, 2006 12:12:22 PM
Chris,
While only indirectly related to the original post, I fail to see how the enormous differential between the impact of cycle vs. automobile transportation on energy and foreign policy is not germane to the broader discussion that has ensued, particularly in regard to the myth that auto drivers fully pay their own way and don't rely on the commons for funding, enormous swaths of land, dumping pollutants, etc. The list goes on.
Acceptance of self-funded automobile fallacy is essential to Terry's position that bike/ped infrastructure development must funded completely independently, per-use, because that's the way auto transit works. If you wish to call a spade a spade, *that* is the canard.
Posted by: Clay | Mar 17, 2006 1:03:31 PM
I like the symbolism of re-use (and bringing something from the country into the city). And I also like the idea of a non-car bridge. I don't want my city to spend money unnecessarily, but this seems like a cool civic project.
Posted by: Evan | Mar 17, 2006 1:38:45 PM
Sam,
I like the bridge spanning I-405 idea. If it's fiscally possible I say pursue it.
In regard to the bike/car funding debate, Clay is right - arguing for bicyclists to fully fund their "exclusive" infrastructure is fine, but in that case shouldn't the auto community also fully fund their infrastructure? Gas taxes and licensing fees surely don't pay for the whole enchilada now, if ever - check the history of roads funding in America, where the Good Roads Movement (mostly made up of the auto, auto parts and related industries) lobbied hard and mostly succesfully for roads funding to come from general tax funds, when most of the populace didn't have anything to do with the automobile yet. The auto-users of today are crying foul for the public funding of bike infrastructure, when public funding is what built our nations's road infrastructure at their own behest.
And really, when talking about bike commuters (I am not one, BTW, I just appreciate them), when are people going to realize that yes, maybe the infrastructure is exclusive, but the benefits are not? The general public benefits from those extra cars being off the road, whether you admit it or not, in environmental, health and commute time benefits.
Posted by: Stephen | Mar 17, 2006 4:28:53 PM
Stephen,
Just so you know, roads and highways don't only transport commuters, but safety vehicles, visitors and commerce. Our economy and livelihood are very dependent on vehicle oriented transportation.
Neglecting them in the name of smart growth is foolish.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Mar 17, 2006 4:41:18 PM
Sam: Please condider preserving the bridge. I use this bridge often to purchase/gather produce at the island.
I think it would be a shame to dismantle a bridge that can still support non truck traffic. Sauvie Island is a rich natural resource that is worthy of our tax dollars supporting access. Portlanders have few choices for beach access to the columbia, (I swim), and biking areas with less traffic. I bus/bike there to collect produce all summer.
If nothing else, leave it as a walking bridge, and emergency access only.
Daniel Waltz
3rd Generation Portland Native.
Posted by: Daniel Waltz | Mar 17, 2006 5:30:21 PM
Chris,
Point taken, I agree with the first part of what you said. And, just so you know, I wouldn't be averse to a bicycling tax, were it done right. But even so, asking the bicycling community to fully shoulder all bicycling infrastructure is ludicrous, and would make it cost-ineffective for anyone to bike. And just as a sidenote, I can't see it being financially reasonable to implement and enforce a bike tax. Would my brother get taxed for his 5-year old's first bike? And what about those people who own a car and bike commute - aren't they getting taxed twice for the same thing?
Neglecting roads and auto transportation FULLY would, indeed, be a mistake; but neglecting alternative transportation options in the name of "dumb growth" is equally foolish.
Posted by: Stephen | Mar 17, 2006 5:31:36 PM
Sure, lumping part of the defense budget into the cost of auto-use may be a big leap for folks to make (though even my most conservative friends concede the realities of our "strategic" interest in the middle east). The idea that our registration and fuel taxes can possible pay for the entire spectrum of infrastucture needed by cars is crazy.
You add up the City, State and Federal budget expenditures needed to build and maintain everything from alleys to interstate highways . . . it cannot possible be my $32 tags and some odd-hundred gallons of gas tax that paid for my "share". My guess is that Terry's list of what is paid for from his selected funding sources is rather incomplete.
I also reject the notion that being pro-bike/transit means you do not recognize the importance of motor vehicles . . . talk about a canard. Plenty of other cities have built whatever was needed for their growing number of cars . . . and they got . . . more cars. Folks who think that is the answer have a wide selection of American cities which will welcome their additional vehicle(s) with open arms. My contention is that their new life in Sacramento, Phoenix, Atlanta, San Jose etc will be blissfully bike-free, but not nearly as nice as the one they left behind here.
Posted by: Ethan | Mar 17, 2006 11:12:51 PM
There are many issues here. With March 30th coming up soon, there's little time to consider them all. With regards to aesthetics I think the rendering shows a workable situation. I would be interested in the justification (aside from simply preservation) for placing the bridge downtown. I have not read anything here which would support the logic of taking an automobile-sized bridge and putting it in a crowded downtown location. If there is a worthwhile reason than I would be interested in hearing it. Could the cost be reduced by partially dismantling it and transporting it in sections?
One of the reasons that I love Portland is because brave politicians like Sam are willing to stand up for environmental values. There must be many worthwhile locations for such a brige. It could be left in place for cyclists, it could be used as a link to St. Johns (no thanks to ODOT). Or hey what about using the two auxiliary sections to replace the failing parts of the Sellwood Bridge? I say we should definately apply to save it and in the process look for a suitable location.
And by the way Mr. Parker, if you can find me definitive proof that Portland's roads are paid for AND maintained solely through auto user fees, I will personally hand you $100. Please end this tired argument. Auto users are subsidized at a higher percentage than any other form of ground transportation.
Posted by: Aaron | Mar 17, 2006 11:58:53 PM
I definitely support the idea of adaptively reusing the bridge; however, I’m not sold on the 405 option. If it’s Flanders Street or nothing, then I think it’s worth spending the money to move it there… though I would like to see it in a more appropriate location (where it currently sits, in the planned Caruthers Bridge, etc)
Posted by: Brandon | Mar 18, 2006 12:01:32 AM
Here is another classic example where the CPI "libertarian" "pay to play" conservatives and the pro "smart" growth liberals bicker over an issue without grasping for a moment the root of the problem.
Why is a new bridge being rebuilt? Because it cannot accommodate bicycles, pedestrians or cars? No. Why? Because it cannot accommodate 40 ton trucks.
So, why aren't we talking instead about who or what should be funding the building of a new bridge for 40 tons trucks? Because the perceived need for more and bigger trucks to cross onto and off from Sauvie Island cannot dared be questioned by either liberals or conservatives alike.
And why, after all these decades, is there a perceived need to accommodate 40 ton trucks when the need was not perceived to exist before?
Because of the growth imperative, which states that more entropy of earth resources, upon which we all depend for our survival, needs to transpire on Sauvie Island in order to feed the ever-increasing population and per-person consumption in the region that exists as a result of the craving of an elite minority to rake in more bucks than they already enjoy.
Neither the plastic fantastic liberals or the cranky, wise-ass CPI fake libertarians dare question public subsidy of growth because they have all been indoctrinated in the belief that all must be sacrificed to the god of growth, even if that means our children, our personal livelihoods, our very survival.
Make the businesses that depend on 40 ton trucks pay for the new bridge to accommodate them, and suddenly, no need for a new bridge. The old one continues to be used by cars and pedestrians alike.
Stop paying people to move to Oregon, and Sauvie Island will get less traffic. Get rid of the massive, indirect and direct subsidies to cars and more people will use transit and walk and bike on the island.
Posted by: Long View and Now | Mar 18, 2006 12:30:35 AM
Terry, Level Head, and others...
If people want it, find people who will pay for it, CEOs, private sector, or whatever. I agree whole heartedly that this project should not really be paid for with tax funds.
Roads & public transit already have a strong enough need for this money.
...and if we wanted to be REALLY fair we'd get rid of subsidies and let people pay direct fare.
It used to be that way, no reason it couldn't be now. The historical implication that it's always been subsidized is just false, and leaves us to overly expensive ventures in today's age.
Aside all that, it sounds like a great idea. Even though as stated a new bridge could be built for probably half the money for bikes and pedestrians.
I do not however think that it should be considered for road traffic. There is enough mess, people need to simply get out of their cars.
...anyway... just another 2 cents for going forward with the idea. I am confident my tax dollars are worth the extra time you spend to find out what is and what should become of this bridge.
