News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Oregon

Started by Hurricane Rex, December 12, 2017, 06:15:33 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Bruce

The ballot should come down to a single question: tolls or a massive VMT charge to pay for ongoing maintenance and remediation.

The latter will get some people up in arms about government tracking, but highways are already doing that anyway. I bet the former would win with variable charges that increase based on demand (aka in urban areas, to stick it to them city-slickers).


Hurricane Rex

I've now had 8 hrs to think on this and I'm kind of changing my mind. I would amend the initiative to make voters whether or not existing facilities/lanes are tolled. After what some of you mentioned and looking back at my tier 1/tier 2 (draft) fictional plans, I realized I knee-jerked beard on how much I hate ODOT's current tolling plan, and more so Portland's reccomendation. This amendment will still leave existimg facilities as-is (unless tolls are voter approved), bit gives potential for new facilities to be tolled and new express lanes to be constructed.

LG-TP260

ODOT, raise the speed limit and fix our traffic problems.

Road and weather geek for life.

Running till I die.

Sub-Urbanite

Quote from: jakeroot on July 25, 2018, 06:10:58 PM

So, no, I think that's a dumb initiative. Leave budgeting to the senators. If Oregonians don't like tolling, they need to get rid of the politicians who approve of it.


YES. Government-by-initiative lets politicians off the hook too easily.

jakeroot

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 26, 2018, 01:49:36 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 25, 2018, 06:10:58 PM
So, no, I think that's a dumb initiative. Leave budgeting to the senators. If Oregonians don't like tolling, they need to get rid of the politicians who approve of it.

YES. Government-by-initiative lets politicians off the hook too easily.

Yep, I agree. To be frank, I support tolling, so I would not be the one to vote out these politicians. But it's the best way to send a message.

Hurricane Rex

So, Pamphlin media has mis-read the facts on the said initiative, as voter approval would only be required on the current system of roads.

I'm posting the bill and the link here.

Article IX of the Oregon Constitution is ammended by adding the following:

Article 16 Requirements for fees and tolls
(1) No personal vehicle or truck usage of transportation infrastructure in Oregon may be subject to any fee or toll unless:
     (a) The entirety of the fee or toll is used to finance net new capacity for personal vehicle or truck usage and the fee or toll is applied to the net new capacity; or
     (b) The fee or toll was in operation prior to January 1, 2018; or
     (c) The fee applies to marine uses, or a rail system; or
     (d) Such a fee has been approved by both
           (1) A majority of voters in the state; and
           (2) A majority of voters in each county in which the fee or toll applies.


Personal note: I feel it's still missing a provision allowing express lanes. That being said, its better than what was reported because at least it has the option to add new freeways/capacity and toll those lanes/freeways. It does look the tolls would end the moment the bonds are paid off, which for new construction, I'd support (except the Westside Bypass if it ever got build), but for new lanes, make it tolled express lanes permanently. In its current form though, I'd be willing to sign it to get onto the ballot.
ODOT, raise the speed limit and fix our traffic problems.

Road and weather geek for life.

Running till I die.

vdeane

Quote from: jakeroot on July 25, 2018, 09:19:11 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 25, 2018, 08:46:47 PM
I don't mind toll express lanes either (within reason... I don't support I-77 NC since they're willing to widen everything else as free lanes but for some reason wanted a toll for I-77), but the current proposal is to toll everything, so this initiative is needed.

Express toll lanes would only be installed if approved by the public, which they would never do. The public just wants more and more GP lanes.

This initiative effectively bans tolls in Oregon. Are you sure that's a good idea? There's never a good reason for a toll? No situation where it's appropriate?
1. As mentioned, the initiative applies to tolling existing facilities (though I do agree that it could use a provision allowing for indefinite tolling of HOT lanes).
2. I don't believe for a nanosecond that the state is seriously planning to build HOT lanes in Portland.  I think it's almost certain that they're going to toll all the lanes of existing I-5 and I-205 (and possibly I-84) in the area, barring the initiative.  And, as I'm sure we've discussed before, I'm against anything that renders interstates unclinchable for those of us not from the area who don't do bill by mail.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

jakeroot

Quote from: vdeane on July 26, 2018, 10:01:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 25, 2018, 09:19:11 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 25, 2018, 08:46:47 PM
I don't mind toll express lanes either (within reason... I don't support I-77 NC since they're willing to widen everything else as free lanes but for some reason wanted a toll for I-77), but the current proposal is to toll everything, so this initiative is needed.

Express toll lanes would only be installed if approved by the public, which they would never do. The public just wants more and more GP lanes.

