https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/odot-strong-opposition-from-public-on-i-205-tolling/ (https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/odot-strong-opposition-from-public-on-i-205-tolling/)
Note this I-205 tolling debate in Oregon is in relation to an environmental impact study that is being discussed here.
lol the pic they show is captioned 'Traffic on I-205' and it's actually I-84/US30 at Lloyd
QuotePeople still don't like tolls.
I did not know there is any Toll Roads in Oregon.
I will gladly pay it.
Quote from: In_Correct on December 07, 2020, 05:22:04 AM
QuotePeople still don't like tolls.
I did not know there is any Toll Roads in Oregon.
I will gladly pay it.
None operated by the state. There are some private ferries and some bridges that are tolled.
If ODOT does decide to start tolling, it'd be interesting to see what they would call it. Washington has Good To Go and California has Fastrak. They all use their own transponder system, but all of the ETC agencies in the country may be standardized in the near future.
There is always "strong opposition" to tolling from places where historically tolling has not been utilized. If this tolling proposal goes through, all toll revenue raised should go directly to the roadway being tolled (via maintaining it, etc.). If the toll revenue is diverted to fund other uses, (light rail, densifying neighborhoods, etc.), it would defeat the purpose of tolling the roads, and thus justify the opposition to road tolling. Also, if tolling is implemented, perhaps they can stop charging gas taxes, since the revenue those taxes generate have been diverted to other uses for decades. Not to mention that revenue from gas taxes has been drying up due to more fuel-efficient cars, as well as more electric cars.
I'm not against tolls (eg. I'll gladly drive a road like the NJTP), but I'm very against adding tolls to previously free roads. The only exception I'm okay with (though still not ideal) is replacing large bridges and other similarly large scale projects, eg. the I-5 Columbia Bridge if they ever get around to that. The Abernethy bridge doesn't quite fit that to me, and in this case would just add traffic to surrounding surface streets, particularly OR-43, unless the toll was cheap, like around $1. West Linn, Oregon City, and Gladstone are too connected on a local level for this to make sense, even without factoring in the larger Portland regional traffic.
Also, tolling the highway that bypasses downtown Portland, instead of the one going through downtown, seems pretty backwards. Though I'm sure I-5 will get some form of toll at some point (and it will be more justified than I-205's most likely).
Oregon's ultimate goal is to toll everything around Portland, though I-205 is the most immediate and the only other plan that's moving forward is I-5. At the end of the day, the reasons are largely ideological.
I also agree about hating tolling existing free roads, and my distaste for it only grows outsize of E-ZPass territory as I don't trust bill by mail (and refuse to pay the associated fees). Unfortunately, I don't see nation-wide toll interoperability happening any time soon. We're more than four years from the original deadline for that passing, and not much progress has been made.
Quote from: vdeane on December 08, 2020, 09:45:06 PM
I don't trust bill by mail (and refuse to pay the associated fees)
It all depends on which state it's in. MA charges slightly more for bill by mail, but there are no administrative fees, and there are no known instances where someone doesn't get the original bill and then gets a late fee. While MA does use E-ZPass, there are probably a decent number of states with a good bill by mail system.
If they toll 205, they pretty much have to toll 5 also.
Tolling has two problems: A lot more of the money collect in tolls is overhead than in gas taxes. And tolling creates a record of where you (or your vehicle) was when. That will be abused.
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2020, 02:24:00 AM
If they toll 205, they pretty much have to toll 5 also.
Tolling has two problems: A lot more of the money collect in tolls is overhead than in gas taxes. And tolling creates a record of where you (or your vehicle) was when. That will be abused.
That has never been abused by any other toll agency. Dead issue.
Quote from: doorknob60 on December 08, 2020, 06:27:18 PM
I'm not against tolls (eg. I'll gladly drive a road like the NJTP), but I'm very against adding tolls to previously free roads. The only exception I'm okay with (though still not ideal) is replacing large bridges and other similarly large scale projects, eg. the I-5 Columbia Bridge if they ever get around to that. The Abernethy bridge doesn't quite fit that to me, and in this case would just add traffic to surrounding surface streets, particularly OR-43, unless the toll was cheap, like around $1. West Linn, Oregon City, and Gladstone are too connected on a local level for this to make sense, even without factoring in the larger Portland regional traffic.