Good idea, and keep up the good work Sam.
Posted by: adron | Mar 18, 2006 12:19:55 PM
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the set of requirements regarding historic preservation that the County is bound by. At the risk of being simplistic about the regulations, the bridge is an historic structure. The County has an obligation to try and preserve it at it's current location, some other site, or find a group or agency that will preserve it. Only if preservation is not "feasible and prudent," can they scrap it. The backers of the Flanders proposal are trying to help the County meet it's historic preservation obligation.
Posted by: Anne | Mar 18, 2006 12:44:19 PM
First, Clay and all the rest of the liberals are truly a hoot - not a clue about the real world but they certainly love to live in their own fantasy.
To Sam - we have (and continue) to beat the budget up. Yes, it would be nice to fund everything and anything (all the liberals love that) but there are price tags involved here. Let the bridge be scrapped, the county can certainly use the money and the city certainly DOESN'T have the money to spend. BTW - thanks for asking.
Posted by: Mmmarvel | Mar 19, 2006 10:16:16 PM
mmarvel--since you say you don't like subsidies, would you agree that the trucking companies and the big corporate landholder on Sauvie Island pay for the new bridge?
Posted by: Long View and Now | Mar 20, 2006 11:15:16 AM
Sam/Michael,
One thing that hasn't been discussed yet is whether or not a 12-ft bridge over I-405 will satisfy the requirements of the Transportation and Urban Design Plan for the Flanders bike blvd. If this bridge is going to serve as a significant bike/ped thoroughfare, is 12 feet enough width, or would that be a bottleneck? That's not a leading question, I really don't know the answer. If a wider bridge is being called for, than certainly pursue saving the Sauvie Island Bridge, as it sounds as if the City would be spending at least the cost to save it on a bland concrete span. Frankly, I'm in the latter group of the strangely plopped down/iconic addition spectrum, so I'd like to see this work.
With the deadline coming up in 11 days, be sure to let us know the outcome of this!
Thanks for the chance to give input.
Posted by: Stephen | Mar 20, 2006 11:46:12 AM
Terry,
I'm sure your life is subsidized as well.
It is hard not to be a hypocrite. Most (all) of us are.
While I agree that people need to pay there own way, I think you only look to see what benifits you.
Government waste will always occur, and will increase as the percentage of government employees verse private sector increases. Only private buisnesses live in the More for Less environment.
I want to see Traffic Flow increase and Bicycling/Walking Activities safely away from traffic.
Price tag does not seem that high for the value it will return over the next 20-50 years.
Posted by: Brett | Mar 20, 2006 3:11:35 PM
I think the idea a grand one. There are all sorts of hidden benefits to having nifty infrastructure about the city, and this would certainly fall into this group. I truly like the idea and think pursual a good idea.
Posted by: Eric Lindsay | Mar 20, 2006 9:49:12 PM
Great idea, I'd love to see the bridge relocated vs. scrapped, despite the cost.
Posted by: Kurt Ward | Mar 21, 2006 12:03:53 PM
Regarding the money retrieved from scrapping the bridge:
It would go directly to the contractor hired to remove the bridge. This means, of course, that the contractor will cost less, but the county will not be seeing any money.
Stephen: I'll investigate that and let post back here when I have the answer.
Posted by: Michael Richardson | Mar 21, 2006 12:19:37 PM
Regarding Terry, I'm always thrilled to read comments like his. He lumps me, a middle aged bike commuter, desk jocky, with a huge mortgage, a salary and a couple cars...in with the young handsome bike sub-culture. Yes. That's me Terry. I don't how what taxes I'm not paying, but that's me.
Regarding the Bridge, I live on Sauvie Island and would be thrilled to point to it downtown and say "that used to be our Island bridge!"
Posted by: Steven | Mar 21, 2006 12:55:28 PM
I have a car, I drive it everyday. I am not a stranger to Portland's traffic and I am not overly thrilled when I sit in it. That said; I can get to work quicker in the morning and home quicker in the evening by taking the MAX, even when rush hour is fairly light. When I am driving any time outside of rush hour I find Portland's automobile infrastructure to be adequate.
I'd rather "my" gas tax money, car registration fees, and whatever else I supposedly pay in fees for roads, go towards more rail, more busses and most importantly, better bicycling infrastructure. This city is on the verge of becoming a world class bicycling city and with a little more infrastructure in place, we will soon make bicycling safer and more accessible to everyone. The soon to be former Sauvie Island Bridge is a great first step in turning Flanders into a cyclist/ped avenue and helping Portland achieve its dream of being a leader in encouraging alternative, clean sources of transportation.
I also think the Sauvie Bridge echoes the Broadway Bridge in design and it would be a good fit for that part of town. Although I don't think the bike/ped bridge will be a tourist draw, it will certainly add visual interest to that portion of the 405 especially if it is painted in a stunning color. I also think some private funds could be secured for this project. I understand it is unpopular in this city, but could a private company "sponsor" the bridge and have their name put where the current MultCo signs are?
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Mar 21, 2006 2:55:13 PM
To MarkDaMan - maybe light rail works for you but not only are they really cranky when I try to drag my wheelbarrow and other equipment on the MAX (I work construction) but the stupid train typically doesn't take me anywhere near my final destination. On top of that, while MAX might work for you, 99% of the time regardless of where I'm going (non-work related) I have to tack on an extra 2 hours to my trips if I want to take MAX (typically an extra hour each way). For me and many thousands like me, MAX is a waste of time and tax money (and yes, even taking 'rush hour' into consideration I can usually do traffic in less or the same amount of time it would take me to take MAX).
To Long View and Now -
If the bridge were used/limited to the exclusive use of the companies that built it, it wouldn't surprise me if they'd be more than willing to foot the bill. However, that means NO pedestrians, NO bikes, NO private cars - if it is built using their money they could and should have exclusive use of it. BTW - since it would be exclusively private, it could and would be built for less money because 'prevailing wage' wouldn't apply and a ton of other stupid regulations wouldn't apply.
Posted by: Mmmarvel | Mar 22, 2006 6:54:17 AM
^I said the roads were adequate not ideal. Why you are again attacking my opinion directed for Commissioner Adams is beyond me.
If you would read again what I wrote, I'm not against people using their cars. I personally love a Sunday morning drive listening to Smooth Jazz 105.9, drinking my Starbucks Mocha, and cruising through Damasacus to Boring, around Sandy and back home. It is just my opinion that more money should be directed towards helping ease the rush hour mess through better and multiple modes of quicker than current transit than just expanding lanes for a few hours of daily use. The environmental benefits of taking thousands of cars off the road alone are worth the costs and encouragement to use a dedicated transit service to commute to and from work. A majority of citizens do not need to cart a wheelbarrow and other equipment into the office, hotel counter, fast food grill, or whatever, everyday. More people using mass/alternative transit means a quicker commute for people like you that do need to use the roads to cart around your equipment and truckers needing to move freight.
However, when you do use Trimet, if you are having that many problems finding a quick route with connections, TriMet has an great website www.trimet.org. I encourage you to use the trip planner it is quite responsive when you are looking to find a quicker route.
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Mar 22, 2006 9:18:05 AM
Mmmarvel - as MarkDaMan already said, MAX and other mass transit is not - and never will be - intended for commuters like you, who need to haul equipment around for your daily work. No one here is trying to shove mass transit on you when it is obviously not a good fit. I recognize that there will always be a need for a segment of the population to drive for their work.
As far as the "stupid" train not taking you exactly to your final destination, this has frustrated me in the past too, but keep in mind that the MAX is simply part of the whole mass transit system. Sure it requires transferring, but with MAX, buses, and the streetcar you can get practically anywhere in this city. It's true it can take awhile, and if you're talking strictly travel time, than yes, mass transit can be less efficient than auto travel. But people don't necessarily use mass transit for that reason - saving on gas money/car maintenance, not being able to park at their final destination, environmental consciousness, etc. are all reasons people take mass transit. To disregard MAX as a viable transportation alternative simply due to travel time is short-sighted.