This initiative effectively bans tolls in Oregon. Are you sure that's a good idea? There's never a good reason for a toll? No situation where it's appropriate?
1. As mentioned, the initiative applies to tolling existing facilities (though I do agree that it could use a provision allowing for indefinite tolling of HOT lanes).
2. I don't believe for a nanosecond that the state is seriously planning to build HOT lanes in Portland.  I think it's almost certain that they're going to toll all the lanes of existing I-5 and I-205 (and possibly I-84) in the area, barring the initiative.  And, as I'm sure we've discussed before, I'm against anything that renders interstates unclinchable for those of us not from the area who don't do bill by mail.

1. I see as much now. Basically renders my entire post pointless.
2. It wouldn't surprise me if express lanes became a serious proposal. I'm sure the DOT will try and find a middle-ground, and that's a good one that WSDOT (just to the north) is exploiting more every day.

Kniwt

Quote from: Bruce on July 14, 2018, 02:16:05 AM
As I continue my digging through the Oregon archive for I-5 opening dates, I stumbled across a nice sign spec sheet from the 1940s or 1950s.

Enjoy: https://digital.osl.state.or.us/islandora/object/osl%3A7705

I'm intrigued by the possible uses for this one, which looks like it's supposed to banner something else:

Hurricane Rex

IP 9 was withdrawn by the chief petitioners on July 27th. I have a feeling some politicians or ODOT got to him asking for the withdrawl but can't confirm. I am emailing one of the chief petitioners to confirm.

LG-TP260

ODOT, raise the speed limit and fix our traffic problems.

Road and weather geek for life.

Running till I die.

Alps

Quote from: Hurricane Rex on July 29, 2018, 10:59:44 PM
IP 9 was withdrawn by the chief petitioners on July 27th. I have a feeling some politicians or ODOT got to him asking for the withdrawl but can't confirm. I am emailing one of the chief petitioners to confirm.
IP 9 being...?

Hurricane Rex

Quote from: Alps on July 30, 2018, 08:14:08 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on July 29, 2018, 10:59:44 PM
IP 9 was withdrawn by the chief petitioners on July 27th. I have a feeling some politicians or ODOT got to him asking for the withdrawl but can't confirm. I am emailing one of the chief petitioners to confirm.
IP 9 being...?

Quote from: Hurricane Rex on July 26, 2018, 09:29:16 PM
Article IX of the Oregon Constitution is ammended by adding the following:

Article 16 Requirements for fees and tolls
(1) No personal vehicle or truck usage of transportation infrastructure in Oregon may be subject to any fee or toll unless:
     (a) The entirety of the fee or toll is used to finance net new capacity for personal vehicle or truck usage and the fee or toll is applied to the net new capacity; or
     (b) The fee or toll was in operation prior to January 1, 2018; or
     (c) The fee applies to marine uses, or a rail system; or
     (d) Such a fee has been approved by both
           (1) A majority of voters in the state; and
           (2) A majority of voters in each county in which the fee or toll applies.


This, posted above. I personally never reffered to this as IP 9 (I thought I did) but the article I linked to did.

LG-TP260

ODOT, raise the speed limit and fix our traffic problems.

Road and weather geek for life.

Running till I die.

Bruce

IP 9 = Initiative Petition 9, aka the formal title of the ballot measure

Hurricane Rex

Just got emailed back, it was refiled under IP 10 instead so an ammendment could be made so ferries can be better accommodated.

The new IP (most is the same bold is changes)

Article IX of the Constitution of the State of Oregon is amended by adding the following:
Section 16. Requirements for Transportation Fees and Tolls
(1) No personal or recreational vehicle, or commercial truck usage, of transportation infrastructure in
Oregon may be subject to any transportation fee or toll, unless:
(a) The entirety of the fee or toll is used to finance net new capacity for personal or recreational
vehicle, or commercial truck usage and the fee or toll is only applied to the net new capacity; or
(b) The fee or toll was in operation prior to January 1, 2018; or
(c) The fee applies to marine uses, or a rail system; or
(d) Such a fee or toll has been approved by both
(1) A majority of voters in the state; and
(2) A majority of voters in each county in which the fee or toll applies.
(3) "Net new capacity" is defined as expansion of transportation infrastructure which did not exist
prior to January 1st, 2018, and which has not been converted from a previous form of transportation
infrastructure which had already been built and/or operated with public dollars.
ODOT, raise the speed limit and fix our traffic problems.

Road and weather geek for life.

Running till I die.

jakeroot

Is it constitutional for voters to decide taxes and fees? Every one of Tim Eyman's initiatives in WA which gave voters direct control over taxes were overturned in court. Different state and different constitution, obviously, but I'm sure the relevant sections are similar.

nexus73

Quote from: jakeroot on July 30, 2018, 10:02:10 PM
Is it constitutional for voters to decide taxes and fees? Every one of Tim Eyman's initiatives in WA which gave voters direct control over taxes were overturned in court. Different state and different constitution, obviously, but I'm sure the relevant sections are similar.

