ODOT looks into tolls for Portland-area freeways

[sparker]

According to an article in Oregon Live, ODOT is in the preliminary stages of requesting permission to place tolls on at least two Portland-area freeways in order to raise funds for congestion relief.  Apparently there are some slots open in the FHWA program allowing "pilot program" tolling of extant Interstate facilities after requests from MO and VA "timed out".  Right now, ODOT is negotiating with the state legislature regarding whether to pursue this venture.  The two freeways cited are I-5 in the central part of Portland as well as the I-205 Abernethy Bridge over the Willamette River near Oregon City.

It's pretty clear that ODOT doesn't look at this as a form of "central district access pricing"; placing tolls on both N-S Interstate facilities indicates that a price-based through-traffic diversion to the bypass facility isn't a consideration here.  Whether vocal opposition to this concept will materialize from either interests outside Portland metro, drivers' organizations (AAA and truckers among these), or lower-income residents affected by tolls is yet to be determined.  The article concludes by saying that it will likely be a long haul to actual implementation of tolls if the concept is actually initiated.

www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/02/oregon_to_seek_federal_approva.html   

[compdude787]

Man, people are going to really be freaking out about this. I can understand that sentiment, considering the fact that they think they've already paid for the road in gas taxes. But as for me, I say go ahead, do it! Freeways, because of their high speed and high(ish) capacity, should be tolled because it is a luxury to be able to drive on a road that you don't have to stop at any traffic lights, nor have any left turns into oncoming traffic. And, when demand is high, the toll price should go up just like gas prices go up during the summer because demand is higher.

[Plutonic Panda]

I disagree it is a luxury to drive on freeways.

[jakeroot]

Freeways, because of their high speed and high(ish) capacity, should be tolled because it is a luxury to be able to drive on a road that you don't have to stop at any traffic lights, nor have any left turns into oncoming traffic. And, when demand is high, the toll price should go up just like gas prices go up during the summer because demand is higher.

Freeways become a luxury only when space becomes a luxury as well. If the 5 and 205 are suffering from severe congestion throughout the day, they could be tolled to combat congestion (i.e. a congestion charge of sorts). The 5 should be tolled, but I don't think the 205 should be. Congestion tolls work better when drivers have an alternative, and if the alternative is also tolled, they're just gonna keep using the primary road.

Portland could benefit from some toll lanes on area freeways, like those seen in Seattle.

[sparker]

Portland could benefit from some toll lanes on area freeways, like those seen in Seattle.

IMO, a tolled through lane on I-205 (both directions) from Oregon City up to the Columbia River bridge, providing a bypass for vehicles wishing to avoid the normal congestion on that road would be a better solution than a general toll at specific points along that road or I-5.  One pass through Portland during commute time would likely be all that it would take to get repeaters (such as commercial trucks) to pony up the bucks and use such a lane.  The section of I-5 from the north I-405 junction north to the river could also use such a bypass lane -- although the bridge itself poses its own problems but is not upgradeable.  I lived there for a little under four years in the early/mid '90's and quickly discovered -- the hard way -- that every freeway in town gets congested on weekdays.  Tolling the "easy way out" would probably be better in terms of revenue generation than attempting to force all through traffic into a toll situation.

[Henry]

What the hell, they may as well do it! As long as the rates are reasonable, I'm all for it.

[compdude787]

Freeways, because of their high speed and high(ish) capacity, should be tolled because it is a luxury to be able to drive on a road that you don't have to stop at any traffic lights, nor have any left turns into oncoming traffic. And, when demand is high, the toll price should go up just like gas prices go up during the summer because demand is higher.

Freeways become a luxury only when space becomes a luxury as well. If the 5 and 205 are suffering from severe congestion throughout the day, they could be tolled to combat congestion (i.e. a congestion charge of sorts). The 5 should be tolled, but I don't think the 205 should be. Congestion tolls work better when drivers have an alternative, and if the alternative is also tolled, they're just gonna keep using the primary road.