I understand that you feel mass transit is a waste of YOUR tax money, because you help subsidise it but don't use it directly, but can't you see that many people do use it directly, and that because of this not only are they benefitting (directly) but you as a non-user also benefit (indirectly)? I feel it's been mentioned over and over in this blog - as an auto commuter, you DO benefit from having thousands of fewer cars on the road, and less exhaust in the air. If you choose to ignore these as benefits, fine - but that doesn't make them any less real. To that end, the way you talk about the "waste" of tax-payer money going to MAX sounds like little more than a child crying from being told that the world isn't fair. Well, shocker - the world ISN'T fair. I'm sure there are ways that you benefit where other people don't. Don't just look to where you can benefit, but to where the community can benefit.
(I don't use mass transit regularly either, by the way, but I recognize the benefits on the community as a whole, and I'm glad it's there when I do need to use it.)
Posted by: Stephen | Mar 22, 2006 11:01:35 AM
Stephen said: "... you DO benefit from having thousands of fewer cars on the road, and less exhaust in the air."
Right. Oregon has the 5th worst air pollution in the country.
http://www.katu.com/stories/84342.html
And as far as "thousands of fewer cars on the road..."
Look at this: "Oregon saw an increase in traffic on major roads in urban areas of about 80 percent between 1980 and 2002, but its annual growth rate has declined since 1991, the PSU report finds..."
http://www.its.pdx.edu/media.php
People like you and Mark have bought into the propaganda from the Smart Growth crowd. Meanwhile schools, safety and infrastructure suffer from lack of funds (due to Smart Growth policies).
I guess that's why I'm no liberal. I actually care about our children's education and future.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Mar 22, 2006 1:04:20 PM
Chris, please help me to understand your argument. In your first point you seem to be implying that putting more cars on the road will reduce air pollution (citing, BTW, a study whose inputs only marginally include auto pollution).
Your second point doesn't make sense because you're comparing incompatible units of measure. The one unit measures a quantity while the other measures a velocity, i.e. a change in quantity over time. Not only that, but you also employ this erroneous comparison in an attempt to say that making all current and future Tri-Met riders drive cars will solve automobile traffic congestion problems.
I find both of these conclusions rather counterintuitive.
Posted by: Clay | Mar 22, 2006 3:29:44 PM
Chris,
Continuing Clay's comments, you make no arguments to dispute my statement that having a healthy mass transit system provides less auto exhaust. Nowhere did I assert that Oregon's air quality is great compared to the rest of the nation - where did that come from?? So, fine, Oregon has the 5th worst air quality - show me a study that says Oregon WOULD have the 6th worst air quality, but - gosh! That pesky mass transit system is in our way! - and I'll personally steal a "There are 350 less cars on the road because of me" sticker off the nearest bus for your trophy case.
As for your second argument, I'm just as good at picking quotes as they suit me:
"REPORTER: The commute is down even though the population is up and relatively few new highway lanes have been added. While only five percent of Portlanders commute by a bus or a train, Bertini says their impact on congestion relief is significant.
BERTINI: Our society still functions in such a way that people are traveling to and from work at about the same time every day. So you take the peak period of the key time of day to focus on and all you have to do is think about the fact that the busses and light rail vehicles that are bringing people into downtown are saving us multiple lanes of highway that we would need to accommodate that same number of people."
Hmmmm, so I guess there IS a benefit to auto-commuters to having those "stupid" trains (to quote Mmmarvel)!
Finally, I'm not a liberal. I too care about our children (how did the children get dragged into this??). I also love this city. You call Smart Growth propaganda, but I call it the reason this city works. I was born and raised here, but I wouldn't still be here if it was a Dallas clone.
Posted by: Stephen | Mar 22, 2006 4:08:58 PM
It's pretty easy to understand: air pollution and auto congestion are growing and worsening despite the claims that MAX helps reduce both. The links I provided prove my point.
MAX has devoured billions in transportation funds while transporting a tiny fraction of area commuters. It hasn't even come close to meeting original ridership projections.
If you think it's a good idea to spend $50 million per mile on light rail, I've got a skyscraper in Shaniko to sell you.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Mar 22, 2006 4:19:26 PM
"It's pretty easy to understand: "
I agree, it is easy to understand! That's why I'm so confused why you don't get it.
"air pollution and auto congestion are growing and worsening "
I agree, they probably are, we're a growing metropolis
"despite the claims that MAX helps reduce both."
Who claimed this? I sure didn't, and I doubt Tri-met has, either. I doubt Tri-met EVER claimed they could reduce the TOTAL air pollution - they're just claiming it's better than it would be if they weren't around. I sure couldn't find such a claim as yours on their site, only that "TriMet's services reduce smog-causing pollutants by nearly 4.2 tons every day." That doesn't sound like a bogus claime to me, and unless you're an air-scientist, I doubt you'll refute it.
"MAX has devoured billions in transportation funds while transporting a tiny fraction of area commuters."
Billions in transportation funds that would have gone toward highway expansion and new freeways that would divide communities, choke our air, and kill babies! ..Maybe not that last one. And the tiny fraction of the community piece, whose fault is that? I know not everyone can feasibly take mass transit to work, but those who can but just aren't because they want that 15-min. shorter commute, what's their excuse?
But really, this is what this argument comes down to (in my mind): you would rather spend those billions on the 8-lane freeways and wide boulevards criss-crossing the city, and I wouldn't. I think it's a fundamental difference in opinion about what a city should or shouldn't be. That's why I vote; I hope for your sake you do, too.
Posted by: Stephen | Mar 22, 2006 4:37:44 PM
Once again Chris is jumping on a bandwagon but tries to paint me as the closed minded, partisan. However Chris, had you done just a little research in how the dirty air list was completed, the EPA itself said this data is not comparable because, and I quote from the big O:
"said Julie Wroble, a toxicologist with the EPA's regional office in Seattle. "The reason Oregon would be ranked that high is because the state does a much better job with its inventory of emissions than most states," rather than because its air is more polluted."
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/
index.ssf?/base/news/1143086124201860.xml&coll=7
Oregon pays more attention to our pollution levels than almost any other state, but you try to use that data as a negative. You should be ashamed of your sloppiness.
"I guess that's why I'm no liberal. I actually care about our children's education and future."
Really? Do you care about our children's debt too? The Conservative Republican controlled Congress has allowed a debt on the head of every man, woman and child in Portland, and nationwide, to rise to just about $30,000 per person not including entitlement spending. The Conservative Republican controlled Congress has also allowed the national debt to continue to increase an average of $2.43 billion per day since September 30, 2005!
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
When entitlement spending comes do, as well as yours and my debt with interest, by 2045 (when SS goes broke) I assume most urban renewal district will be packed with people. SoWa, Pearl, an educational powerhouse with PSU, OHSU, and OGI working together, a strong and vibrant core, Portland will be adding the raised property tax monies from tax increment financing into the general fund, just about the time the federal government has to drastically cut back on education and health care spending. You see, not only do I care about our children's education, which is why I'm willing to pay more taxes today, or at least get rid of the ridiculous kicker, but I also care about our grandchildren's education too by making sure Portland has sustainable tax collections in high value, high density urban cores.
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Mar 23, 2006 12:25:20 PM
"...the EPA itself said this data is not comparable because,..."
Moot point.
"...The Conservative Republican controlled Congress has..."
And? Your point is? You really think liberals would do any better? They'd raise taxes and increase spending. So we'd not only have larger gummint, but a lousy economy as well.
If we actually had real conservatives and Libertarians in congress, this deficit spending wouldn't be happening.
"...by 2045 (when SS goes broke) I assume most urban renewal district will be packed with people..."
LOL! Yeah, broke retirees will be living in $650K condos. Get real.
"...making sure Portland has sustainable tax collections in high value, high density urban cores."
Another moot point. However, most current data points to TIF and subsidized Urban Renew as money losers.
BTW, aren't you the slightest bit curious why the PDC *still* hasn't released a financial impact report as required by state law? What are they hiding?
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Mar 23, 2006 1:17:17 PM
"BTW, aren't you the slightest bit curious why the PDC *still* hasn't released a financial impact report as required by state law? What are they hiding?"
Sure I am, that is why I knew enough and directed a letter to the PDC and the mayor's office; the people actually responsible for the report. Sam has nothing to do with their impact report and can't do anything more than ask like you or I. To get an answer you should direct your questions to the proper offices or attend the PDC meeting and ask them straight out. Asking Sam over and over again shows that you are either daft or don't understand government.
"""...the EPA itself said this data is not comparable because,..."
