Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sub-Urbanite]

Massive infrastructure passed providing billions for each state. There’s your money to add on to the states to build without tolls.

There won't be tolls. There will be congestion pricing.

[Plutonic Panda]

Massive infrastructure passed providing billions for each state. There’s your money to add on to the states to build without tolls.

There won't be tolls. There will be congestion pricing.

Lol

[compdude787]

Massive infrastructure passed providing billions for each state. There’s your money to add on to the states to build without tolls.

There won't be tolls. There will be congestion pricing.

How is that any different?

[Sub-Urbanite]

Massive infrastructure passed providing billions for each state. There’s your money to add on to the states to build without tolls.

There won't be tolls. There will be congestion pricing.

How is that any different?

Tolls are set to pay down bridge debt. Congestion pricing is set to encourage people to use the road at different times.

Put another way, a toll is by nature designed to encourage more driving. More cars, more revenue. Congestion pricing is aimed at leveling out usage of the highway but not necessarily encourage more use of it.

[kkt]

Massive infrastructure passed providing billions for each state. There’s your money to add on to the states to build without tolls.

There won't be tolls. There will be congestion pricing.

to-may-to, to-mah-to.

"It's all the same from the bottom of the river." - Eeyore

[Alps]

A toll does not encourage more driving. A toll discourages more driving. It's the same thing, just whether it varies or not.

[Bruce]

A toll would encourage shunpiking to I-205, though. No one wants that, so a congestion charge that applies to both bridges would be the best option.

[Sub-Urbanite]

A toll would encourage shunpiking to I-205, though. No one wants that, so a congestion charge that applies to both bridges would be the best option.

Congestion pricing is already coming to 205, at least down at the Abernethy Bridge to start with.

[vdeane]

A toll would encourage shunpiking to I-205, though. No one wants that, so a congestion charge that applies to both bridges would be the best option.

Of course, that means there's no option except a huge diversion for those who don't have a local transponder or a willingness to do bill by mail and accept all associated unreliability and additional fees.

[Sub-Urbanite]

A toll would encourage shunpiking to I-205, though. No one wants that, so a congestion charge that applies to both bridges would be the best option.

Of course, that means there's no option except a huge diversion for those who don't have a local transponder or a willingness to do bill by mail and accept all associated unreliability and additional fees.

This would be more of a concern if there weren't already a huge diversion. Lots of diversion already. The congestion pricing is happening at the same time as a road widening, so this will probably end up being a wash as far as people paying on the freeway vs. using the local streets.

[vdeane]

A toll would encourage shunpiking to I-205, though. No one wants that, so a congestion charge that applies to both bridges would be the best option.

Of course, that means there's no option except a huge diversion for those who don't have a local transponder or a willingness to do bill by mail and accept all associated unreliability and additional fees.

This would be more of a concern if there weren't already a huge diversion. Lots of diversion already. The congestion pricing is happening at the same time as a road widening, so this will probably end up being a wash as far as people paying on the freeway vs. using the local streets.

Tell that to the traveler forced into a mandatory shunpike.  And if the bridges themselves are tolled, that could be quite a long diversion indeed.

[Plutonic Panda]

Oregon and Washington are not poor states. Hopefully people stand up against this insanity. I know lots of people have spoken out against the 205 tolling scheme. Congestion pricing and tolling are the exact same thing. You have to pay to use the road.

[kernals12]

Why is Portland so insistent on pushing an expensive light rail line that Vancouver has consistently said it doesn't want? Is it a Trimet vanity project or do they genuinely think it will reduce the number of cars crossing the river?

[Plutonic Panda]

Why is Portland so insistent on pushing an expensive light rail line that Vancouver has consistently said it doesn't want? Is it a Trimet vanity project or do they genuinely think it will reduce the number of cars crossing the river?

I mean Trimet is a planning agency and rail needs to be a part of any major functional transit network. I support rail or BRT lanes on this bridge. The better question is why is Vancouver so against it and I’d suspect they want as less to do with Portland as possible though I’m talking out of my ass there so perhaps it’s something else.

[Bruce]

Why is Portland so insistent on pushing an expensive light rail line that Vancouver has consistently said it doesn't want? Is it a Trimet vanity project or do they genuinely think it will reduce the number of cars crossing the river?

Vancouver isn't against it. In fact, their city council endorsed the 2011 version as well as the modern incarnation, alongside C-TRAN and SWRTC. The only holdup is the Clark County Council, which is gerrymandered in favor of the outlying suburbs that wouldn't be served by light rail service anyway.

Having light rail is a huge no-brainer, especially if it's part of the federal requirements for the project. Building a dedicated BRT guideway only to force a third transfer on people coming from areas other than Downtown Vancouver is pointless and would cost more than simply extending the MAX Yellow Line.

[kkt]

Portland believes, and they are probably correct, that light rail would reduce the number of cars crossing the bridge.  Who would drive in order to pay lots of money for parking if there was a reasonable alternative?

[Plutonic Panda]

Why is Portland so insistent on pushing an expensive light rail line that Vancouver has consistently said it doesn't want? Is it a Trimet vanity project or do they genuinely think it will reduce the number of cars crossing the river?

Vancouver isn't against it. In fact, their city council endorsed the 2011 version as well as the modern incarnation, alongside C-TRAN and SWRTC. The only holdup is the Clark County Council, which is gerrymandered in favor of the outlying suburbs that wouldn't be served by light rail service anyway.