Portland could benefit from some toll lanes on area freeways, like those seen in Seattle.

Yeah, I actually disagreed with I-205 being tolled. Really, the bypass around Portland should not have a toll on it.

[The Ghostbuster]

Somehow I doubt Portland-area freeways will receive tolls. The city is much more interested in densifying its neighborhoods, building light rail, and letting the roads and freeways be perpetually gridlocked.

[sparker]

Somehow I doubt Portland-area freeways will receive tolls. The city is much more interested in densifying its neighborhoods, building light rail, and letting the roads and freeways be perpetually gridlocked.

Add to that the almost perpetual Portland-"downstate" conflict (priorities, funding, and often raw ideology differences) in the state legislature, which often has the effect of stymieing the aims of either category (ODOT's direction over the last couple of decades has generally reflected that of metro Portland and/or Salem).  Tolling efforts will likely be just another iteration of that conflict, and will go unresolved for at least the near term. 

[sp_redelectric]

it is a luxury to be able to drive on a road that you don't have to stop at any traffic lights, nor have any left turns into oncoming traffic.

Tell that to the folks in eastern Oregon along I-84 where the freeway IS the only west-east route.

Maybe just institute tolls on I-5 - since there is U.S. 97 and U.S. 101, plus Oregon 99/99E/99W (and decommissioned segments that are now county roads) as alternates?

[kkt]

Will the tolls pay for rebuilding the I-5 bridge?  I'm in favor of replacing it before it falls into the river.

[sp_redelectric]

Will the tolls pay for rebuilding the I-5 bridge?  I'm in favor of replacing it before it falls into the river.

There is no plan to replace/rebuild the Interstate Bridge.  The previous proposal was killed off due to bickering by the "stakeholders".

There are some folks up in Washington State that want to start a new proposal, but the Washington side was the most vocal against any tolls - they argue that since Washington residents who work in Oregon are forced to pay Oregon income tax yet get no benefit from it, they shouldn't have to pay a toll.

Yes, I know, Oregon doesn't use income tax revenues to fund roads...

[kkt]

What's going to happen to their jobs if the bridge has to be closed because it's too dangerous?  Stupid.
I know, preaching to the converted here.

[sparker]

Will the tolls pay for rebuilding the I-5 bridge?  I'm in favor of replacing it before it falls into the river.

There is no plan to replace/rebuild the Interstate Bridge.  The previous proposal was killed off due to bickering by the "stakeholders".

There are some folks up in Washington State that want to start a new proposal, but the Washington side was the most vocal against any tolls - they argue that since Washington residents who work in Oregon are forced to pay Oregon income tax yet get no benefit from it, they shouldn't have to pay a toll.

Yes, I know, Oregon doesn't use income tax revenues to fund roads...

It's hard to take that particular argument seriously, when the fact is that because of Oregon's lack of a sales tax, southern Washington residents regularly cross the Columbia to purchase "big-ticket" items simply because they'll save the 7-8% tariff on in-state purchases.  It's a bit of a wash -- lose a bit at the input, gain some at the output.  WA residents who work in-state but purchase a sizeable amount of merchandise in OR have it the best; these are often characterized as a type of "free rider". 

[Sub-Urbanite]

Freeways become a luxury only when space becomes a luxury as well. If the 5 and 205 are suffering from severe congestion throughout the day, they could be tolled to combat congestion (i.e. a congestion charge of sorts). The 5 should be tolled, but I don't think the 205 should be. Congestion tolls work better when drivers have an alternative, and if the alternative is also tolled, they're just gonna keep using the primary road.

I'd love for drivers — particularly truckers — to think twice before taking 205. I live a couple blocks away and cringe when I think about how much in the way of fine particulates my neighbors & I are inhaling every day.

[Bruce]

Freeways become a luxury only when space becomes a luxury as well. If the 5 and 205 are suffering from severe congestion throughout the day, they could be tolled to combat congestion (i.e. a congestion charge of sorts). The 5 should be tolled, but I don't think the 205 should be. Congestion tolls work better when drivers have an alternative, and if the alternative is also tolled, they're just gonna keep using the primary road.