Moot point."""
no it isn't because you said,
"""Oregon has the 5th worst air pollution in the country.
http://www.katu.com/stories/84342.html"""
and than
"""The links I provided prove my point."""
but they don't Chris. Had you looked further than a KATU thrown together report that was incorrect you might have figured that out. Instead, your links don't prove anything close to whatever point you were trying to make. In fact "The reason Oregon would be ranked that high is because the state does a much better job with its inventory of emissions than most states," rather than because its air is more polluted."
and that makes your point, Chris, wrong, incorrect, and false!
"""You really think liberals would do any better?"""
that wasn't the question but even so you still say
"""If we actually had real conservatives and Libertarians in congress, this deficit spending wouldn't be happening."""
You don't get any more conservative than George W. Are you trying to run from this president now too? I would with the embarrassing fact that:
The Conservative Republican controlled Congress has allowed a debt on the head of every man, woman and child in Portland, and nationwide, to rise to just about $30,000 per person not including entitlement spending. The Conservative Republican controlled Congress has also allowed the national debt to continue to increase an average of $2.43 billion per day since September 30, 2005!
"""...by 2045 (when SS goes broke) I assume most urban renewal district will be packed with people..."
LOL! Yeah, broke retirees will be living in $650K condos. Get real."""
if you finished my point,
Portland will be adding the raised property tax monies from tax increment financing into the general fund
you'd understand I didn't say retired broke people would be living in the towers. I said TAX MONIES FROM INCREMENT FINANCING WILL BE RETURNED TO THE GENERAL FUND
That, if I have to spell it out for you, will supplement the cuts to our grandchildren's education and our healthcare costs the federal government will have to make to pay for entitlement programs and that pesky $30,000 loan thanks to conservatives and their war.
"""...making sure Portland has sustainable tax collections in high value, high density urban cores."
Another moot point."""
Moot, hardly. I don't support urban renewal and smart growth simply because I like new towers. I support it because we take undevelopable land and turn it into high value property. At no cost to us today, other than the minimal growth in property value that may or may not have occurred over the course of the district's life, we have now built a piggy bank for our future children's education.
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Mar 23, 2006 1:59:42 PM
Mark,
It's obvious you don't understand the meaning of the word 'moot.' It means 'debatable.' All these supposed facts you bring up are debatable; ergo 'moot.'
Got it?
And, just because Oregon does a better job reporting data than other states doesn't mean our air is automatically better. Good grief.
Furthermore, you have absolutely no proof subsidized development will return more taxes in the long run than unsubsidized development. You'd rather gamble current tax receipts on mere speculation. Meanwhile, safety, education and infrastructure suffer.
You bleated: "TAX MONIES FROM INCREMENT FINANCING WILL BE RETURNED TO THE GENERAL FUND..."
So? You're naive to think these funds will actually materialize. What if the bottom drops out of the housing market? What if we have a recession? Have you been paying attention to the debacle at the Beaverton Round and Cascade Station? These projects have become abject failures.
And even if your UR scheme works, there's no guarantee supplemental funds will automatically go to education and healthcare. If you haven't noticed, our government is notorious for earmarking supplemental revenue for more pork. That's what Portland and the PDC are doing right now with their silly Urban Renewal.
And your assertion that Sam Adams can do no more than 'ask' the PDC to release an impact statement is just plain comical.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Mar 23, 2006 3:20:01 PM
"And, just because Oregon does a better job reporting data than other states doesn't mean our air is automatically better. Good grief."
but you were so quick to point out that "Oregon has the 5th worst air pollution in the country" when it suited you. Yet now you claim we can't reeeaaally tell how good or bad our air is. Stop running from your statements Chris.
From the rest of what you are writing it really solidifies that you don't know what you are talking about. The district improvements, ie. roads, tram, streetcar, affordable housing etc.etc. made in the urban renewal districts right now are being financed by the increased tax revenue that is projected from increased land values. If projections are not met, the projected values are lowered and so than is the improvements available for the district. I guess you could argue that once the land value rises, the projects are paid for, the tax monies are added to the general fund, the land values could than take a sudden dive and return to the value it was when the district was created and we wouldn't see any net benefit. Doesn't that seem like the real ridiculous assessment though? Especially since no where in America has land value ever decreased to the same price it was 30 years prior when millions in district improvements were completed, thousands of new housing units added, thousands of jobs created, and vibrant retail is located on every corner.
"And even if your UR scheme works, there's no guarantee supplemental funds will automatically go to education and healthcare."
First, it isn't my UR scheme. I don't have anything to do with the current urban renewal districts, their creation, or their execution. I just have an opinion that you seem obsessed over.
Secondly, there is no guarantee the supplemental funds will go to education or healthcare. That will be for future mayors and governments voted in by the Portland people to decide. When the increased tax collections are moved to the general fund we will have left our children with more money, a vibrant city, and the ability to conquer future problems with additional monies that we currently don't have.
"And your assertion that Sam Adams can do no more than 'ask' the PDC to release an impact statement is just plain comical."
Sam doesn't have oversight of the PDC. That has traditionally fallen to the mayor. However, the mayor doesn't have a blog and I guess it really isn't so important to you that you would actually ask him since you wouldn't get the same exposure that you do when you and others from the Conservative Propaganda Institute repeatedly ask Sam here.
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Mar 23, 2006 4:06:25 PM
Sam - fantastic idea. I'd love to see the gas money and tax money from my families two cars, one of which I drive to work practically every day, to go to more projects like this, the MAX, streetcar, etc. Having lived in Southern California a couple of times I can tell you it is an absolute fact that no matter how wide you build those freeways there are never enough lanes and the traffic only gets worse. Appreciate your leadership in developing better, smarter options we can all take advantge of.
Posted by: JW | Mar 23, 2006 4:53:24 PM
"but you were so quick to point out that "Oregon has the 5th worst air pollution in the country"..."
Are you intentionally being obtuse?
Try to grasp this: The EPA reported Oregon has the 5th worst air in the country. You refute their findings with a conjectural quote from an Oregonian article. Which by the way, also reported this:
"It affirms that Oregon needs to do a better job of cleaning its air, Ginsberg said, and shows that Oregonians are exposed to air pollutants at potentially harmful levels."
Until an irrefutable study is released showing Portland has cleaner air because of mass transit, I will stand by my statements that MAX is a waste of money and has a minimal effect on air quality.
"...renewal districts right now are being financed by the increased tax revenue that is projected from increased land values..."
In a word: "DUH!" I'm glad you figured it out. I'm glad you finally admit these UR districts are not paying their fair share to basic services. Instead, the revenues from their increased valuation go to payback bonds. And adding insult to injury, only a percentage of these UR districts are actually being improved. Yet, *everyone* in the district has to pay for supposed 'improvements.'
Hopefully, you now understand how UR districts are taking money away from basic services.
Or maybe you're too obtuse.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Mar 23, 2006 5:14:28 PM
Gotta love the liberals, even when the financial picture crushes them, they boldly hold on to ... their craving for raising taxes.
Folks, MAX is a joke because we could have (and should have) done better buses instead. As for the pollution aspect of it, Salem have converted all their buses to natural gas, we should have too.
A bloody train can ONLY go where the tracks are located, regardless of where the population wants to go or does go. Since they've done such a pathetic job with MAX, the little communities that they've tried to develop around the tracks have had to be heavily subsidized. Meanwhile, the 'planners' are still trying to figure out why more folks aren't living there. They are still trying to figure out why places like Bridgeport Village, that has no MAX line, is such a success. With buses, whenever and wherever the population moves to, we can switch the buses to that area - try that with light rail.
We will soon (very soon) start seeing the maintance costs of 'light rail' and it won't be pretty. MUCH higher than buses and just keeping the streets in tact.
Light rail is bad, a tram is bad, and "Smart Growth" has proven to be expensive and actually rather stupid.
Posted by: mmmarvel | Mar 24, 2006 6:22:23 PM
If anybody remembers the 60’s TV show Dragnet, the guys just wanted the facts.