Having light rail is a huge no-brainer, especially if it's part of the federal requirements for the project. Building a dedicated BRT guideway only to force a third transfer on people coming from areas other than Downtown Vancouver is pointless and would cost more than simply extending the MAX Yellow Line.

Thanks for the insight. Haven’t been up there yet but will soon. From what I know or remember there was pushback from Vancouver on some level? That’s been resolved? LRT absolutely seems like a no brainer.

[kernals12]

Portland believes, and they are probably correct, that light rail would reduce the number of cars crossing the bridge.  Who would drive in order to pay lots of money for parking if there was a reasonable alternative?

Most places in Portland have free parking. Most of the people crossing the bridge aren't going Downtown.

[Bickendan]

Pushback notably happened back in 1996 with original 'North-South' proposal.

[Bruce]

Portland believes, and they are probably correct, that light rail would reduce the number of cars crossing the bridge.  Who would drive in order to pay lots of money for parking if there was a reasonable alternative?

Most places in Portland have free parking. Most of the people crossing the bridge aren't going Downtown.

Wrong and wrong.

Portland's public garages range from $12/15 at the city-owned garages to $40+ for some garages in downtown. The only free garages shown on Parkopedia and ParkingKitty are those at MAX stations.

While I can't find exact numbers, we can make some assumptions based on published data from Metro: 50% of Clark County's workers (about 87,500 commuters) leave the county for work, and the bulk head to Multnomah County. Seeing as 3/4 of all jobs in the Portland metro area (p. 25) are in Downtown Portland or the 3-mile radius around it (all within the light rail and streetcar catchment area), one can assume that most of those Multnomah-bound Clark commuters are indeed heading to Downtown Portland.

It's not all of the bridge traffic, but makes up a relatively large percentage of drivers during peak periods.

A bonus fun fact: 10 to 20 percent of pre-pandemic traffic over both Columbia River bridges were attributed to people living in Washington and shopping in Oregon to avoid sales tax. Simply tolling the crossings would cut this traffic significantly and even encourage retailers to open on the other side of the river, thus providing greater economic opportunity.

[pderocco]

Portland believes, and they are probably correct, that light rail would reduce the number of cars crossing the bridge.  Who would drive in order to pay lots of money for parking if there was a reasonable alternative?

Anyone going anywhere that's not near a train stop. Since it's Portland, it's probably raining.

[kkt]

Portland believes, and they are probably correct, that light rail would reduce the number of cars crossing the bridge.  Who would drive in order to pay lots of money for parking if there was a reasonable alternative?

Anyone going anywhere that's not near a train stop. Since it's Portland, it's probably raining.

Since it's Portland, they have parkas and hats and boots.

[mrsman]

Portland believes, and they are probably correct, that light rail would reduce the number of cars crossing the bridge.  Who would drive in order to pay lots of money for parking if there was a reasonable alternative?

Most places in Portland have free parking. Most of the people crossing the bridge aren't going Downtown.

Wrong and wrong.

Portland's public garages range from $12/15 at the city-owned garages to $40+ for some garages in downtown. The only free garages shown on Parkopedia and ParkingKitty are those at MAX stations.

While I can't find exact numbers, we can make some assumptions based on published data from Metro: 50% of Clark County's workers (about 87,500 commuters) leave the county for work, and the bulk head to Multnomah County. Seeing as 3/4 of all jobs in the Portland metro area (p. 25) are in Downtown Portland or the 3-mile radius around it (all within the light rail and streetcar catchment area), one can assume that most of those Multnomah-bound Clark commuters are indeed heading to Downtown Portland.

It's not all of the bridge traffic, but makes up a relatively large percentage of drivers during peak periods.

A bonus fun fact: 10 to 20 percent of pre-pandemic traffic over both Columbia River bridges were attributed to people living in Washington and shopping in Oregon to avoid sales tax. Simply tolling the crossings would cut this traffic significantly and even encourage retailers to open on the other side of the river, thus providing greater economic opportunity.

These are all good points.  A good percentage of commuters crossing the Columbia River are going to Central Portland (Downtown or other areas that are accessible to the light rail).  Some of those headed to Downtown will take the light rail, largely because of the gasoline and parking expense, but some of those headed to Downtown will still drive anyway.  Those who drive into Downtown are likely those who prefer the convenience of driving and don't mind the expense or those whose employers are covering their parking costs.  Nonetheless, there is still a significant number who would take transit if it were avaiable.

A water crossing (and in some cases mountain passes) provide a great transit market, generally.  Everyone from Clark County has to cross a bridge in order to go to Portland.  This means that there are very few paths of travel.  If everyone heading toward Downtown Portland has to take I-5 anyway, why not provide a large park and ride on the WA side of the river so that the drivers, coming from several different directions in WA, can avoid clogging up the bridge if they are headed to transit anyway. 

I think the river crossing would certainly be expesnive, but it is likely to serve a significant number of riders, who can take light rail to avoid bridge delays and high Downtown parking costs.

[Plutonic Panda]

It seems if they do build LRT on the new bridge it should be extended to Hazel Dell with a large park and ride facility there and downtown Vancouver.

[kkt]

The only spot in Portland that has free parking that I know of is Reed College.  Their neighborhood is nice but a long way from downtown.