In Oregon we had a ballot measure about having the electorate decide fees back in the Nineties as I recall.  The voters turned it down.  That means "who knows?" as to the constitutionality since there never was a test case to decide the issue.

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

jakeroot

Quote from: nexus73 on July 31, 2018, 12:44:47 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 30, 2018, 10:02:10 PM
Is it constitutional for voters to decide taxes and fees? Every one of Tim Eyman's initiatives in WA which gave voters direct control over taxes were overturned in court. Different state and different constitution, obviously, but I'm sure the relevant sections are similar.

In Oregon we had a ballot measure about having the electorate decide fees back in the Nineties as I recall.  The voters turned it down.  That means "who knows?" as to the constitutionality since there never was a test case to decide the issue.

By "electorate", do you mean voters in a specific area? Or something else?

nexus73

Quote from: jakeroot on July 31, 2018, 12:49:43 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on July 31, 2018, 12:44:47 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 30, 2018, 10:02:10 PM
Is it constitutional for voters to decide taxes and fees? Every one of Tim Eyman's initiatives in WA which gave voters direct control over taxes were overturned in court. Different state and different constitution, obviously, but I'm sure the relevant sections are similar.

In Oregon we had a ballot measure about having the electorate decide fees back in the Nineties as I recall.  The voters turned it down.  That means "who knows?" as to the constitutionality since there never was a test case to decide the issue.

By "electorate", do you mean voters in a specific area? Or something else?

"Electorate" means those who get to vote.  Those who reside in Oregon and are registered to vote would constitute the electorate. 

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

jakeroot

Quote from: nexus73 on July 31, 2018, 12:57:16 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 31, 2018, 12:49:43 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on July 31, 2018, 12:44:47 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 30, 2018, 10:02:10 PM
Is it constitutional for voters to decide taxes and fees? Every one of Tim Eyman's initiatives in WA which gave voters direct control over taxes were overturned in court. Different state and different constitution, obviously, but I'm sure the relevant sections are similar.

In Oregon we had a ballot measure about having the electorate decide fees back in the Nineties as I recall.  The voters turned it down.  That means "who knows?" as to the constitutionality since there never was a test case to decide the issue.

By "electorate", do you mean voters in a specific area? Or something else?

"Electorate" means those who get to vote.  Those who reside in Oregon and are registered to vote would constitute the electorate. 

Thought so. Interesting that Oregon voters would vote against giving themselves control (even if unconstitutional). Perhaps a hint as to how voters might swing with IP 9?

vdeane

Given that this amends the state constitution, how could it not be constitutional?
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

nexus73

Quote from: vdeane on July 31, 2018, 01:44:00 PM
Given that this amends the state constitution, how could it not be constitutional?

Lawyers...LOL!  They'll always have an argument to present you know.

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

jakeroot

Quote from: vdeane on July 31, 2018, 01:44:00 PM
Given that this amends the state constitution, how could it not be constitutional?

It may depend on what the other amendments say.

The Washington State constitution is not as extensive as Oregon's, apparently. Taxes/fees are managed by the RCW (Revised Code of Washington).

Alps

Quote from: Bruce on July 30, 2018, 12:41:42 PM
IP 9 = Initiative Petition 9, aka the formal title of the ballot measure
Thanks, that's the clarification I was looking for.

Hurricane Rex

ODOT, raise the speed limit and fix our traffic problems.

Road and weather geek for life.

Running till I die.

nexus73

Quote from: Hurricane Rex on August 19, 2018, 02:46:36 PM
Today is a good day IMO. The Westside bypass has been revived. https://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/402848-299671-stage-set-for-renewed-debate-on-westside-bypass

LG-TP260



Written opposition came from Mary Manseau, a former planning commissioner, and Mary Kyle McCurdy, deputy director of 1000 Friends of Oregon, a statewide land use watchdog group.

1000 Enemies Of Oregon is how I refer to this group.  One could also call them "Progressives Against Progress".  When I compare the ease of moving around the east metro area with the heavy congestion of the west, right there is a ready-made case for Doing Something and doing so NOW.  Even when it is not rush hour, US 26, SR 217 and I-5 are unbelievably snarled up with heavy traffic.  I say make those who oppose westside highway projects drive a commute each and every workday for a year on these routes to gain an appreciation of the situation.

Ricl 

US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

Bruce

Traffic is a land use problem as much as it is about transportation capacity. Clearly, someone dropped the ball by allowing the westside to sprawl out so much. $26 billion to build a new freeway is a pretty absurd cost, especially for a mid-sized metro like Portland that doesn't have much justification for that kind of project.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.