Here is my best effort to present some facts, at least as I view them:
To Brett: Yes, I would agree that some portion of my life is subsidized. However, I pay well over $2,500.00 in property taxes each year for living expenses in modest quarters. That goes to City of Portland and Multnomah County services, school and education funding, Port of Portland funding, parks, libraries, Portland Fire and Police Pension funds, urban renewal bonding (I am not located in an urban renewal district), City of Portland bonding, Metro bonding, Multnomah County bonding and Tri-Met bonding. Add to that the Federal, State and County income taxes I pay, taxes on my electric and phone bills, water, sewer and the rip off storm water run off tax, and license fees, DEQ fees and fuel taxes for what I drive. Furthermore, there are probably some other hidden taxes I have not mentioned. The bottom line is that I pay out far more in dollars that I receive back in services used.
To Clay: There are studies out there that show cars pay in the mid-90 percent of their own way, most of it through fuel taxes from car usage. Compare that to bicyclists who pay zero, nada, nothing to use not only the roads that fuel taxes from motorists pay for, but also exclusive facilities motorists do not use. Tri-Met fares only cover about 20 percent of operating costs. Amtrak (I am a supporter) takes federal subsidies and the airlines rely on taxpayer subsidized air traffic controllers and control systems to fly their planes. Furthermore, about one in every seven jobs in the US is tied to the auto industry. I doubt that can be said about any other transportation mode. Passengers on Tri-Met, Amtrak and the airlines all pay fares. When it comes to bicyclists who currently go un-charged for the government services received, sharing the road must also mean sharing the financial responsibility, Some form of bicycle license, tax and/or fee is over due..
To the air quality comments: Reducing motor vehicle lane capacity replaced with bike lanes and/or light rail does not directly correlate reduced motor vehicle usage. In most cases it just produces PDOT self-inflicted congestion that has a negative affect on air quality. Interstate Avenue is the best example. Spending all that money for light rail took away two motor vehicle travel lanes. The street now has some of the worst congestion in Portland. Four motor vehicle travel lanes should have been retained when light rail was constructed, but planners refused to listen to the common sense approach. The environmental impact statement identifies the project as having a neutral impact on regional air quality. However the single lane in each direction has had a negative impact on air quality along Interstate Avenue itself. Tri-Met busses that stop in travel lanes for passengers at curb extensions also creates congestion that has a negative impact on air quality.
To the smart growth comments: Smart growth is one of the factors that is driving families to flee the city for the suburbs and across the Columbia to Vancouver. Briefly, the newer housing being constructed in the City is not family friendly, most families rely on their cars for transportation so the transportation priorities in the city do not match family needs, and probably the biggest reason families are moving out is that the costs of living, the costs of subsidizing social engineering and taxes are considerably higher in the City of Portland than in than surrounding areas. The costs of smart growth can also be identified as one of the reasons for declining enrollment and the decline in Portland Public Schools. If a diverse population is to be maintained within the City, growth concepts must be redefined.
As for the Sauvie Island Bridge, I’m all for moving it, IF it is not paid for from motorist paid taxes which would be a direct subsidy to non-charged bicyclists. The exception would be if motorists could also use the bridge. In reference to the Flanders Bicycle Boulevard itself; It should not be paid for from motorists paid taxes either. Five million dollars is just too much to spend on the project for a freeloading mode when a few signs and a little bit of paint would suffice.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Mar 24, 2006 8:55:09 PM
Bike commuters save car drivers money by
* reducing wear and tear and therefore repair costs on roads
* reducing the amount of air pollution than they'd otherwise emit by driving, thereby reducing health care costs that drive up insurance and medical care rates
* reducing obesity and other medical conditions stemming from a sedentary lifestyle, thereby further reducing medical and insurance costs
Moreover, every biker who's not using a car reduces the amount of gridlock and traffic, thus saving car drivers time.
Given the amount of time and money that drivers and all Portlanders save thanks to bikers who care enough about their community (not a "lifestyle choice") to ride in the rain, risk close encounters with cars and bike theft, take longer to get to their destination, etc. seems that the community should be subsidizing bikers, not taxing them.
Posted by: a different brett | Mar 29, 2006 7:00:58 PM
Hey Mr. Parker,
If cars pay their way so elegantly, then why can't Metro cough up the billions for all the expansions supposedly needed in the region?
Road expansions are highly subsidized. See: http://www.fodorandassociates.com/rpts_and_pubs.htm
Believe in pay to play? Let the truckers and the big corporate grower swallowing up farms on Sauvie Island pay for the new bridge.
Why should we pay for growth? Let the developers and the corporations pay their own way.
Not one more word from you about subsidies for pedestrians and bicycles until you've put together a petition to end growth's massive subsidies.
Posted by: Long View and Now | Mar 30, 2006 11:05:16 AM
A different Bret stated: “Moreover, every biker who's not using a car reduces the amount of gridlock and traffic, thus saving car drivers time.”
Not so and false. When bike lanes replace motor vehicle lanes on busy streets, congestion is increased with a higher potential of gridlock, both of which have a negative impact on air quality. Therefore, not only are the bicyclists using the bike lanes freeloading off the taxes motorists pay, but they are also indirectly contributing to bad air and taking away from the economy in terms of jobs tied to the auto industry. Bicyclists continue to use arrogant egos and the laurels of free publicity provided by pedal friendly publications to push their highly subsidized lifestyle and extreme demands for bicycle infrastructure. There is a big difference between providing simple and inexpensive bicycle infrastructure vs the grandiose agenda being presented by those from the BTA. Furthermore, such demands continue to have a financial drain on the transportation resources for the modes majority of the population in a democratic society chooses to use. Not having funding for road improvements because the money is being used for bicycle infrastructure also contributes to congestion and gridlock. Therefore bicyclists again contribute to bad air. Bicyclists must to be directly taxed to help pay for the government services they use and desire. At the very least, instead of having bicycle advocates continue in their attempts stifle bicycle tax discussions, let the people of Portland decide and vote on it. If bicyclists are so sure their pedal pushing ideals have more benefits than the taxpayers subsidize, then bicyclists have nothing to lobby for or even mount a campaign about.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Mar 30, 2006 12:02:37 PM
Long View;
Metro does not have the money for needed road improvements because a considerable amount transportation funding, including federal funding, that is derived from motor vehicle fees (including trucks) and fuel taxes gets siphoned off for other purposes. (Bicycle infrastructure, curb extensions, transit friendly land development, light rail and aesthetics associated with transportation options just to mention a few) Roads are funded by users, except bicyclists and transit riders where fares only cover 20 percent of operation costs. Bicycles are the only vehicles that are not taxed, or have a user fee or fare. Therefore, I will continue to beat the drum to require that bicyclists financially make direct contributions for the government services they receive.
On the other hand, I agree with you the freight industry should pay their fair share for any government services received. I also agree developers and corporations should pay their own way. Corporations only contribute five percent of the revenue collected at that state level and that is one reason why the schools are in trouble. As for the corporate growers taking over farms on Sauvie Island, I was not a where there was an issue. It seems to me what is important is that the farmland is kept in production and done in a manner that is the most efficient. If a family farm owner is a willing seller, I do not see the issue.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Mar 30, 2006 12:53:22 PM
Terry,
What annual amount do you estimate that freeloading cyclists owe the noble automobile driving community? How much do the shipping and development industries owe? Which do you think should be addressed with a higher priority?
Also please point me in the direction of that study showing that automobile users pay 90% of their own expense. I'd like to see exactly what percentage of the annual national defense budget is covered by gas taxes. I'm also curious of the degree to which the study takes into account factors like air and water pollution, land acquisition, and quality of life concerns. This includes subsidies, pollution, and other accountables from every step of the process of manufacturing the vehicles, building the roads, manufacturing the machines that build the roads, the extraction of the resources required to construct and power all those vehicles. Etc.
And out of curiosity, where exactly have car lanes been *replaced* by bike lanes? I've seen areas where wide-traffic lanes have been narrowed to accomodate a bike lane, but no situations where they've been replaced.
Posted by: Clay | Mar 30, 2006 1:42:17 PM
And don't forget when I'm in the bike lane beside you, I'm not in my car in front of you. Hey its a win/win. The more bikes, the fewer of us clogging the auto lanes.
re curb extensions...in commercial districts these are great for pedestrians, which we all are once we arrive. More sidewalk space, shorter crossing distance, better sight lines...a no brainer for safety. Check out SE Hawthorne at 34th...what a difference.