I'd love for drivers — particularly truckers — to think twice before taking 205. I live a couple blocks away and cringe when I think about how much in the way of fine particulates my neighbors & I are inhaling every day.

205 exists for a reason. It's your fault for moving next to a freeway and expecting clean air.

What of the people along I-5? Do they deserve dirtier air?

[Sub-Urbanite]

Freeways become a luxury only when space becomes a luxury as well. If the 5 and 205 are suffering from severe congestion throughout the day, they could be tolled to combat congestion (i.e. a congestion charge of sorts). The 5 should be tolled, but I don't think the 205 should be. Congestion tolls work better when drivers have an alternative, and if the alternative is also tolled, they're just gonna keep using the primary road.

I'd love for drivers — particularly truckers — to think twice before taking 205. I live a couple blocks away and cringe when I think about how much in the way of fine particulates my neighbors & I are inhaling every day.

205 exists for a reason. It's your fault for moving next to a freeway and expecting clean air.

What of the people along I-5? Do they deserve dirtier air?

So, setting aside whether I was a dipstick for moving next to a freeway when I was younger and dumber, the fact is that I could move tomorrow and there would still be tens of thousands of Portlanders who live within a half-mile of that freeway.

And, we know a lot more than we used to about what's in freeway exhaust. A decade ago, fine particulates from diesel weren't on anyone's radar. Now, we know that there is a strong correlation between fine particulates and autism; and a strong link between them and childhood asthma.

These are things that cost you and I money. Even if it's not our kid with autism or asthma, the social safety net means that we're going to pay for their care anyway. Meanwhile, the millionaire owners and investors of companies that ship goods by truck won't pay their fair share of the impacts.

I'm not saying that all the trucks should go onto I-5 instead. I'm saying that there should be a cost associated with generating that exhaust, and it should be greater than just what is paid through VMT for trucks/gas tax for drivers.  The best way to spark innovation is to make it cheaper to innovate than to proceed with the status quo.

[seicer]

I don't think there is any disagreement, but pushing trucks into central downtown and where thousands of other people live - and through some poorer neighborhoods, is not an effective solution, either. I wouldn't live next to a freeway or major arterial, either, for the same reasons that you have given. Particulates by diesels are linked to cancer, and there is a strong correlation between that and autism and asthma. It's not as if that black belch that comes out of the stacks is clean; it's far from it.

And the noise? No thanks.

[sparker]

I don't think there is any disagreement, but pushing trucks into central downtown and where thousands of other people live - and through some poorer neighborhoods, is not an effective solution, either. I wouldn't live next to a freeway or major arterial, either, for the same reasons that you have given. Particulates by diesels are linked to cancer, and there is a strong correlation between that and autism and asthma. It's not as if that black belch that comes out of the stacks is clean; it's far from it.

And the noise? No thanks.

But is selective tolling any sort of remedy for this?  It may be best -- despite political considerations -- for commercial vehicles, particularly diesel-fueled trucks and vans, to be addressed -- as far as offset and/or remedial fees are concerned -- at the time such are either registered or show up at a state's "port of entry" facility.  If trucks utilize 5, it affects those along that route; likewise with 205, 217, 84, or any other regional highway that regularly sees heavy commercial usage -- there's no getting away from that!  Until such time that carbon-emitting fuels are effectively history, the only "offset" is to wring additional $$ from the most egregious offenders in the most specific way possible; ORT may not be specific enough to do the job.

[Sub-Urbanite]

But is selective tolling any sort of remedy for this?  It may be best -- despite political considerations -- for commercial vehicles, particularly diesel-fueled trucks and vans, to be addressed -- as far as offset and/or remedial fees are concerned -- at the time such are either registered or show up at a state's "port of entry" facility.  If trucks utilize 5, it affects those along that route; likewise with 205, 217, 84, or any other regional highway that regularly sees heavy commercial usage -- there's no getting away from that!  Until such time that carbon-emitting fuels are effectively history, the only "offset" is to wring additional $$ from the most egregious offenders in the most specific way possible; ORT may not be specific enough to do the job.