On Transit streets in commercial areas putting bus stops at the curb extensions frees up parking...curbside bus zones are typically twice the size as curb extensions. And now my favorite point...who should wait? those on the bus that's trying to get back into the traffic lane ala SE Belmont? or people in cars trying to slip through a neighborhood commerical area who get stuck behind TriMet ala Alberta. Its a Transit Street for God's sake...use another arterial if you are in a hurry. Plus, there is nothing like a bus stopping every three blocks to sloooow things down, another key to making our streets through our commerical districts safer. Curb extensions are a triple win...better for peds, more parking and better for transit. I think the biggest losers are cyclists who can end up playing tag with a bus al a NE Broadway.
But back to the bridge...forget it...keep bikes on Couch, it already has a bridge over I-405. Bag the couplet.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Mar 30, 2006 3:22:28 PM
Well, here's what I know about lane removal (most of which comes from the City's Bike Master Plan):
First, bike lanes are only considered an option on streets that average >3,000 vehicle trips per day. Of the streets that PDOT has valid TPD data for, only 2,783,028 linear feet of roads - or 29.4% of the total - has an average TPD >3,000. The remaining 70.6% can remain as is when they are resurfaced - with cars and bikes sharing the same lane space - unless designated as a bicycle boulevard. (Note that my calculations don't take into account streets that have no measured TPD values, so I assume my 29.4% figure is high since PDOT likely concentrates flow monitoring in heavier-trafficked roadways.)
Second, though bike lanes are the preferred option for required bicycle accessibility, they're not the ONLY option. Traffic calming devices, wider than normal outside lanes, or a nearby, parallel bike path can all be considered options.
Third, there are four options to finding the real estate needed for bike lanes, of which removing a traffic lane is only one (taken directly from the City's Bicycle Master Plan):
"Bicycle lanes are to be implemented by
1) narrowing existing travel lanes;
2) removing a travel lane;
3) removing parking, except where it is essential to serve adjacent land uses; and
4) shoulder widening.
Bicycle Lanes may be implemented through... routine resurfacing of roadways when the street configuration can be modified without parking removal or serious additional congestion (in which case a public process will be undertaken before bicycle lanes can be installed). ...A travel lane should be removed even if traffic congestion may increase, UNLESS THE CONGESTION THAT MAY BE CAUSED BY LANE REMOVAL CRIPPLES THE FLOW OF PEOPLE AND GOODS [emphasis added]" (pg. 29).
So it is possible for a bike lane to replace a traffic lane, though the effects of such a move are supposed to leave a minimal impact. To me, if you're talking strictly air quality, it's ridiculous to argue that the minimal amount of congestion added - and basically only at rush hour, at that - creates enough additional pollution to offset the positive effect of THOUSANDS of Portlanders who commute by bike daily. However, I realize that without an independant, unbiased study of this issue (anybody know of any?), both sides of the "bikes cause/reduce pollution" argument are basically grasping at straws.
Posted by: Stephen | Mar 30, 2006 4:02:37 PM
Clay,
To answer your first question, what bicyclists owe taxpayers would depend on the amount of money budgeted for bicycle projects and planning, and any hidden costs associated with other bicycle infrastructure such as maintenance, painting streets and signage. Some examples include the obvious such as the five million dollars plus if the NW Flanders bicycle boulevard is constructed, the cost of adding bike lanes to the Morrison Bridge, a prorated user cost of widening the sidewalks on the Hawthorne Bridge, a prorated user cost of the East Bank Esplanade, a prorated user cost of the Springwater Trail and some prorated area of pavement costs where bike lanes will be added associated with the reconstruction of Naito Parkway. Those are only some of the big dollar ones. There also should be a prorated cost based on area of pavement for every street and bridge that has bike lanes.
In relation to what auto users pay vs road costs, see the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration on Public Roads at http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/janpr/cost.htm
Here is an excerpt from that document one can chew on:
“As a class, automobiles pay the same share of federal highway user fees as their share of highway costs, but pickups, vans, sport utility vehicles, and similar light trucks pay substantially more than their share of highway costs.”
WOW, sort of blows you away doesn’t it. !!!
Here is another document that you might find interesting:
http://www.publicpurpose.com/freeway1.htm
It describes the US Interstate Highway System as “The Best Investment A Nation Ever Made”. Included is quality of life, benefits to the community and positive impacts to the economy.
Sam, you will also find both of these sites interesting reading. I would certainly like to see a similar local analysis.
As for places where motor vehicle lanes were replaced with bike lanes, although there are multiple locations, two immediately come to mind; SE 7th Avenue from Sandy Boulevard to the South, and North Vancouver Avenue.
Finally Clay, I have a question for you. Where are the places in Portland that bicycle infrastructure is constructed by only manual labor and without the use machines that consume fuel? You seem to imply with your comments about manufacturing vehicles (which provides non-subsidized family wage jobs), the building of roads (which also provides user funded family wage jobs), and manufacturing machines (that again provides non-subsidized family wage jobs) are a non-existent factor in the construction of bicycle facilities.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Mar 30, 2006 4:06:42 PM
Lenny,
Curb extensions where bus stops are located are nothing more than negative air quality generators that allow busses stopping for passengers to act as motor vehicle travel lane blockades that create congestion and make motorists consume more fuel. In addition wasting transportation dollars for their construction, curb extensions are social engineering devices that produce harmful effects to the environment. Hawthorne is a good example of self-inflicted PDOT congestion.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Mar 30, 2006 4:24:26 PM
Terry,
Please re-read my statement. I did not imply that bike routes are built from organically grown, hand harvested hemp fiber substrates. I'm only marking the relative difference between embodied costs of building and using automobiles vs. bicycles. I know that the steel for my bike is the result of a dramatic extraction, extrusion, and assembly process. I know that we construct bike routes through the use of heavy machinery and mined materials. The question is a matter of degree. The average sedan uses more than 200x the amount of steel as any bicycle. Cars burn an incredibly concentrated but dwindling and politically volatile fuel. Bicycles burn beans and rice. The demands that each mode places on pavement materials to support the weight differential require the use of much more raw material and vastly larger earth moving and paving equipment. The two processes are so different in scale and complexity that they can barely be compared.
Thank you for the references. They make for interesting reading but they do not appear to address my points in one iota. In fact (and as has been noted elsewhere in this discussion), that nearly half (44.47%!) of the funding for the Interstate Highway System comes from federal, non-use money only bolsters my point that cars don't pay for themselves. The FHA study you cite assesses only the distribution of user fees, not those from the federal general fund.
And of course, you have yet to address the elephant in the living room... the costs deflected from petroleum use by way of subsidy through the defense department.
Posted by: Clay | Mar 30, 2006 5:25:14 PM
Clay,
Before I respond to your latest comments, I want to give my appreciation to and thank Sam for having a blog where discussions like this can take place.
In general terms, I realize there is a difference in the construction requirements between exclusive bicycle infrastructure and multi-use roads on which bicyclists also have free passage. It should also be noted that there is also a difference in construction requirements for roads used by big rigs and transit busses vs just the need for cars and light trucks. The Cascade Policy Institute http://www.cascadepolicy.org/ has some interesting documents on the cost per passenger for Tri-Met, but I do not believe they include the added costs of constructing roads and bridges for the extra weight required for busses. It also should be noted that Tri-Met’s fleet of guzzling diesel busses average only a mere 5 miles per gallon.
You stated ”that nearly half (44.47%!) of the funding for the Interstate Highway System comes from federal, non-use money”. Can you supply an official/reliable document or website that backs up that statement? I am not sure what you define as non-use money. To me http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/janpr/cost.htm backs up my understanding that all federal transportation funds and grants come from road user fees and fuel taxes, not from general fund dollars. Locally, some transportation infrastructure is paid for with tax increment funding, but only within urban renewal districts. That is yet another discussion that has been taking place along with the OHSU tram. The majority of federal matching funds still come from state and local motor vehicle fees and fuel taxes as do locally funded roads.
Finally, you mention an elephant in the living room which is an indirectly related sidebar topic, the military. I view the military as essential for both the defense of our country and to maintain the freedoms we have. If you haven’t already realized it, when the costs of energy spike, the economy takes a hit and tanks. Defending our freedoms also means doing what is necessary to maintain a healthy economy. Furthermore, one could say there is a house full of elephants if we were discussing the overall costs of government services. One example is the debate about illegal aliens. Do they or do they not pay for the government services that are received? Do they contribute more to the economy than they pay out? Should this country use public funds to build a fence around it? These cost questions sound vaguely similar to the ones about providing bicycle infrastructure. The point here is not to foster a discussion about immigration, or continue on about the military, but to return the discussion to funding transportation infrastructure and who should pay if the Sauvie Island bridge is to be preserved.
And again, thank you Sam for making this site available to have these discussions.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Mar 30, 2006 8:50:52 PM
Terry,
Cars slow bikes way down. If there weren't as many cars as there are on the road, I could get around town twice as fast on my bike than I do, even when a dedicated bike lane is available on some of the roads.
The amount of bike lanes and pedestrian safety amenities are infinitesimal in contrast to the massive scale of landscape dedicated to cars and trucks in the region. Try to recall the enormity of dimensions of I-5, I-205, I-84, US 26, 217, and 99. Gresham, Beaverton, Clackamas, and all the other 'burbs are virtually automobile empires. To continue the automobile's reign, Metro is needing at least $13 Billion that it doesn't have. And it ain't gonna come directly from the users, unless toll roads are built by this corporate behemoth from Australia, in which case you can definitely kiss your privacy and identity security bye-bye, as they will require you to have an RFID chip implanted on your vehicle in order to pay the tolls.
Congestion is a product of automobile and sprawl accommodation. Expand capacity and it always fills up.
With over 70 percent of the landscape dedicated to the automobile, how much further must a pedestrian or bicyclist now be required to travel in order to get to the places where they need to be than if the automobile was not reigning supreme?
How do you put a price tag on the diseases and deaths caused by pollution from automobiles on the freeway, where bicyclists and pedestrians are not allowed? From automobile accidents?
How do you put a price tag on the misery and deaths caused by our invasion of Iraq and possible invasion of Iran in order to secure the oil sources for our profligate use of the automobile?
I know you believe that there are no limits to the amount of land and resources available for expansion of roads in order to accommodate cars and trucks whizzing aimlessly from one end of the megalopolis to the next.
I know you have no conception of human carrying capacity in a finite bioregion. I know you do not recognize our local resources as the source of our economy and survival. Yet perhaps somewhere inside your head, you might be able to rise above your ideology long enough to visualize how much more pleasant and healthier our lives would be if we could walk, bike, or transit short distances to work, shopping, and recreation rather than to be required, significantly more often than not, to jump into an automobile and drive a long distance through wasted landscape.
You believe in subsidies. You believe in them more than any other commentators on this blog. You just can't see that you do.
Posted by: Long View and Now | Mar 30, 2006 10:09:56 PM
That 44% statistic comes directly from the horse's mouth, the FHA's 2003 funding disposition found at (split over two lines):
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov
/policy/ohim/hs03/htm/hf10.htm
And yes, our county requires national defense and its corresponding budget in order to defend our borders... but those requirements comprise only a fraction of our current expenditures. The majority of the defense budget goes toward our imperial exploits abroad, exploits for which securing access to petroleum stores serves as a major facet. Yes, our economy tanks whenever our access to these stores is threatened. So we can respond to this with further dependence and the resulting warfare, or we can respond by reducing the impact of energy scarcity by reducing our needs. Until we find plentiful and sustainable local energy sources or reduce our overall use, we will forever continue to wage war on the rest of the world in order to secure our access to their resources. At this point, cars are irrevocably tied to the latter scenario. Cycling, walking, mass transit and sustainable energy research provide a path to the former.
Posted by: Clay | Mar 31, 2006 9:49:08 AM
Nice idea, but what about SE Portland? The Brooklyn neighborhood has been waiting for years for the return of their river access. I don't live in the Brooklyn neighborhood but I share their view. SE Portland is the poor step-child. Consider what happened to SE Portland's lightrail.
Posted by: Cameron McCredie | Mar 31, 2006 11:46:01 AM
Clay,
Thank you for sharing the Federal Highway administration document http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ policy/ohim/hs03/htm/hf10.htm Funding for Highways and Disposition of Highway-User Revenues. On closer inspection of the document, you will realize the 44.47 percent statistic you quoted is the local match money required on most federally funded projects. The source of these funds varies from state to state. One entry identifies Property Taxes and Assessments as a source. Property taxes are collected at the local level. Another entry identifies General Funds and Appropriations with a foot note of 3 that refers to local funds estimated. In Oregon, the majority of matching funds for roads comes from motor vehicle fees and taxes on fuel. The exception, as I have previously posted, is tax increment funding only available within urban renewal districts and for targeted projects.
Furthermore, the document you provided shows 7.10 percent of federal highway user revenues as going for mass transit. Bicycle infrastructure is not even mentioned, but there are requirements that bicycle infrastructure be included with most road projects using federal funds.
Therefore the document you provided combined with the document I provided http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/janpr/cost.htm only substantiates my argument that motor vehicles pay the costs of roads, plus subsidize mass transit and bicycle infrastructure, Since transit fares cover only about 20 percent of operating costs, and bicyclists financially contribute nothing directly for the exclusive government services received, to correctly allocate the costs to those who receive the benefits, transit fares should be raised and bicyclists need to be directly taxed. .
And just a note related to a question of yours from a previous post: One westbound motor vehicle travel lane was removed on the Burnside Bridge to accommodate a bicycle lane in each direction. That amounts to about one sixth of the street pavement area on the bridge reserved exclusively for bicycles. Prior to the reconfiguration, the bridge had three motor vehicle lanes in each direction.
Again thank you for providing the document.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Mar 31, 2006 3:26:36 PM
Terry,
"On closer inspection of the document, you will realize the 44.47 percent statistic you quoted is the local match money required on most federally funded projects."
I don't know where you get the idea that those are matching funds stats. The table clearly denotes that tolls, vehicle and fuel taxes constitute 55.53% of the money used to build/maintain/etc highways. The remainder comes from other, non-user income sources. Even if you take out the 7.1% of user fees disposed to mass transit they still only cover 62.63% of highway costs. That would still require $53.7 BILLION dollars from non-user sources.
Oregon does appear to do a better job of making auto users pay their due, but only marginally. If you look at Oregon's entry in table HF-1 you see that just over 57% highway revenues come from user sources. The rest comes from general funds, property taxes, investments and the like.
And, of course, the FHA doesn't take into account the direct and extenuating monetary and other costs of the most expensive component of the highway system, the fuel source currently employed to make it useful.
Cheers!
Posted by: Clay | Mar 31, 2006 5:09:32 PM
Long View,
Traffic signals slow bicyclists down. Stop signs slow bicyclists down. Pedestrians in crosswalks slow bicyclists down. I guess that is why the majority of bicyclists ignore them all and illegally blow right through. And when bicyclists have a grudge about something, they mass together in acts of civil disobedience and sometimes vandalism. Why is it that bicyclists think they are God’s gift to the environment, feel above the law and resent the majority view of social order because it does not fit their lifestyle? It interesting that you have shown a distaste for, as stated by you “cars and trucks whizzing aimlessly from one end of the megalopolis to the next’, but want to do the same on your bike with no obstacles. It is also interesting that you fail to identify density as helping to create that megalopolis. I doubt that most people will agree they are going somewhere in an aimless manner.
Funding bicycle infrastructure is anything but infinitesimal. Labeling a whole street as a bicycle boulevard can hardly be called infinitesimal either. As I have demonstrated in previous posts to Clay, the costs for roads is paid for by the motor vehicle users. So bicyclists who currently contribute nothing financially towards roads shouldn’t be concerned about the how much the roads will cost Metro, or anybody else. The only reason I can come up with for your concern about finding more money for roads is that there will be less welfare type handouts available to subsidize bicycle infrastructure. The reality of the situation is that the more money spent on roads, the more family wage jobs are created.
Congestion is a product of many factors, but mostly population growth. If bicyclists are unwilling to tax themselves to pay for the bicycle infrastructure they want, then yes, motor vehicles should have supreme reign on the roads.
In your post you totally leave out the economic factors of a good road system such as identified at http://www.publicpurpose.com/freeway1.htm. You also want to link all the ills of society to the automobile. So how then would you price alcoholic beverages? It is not the motor vehicle but the intoxicated driver that injures and kills other people. Should the purchase of all alcoholic beverages be taxed to subsidize and pay the costs for all alcohol related crashes? Similarly, should cigarettes be taxed to pay the costs for all smoking associated health problems? I asked these questions only as a demonstration to you how much a person like yourself can find distance arguments that are only remotely germane to the basic discussion: should bicyclists help pay for bicycle infrastructure, including moving the Sauvie Island bridge, and thereby allocate the costs to those who receive the benefit.