I personally think so. You use the ports of entry and VMT and whatnot for general maintenance of the state highway system as a whole — because industry needs a comprehensive state highway system. Then you selectively toll certain areas for the health / community impacts on top of that. A hauler carrying barley from Burns to Bend isn't having a tremendous impact on the state's health — and shouldn't have to pay for that. But West Coast haulers carrying goods from California to Washington via I-205 should have to pay their fair share both for the system maintenance and the health impacts, IMHO.

There's also the other dirty issue that maintenance costs are going through the roof, nationwide, just because much of our system is 50 years old. We have to have creative ways to pay for maintenance and upgrades or things are going to only get worse. And if they get worse, more people will believe the system can't be trusted, which will lead to more disinvestment... ugh.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

Man, people are going to really be freaking out about this. I can understand that sentiment, considering the fact that they think they've already paid for the road in gas taxes. But as for me, I say go ahead, do it! Freeways, because of their high speed and high(ish) capacity, should be tolled because it is a luxury to be able to drive on a road that you don't have to stop at any traffic lights, nor have any left turns into oncoming traffic. And, when demand is high, the toll price should go up just like gas prices go up during the summer because demand is higher.

Why would they do this? FHWA does not allow for tolls on existing freeways, unless ODOT has a different MUTCD or a state suppliment; but, either one would require to fall inline with the national standard in some way.

[compdude787]

Man, people are going to really be freaking out about this. I can understand that sentiment, considering the fact that they think they've already paid for the road in gas taxes. But as for me, I say go ahead, do it! Freeways, because of their high speed and high(ish) capacity, should be tolled because it is a luxury to be able to drive on a road that you don't have to stop at any traffic lights, nor have any left turns into oncoming traffic. And, when demand is high, the toll price should go up just like gas prices go up during the summer because demand is higher.

Why would they do this? FHWA does not allow for tolls on existing freeways, unless ODOT has a different MUTCD or a state suppliment; but, either one would require to fall inline with the national standard in some way.

Read the second sentence in the OP.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

Man, people are going to really be freaking out about this. I can understand that sentiment, considering the fact that they think they've already paid for the road in gas taxes. But as for me, I say go ahead, do it! Freeways, because of their high speed and high(ish) capacity, should be tolled because it is a luxury to be able to drive on a road that you don't have to stop at any traffic lights, nor have any left turns into oncoming traffic. And, when demand is high, the toll price should go up just like gas prices go up during the summer because demand is higher.

Why would they do this? FHWA does not allow for tolls on existing freeways, unless ODOT has a different MUTCD or a state suppliment; but, either one would require to fall inline with the national standard in some way.

Read the second sentence in the OP.

Ah, ok I mean since they do have a different MUTCD (found out) and with the given information it makes sense, considering the circumstance.

[KEK Inc.]

Portland could benefit from some toll lanes on area freeways, like those seen in Seattle.

Because that went well.

[sparker]

Portland could benefit from some toll lanes on area freeways, like those seen in Seattle.

Because that went well.

Since it's more than likely that the Oregon legislature won't approve full-facility tolling as cited in my OP, if some form of tolling remains under consideration, it might actually take the form of tolled "express" lanes.  The most likely place to deploy these would be along the N-S section of I-205 (Oregon City to the Columbia River), where there is sufficient room in the either the median or alongside the existing carriageways to place such lanes (not the case for much of I-5).  That section of 205 is the site of almost daily congestion; providing tolled bypass lanes for (ostensibly) non-PDX origin/destination traffic might not only serve a purpose (removing those vehicles from the general-purpose lanes) but also provide a revenue stream -- with relatively minimal political repercussions.