Finally, the last paragraph in your post is so irrational and full of emotionally wacky assumptions, that it doesn’t even deserve a response. What I will say however, is that I do not hide behind some fictitious handle when posting here. I have met Sam. He knows me by sight. I have respect for him and hope he has respect for me. We do disagree on some of the issues.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Mar 31, 2006 5:46:34 PM
Clay,
Here is how I interpret the document http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ policy/ohim/hs03/htm/hf10.htm:
Under the subtitle Revenues for Highways
Motor-Fuel and Vehicle taxes 51.20% and Tolls 4.33% are federal funds from highway users, Subtotal 55.53% (also the same net used for highways from receipts available)
Property taxes and Assessments 4.80%, General Fund Appropriations (footnote 3 estimated by Local Governments) 14.91% and Other taxes and Fees 5.30% are local match funds, Subtotal
25.01%
Investment Income and other receipts 5.52% I am not sure but has to do with interest on moneys
Bond Requirements 4.75% I believe to be interest paid out on bonds issued.
I hope this helps
If I am incorrect in my interpretation, Sam maybe you can help us out.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Mar 31, 2006 6:11:29 PM
Mr. Parker,
Cars by themselves definitely slow bicycles down, but traffic signals, timed to the cavalcade of cars do contribute greatly. If you were ever to allow yourself to try commuting by bicycle you would know what I mean.
There is no way you can compare the amount of bicycle lanes and pedestrian safety amenities in this region to the gargantuan extent and width of roads and other acreages of once-open land that are dedicated to the automobile in this region. And plans are in the works to greatly augment this. Absolutely no comparison. To believe otherwise is total self-delusion.
Do you want to tell me that no money for federal or state road building, maintenance and repair come from tax dollars? Clay is right and you are wrong. Subsidization. Massive subsidization.
I did not itemize all ills in our region as coming from the automobile. Only those ones that do. That a great portion of those ills do derive directly from the automobile is testimony to the need to break its reign.
Most people don't believe that they are driving aimlessly because they have no memory of what it would be like to be able to walk, bike, or drive safely short distances to get to most of the places where they need or want to go instead of having to drive to get there.
Also self-delusional, along with the notion that cars are self-supporting, is the notion that bicyclists, pedestrians and transit travelers don't pay for roads too through their own cars. In other words, most bicyclists, pedestrians and transit travelers own cars and use cars and therefore do contribute to the costs of roads and bicycle lanes. However, if we do a good job of shortening the distance between home and our other destinations and then greatly decrease capacity for the automobile, we can look at other ways of funding our walkways.
More jobs are not needed in this region, and therefore new road building is no tool of true economic development. More jobs have been created by the tens of thousands here since the late 80s, and all that has yielded is more poverty, homelessness and hunger, a greater and growing gap between the rich and the poor, markedly increased housing costs, depressed real wages, decreased school funding, more people behind bars, more air, water, light and noise pollution, increased loss of habitat and species, 50 percent less tree cover in the region, more garbage buildings and roads, more crowding in wilderness parks and inner urban neighborhoods alike, and a huge loss of productive prime farmland. The wealthy get wealthier by creating more jobs--most of which are low-paying--not by decreasing unemployment levels to zero percent. Decreasing unemployment to much lower than five percent is wholly undesirable to the captains of industry. What existing residents here need are better jobs, not more jobs. More leisure, not more time at work. More quiet, solitude, nature and community, not less. But this is antithetical to economic growth.
You make huge generalizations about bicyclists in other ways. The way you paint it, most bicyclists disobey traffic laws and engage in civil disobedience (only to vent grudges, of course, when they do) and vandalism. You fail to mention that very few drivers obey traffic laws, particularly speeding laws and the one that requires all cars to yield to pedestrians, which is required on all intersections, whether marked or not. (I wouldn't at all be surprised to learn that you regularly speed on the freeways and fail to stop for pedestrians at intersections as well.)
My main point is that a new bridge is being built to Sauvie Island not because of bicycles and pedestrians, but because of the desire for larger trucks to carry more products to and from the island. So let them pay for the new bridge.
I repeat what I said: by your own words, you clearly love welfare. But only that welfare which melds with your mal-informed ideology.
Posted by: Long View and Now | Apr 1, 2006 12:53:37 AM
Terry,
The page is confusing in part because it visually merges three distinct tables into one. The first table (disposition) shows the total amount of user fees collected ($104 bil) and a broad overview of where that money went. The second table (revenues) displays the total revenues that were later applied to highways, broken out by funding source. The third table (disbursements) denotes how the various agencies spent the highway-specific money. The columns running through all three tables indicate the collecting/spending agency (federal, state or local).
In the second table the rows break out revenue by collection method (tax or fee source). It does not specify if individual entries qualify as "matching funds", nor is that relevant to our conversation. We're not even particularly concerned with which agency is doing the collecting. What does interest us is how the various agencies collected their funds, and this table clearly indicates that of the $143.8 billion spent on highways only $79.9 billion of it came from user sources.
You could then argue that this does not accurately reflect the situation in Oregon because this summary groups together all fifty states. This is why I directed you to corresponding table HF-1. HF-1 breaks down into individual state listings the contents of the second table in HF-10. Oregon's entry in HF-1 shows that our funding sources do not substantially differ from those indicated in the summary.
Thank you for your patience with this. I hope this better elucidates where I'm getting my information.
Posted by: Clay | Apr 1, 2006 9:07:51 AM
Actually Mr. Long View, the Sauvie Island bridge is being replaced because the decking and the approaches are crumbling from which both weather and age of the bridge have made their contributions. The steel superstructure center span of the bridge is in quite sound condition. Both large trucks and Tri-Met busses crossing the bridge have sped up this deterioration. The heavier vehicles create more of a vibration which then loosens more of the crumbling concrete. Vibration on the bridge is why the speed on the bridge has been reduced.
The same thing is happening with the Sellwood Bridge. The decking and the approaches are deteriorating, but at a faster rate because the bridge is older and carries more traffic. The west end approach supports are also sinking into the ground. Again the steel superstructure of the bridge is sound. The fact is the Sellwood Bridge does not need to be replaced. It is only the decking and the approaches that need replacing. All the hype and buzz to replace the bridge is coming from the freeloading bicycle community along with other welfare requests from the BTA. Yes, it is you guys who want to get all those huge diesel powered rigs to dig new holes in the river, muddy the waters and produce more expensive steel just so bicyclists can have another pair of bicycle lanes crossing the river, poached from motor vehicle fees and fuel taxes. Such an option has no benefit to automobile and light truck owners. That is why any new bridge must have four motor vehicle travel lanes so drivers who are paying for the bridge also receive some benefit.
However, there is a better idea/solution out there already being floated (the bridge portion anyway) that will save a huge amount of transportation dollars for the region. Replace the approaches and decking on the current bridge and do it without sidewalks so the lanes on the bridge can be made wider and safer. Ban all non-motorized vehicles from using the new deck. Then put in a pedal powered ferry at the foot of Spokane Street. This ferry would be for all those bicyclists that think bicyclists should not be taxed to help pay for bicycle infrastructure and detest the motorized machinery of modern construction methods that would be used to fix the bridge. The faster the bicyclists can push the pedals on the ferry, the faster it will turn the little propeller screws on the boat, and the faster they can get across the river. Really, you guys should like this, closer to the river and nature, no pesky stop signs or traffic signals to slow you down, no cars to deal with and just plain healthy exercise to get across the river.
For pedestrians, since the underside of Sellwood Bridge is a through truss, a second and lighter weight deck could easily be added below the motor vehicle deck and in between the existing steel structure. Bicyclists that are willing to help out with the funding for the reconditioned bridge could also use this lower deck. I did not come up with this idea, but when told about it by the individual who did, the concept made total sense.
The only question left in my mind is how and the best way to charge the bicyclists.
As for the timetable for the ferry, it can be launched next April first. As for the timetable for bicyclists paying a tax that helps to fund bicycle infrastructure, it needs to start
You mention capturing some dollars from the scrap metal. Any idea how much?
Posted by: Larry | Mar 16, 2006 3:15:46 PM