To expand, few problems that would arise:
Nyberg/65th/Borland/Willamette Falls Dr (old OR 212's western half) nor Stafford Rd couldn't handle the traffic load from shunpikers between Tualatin/Wilsonville and West Linn/OC. The increase in surface traffic would overwhelm the labyrinthine West Linn arteries between Willamette Falls and OR 43.
The 7th St Bridge on OR 43 is too narrow to take any more traffic (and TriMet lines 35 and 154 have been permanently rerouted onto the Abernethy Bridge since the 7th St Bridge's rehab a few years back); the intersection of Willamette Falls Dr and Willamette Dr would cause backups along Willamette Falls Dr and A St. Downtown OC's grid would be overwhelmed.
Shunpiking along McGloughlin would overwhelm Arlington St in Gladstone (and that's bad enough during rush hour), and Oatfield/Webster and 82nd Dr are the two alternates until 82nd Ave proper begins.
Oatfield/Webster: Primarily residential.
82nd Dr: Bottleneck intersection at OR 212 proper.
So far. That you know about.
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2020, 11:19:44 PM
So far. That you know about.
So let's hypothesize: in what ways could toll record-keeping be abused?
Quote from: jakeroot on December 11, 2020, 01:25:33 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2020, 11:19:44 PM
So far. That you know about.
So let's hypothesize: in what ways could toll record-keeping be abused?
"if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear", right?
There may be aspects of people's lives they don't want to publish.
As of right now, third party access to EZpass data in NY is limited to legal subpoenas. A process which have never been abused, you know...
https://www.nyclu.org/sites/default/files/2013_EZPass_Requests_Redacted.pdf - an older list of requests.
Quote from: kalvado on December 11, 2020, 03:41:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 11, 2020, 01:25:33 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2020, 11:19:44 PM
So far. That you know about.
So let's hypothesize: in what ways could toll record-keeping be abused?
"if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear", right?
There may be aspects of people's lives they don't want to publish.
As of right now, third party access to EZpass data in NY is limited to legal subpoenas. A process which have never been abused, you know...
https://www.nyclu.org/sites/default/files/2013_EZPass_Requests_Redacted.pdf - an older list of requests.
The potential for legal subpoenas exists in pretty much every industry for pretty much anything. I don't see how the subpoenas for tolling data is necessarily unique or justification for not using electronic tolling. Nor is there any evidence, to my knowledge, that it has actually been abused in anyway elsewhere. At least not to an extent beyond any other legal subpoenas. I also think
Alps was trying to say that the tolling agency itself has never abused the data. Which is correct to my knowledge.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 11, 2020, 03:56:14 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 11, 2020, 03:41:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 11, 2020, 01:25:33 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2020, 11:19:44 PM
So far. That you know about.
So let's hypothesize: in what ways could toll record-keeping be abused?
"if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear", right?
There may be aspects of people's lives they don't want to publish.
As of right now, third party access to EZpass data in NY is limited to legal subpoenas. A process which have never been abused, you know...
https://www.nyclu.org/sites/default/files/2013_EZPass_Requests_Redacted.pdf - an older list of requests.
The potential for legal subpoenas exists in pretty much every industry for pretty much anything. I don't see how the subpoenas for tolling data is necessarily unique or justification for not using electronic tolling. Nor is there any evidence, to my knowledge, that it has actually been abused in anyway elsewhere. At least not to an extent beyond any other legal subpoenas. I also think Alps was trying to say that the tolling agency itself has never abused the data. Which is correct to my knowledge.
Good will of tolling agency aside, what prevents the data from being mistreated?
A mere existence of recorded license plates provides material to request, unlike no tolling - or even cash tolling leaving no records behind. In general, records can get stolen, legal framework protecting them may change etc. Of course, few things prevent government, or even private entities, to have license plate readers all over the place. Add some facial recognition on top of that as images are already collected... But those cameras would need to paid for in some way, unlike readily available tolling funds. And constitutional basis of blanket reader usage is shaky - unlike specific need for toll collection with a justified pretty long data retention.
Use of data? So far, NYSTA explicitly said that they will not use EZpass data for speed enforcement. Which is great; but I assume there is nothing preventing state legislators from reversal that policy as a cash cow for current budget problems.
There may be a few other things.
A quote from the random, pretty old, paper on a subject:
Quote" The state of Virginia knows the plate number of every vehicle that crossed a Potomac River bridge from Virginia into the District of Columbia on the day of the first Obama inauguration. It also has the plate of every vehicle that showed up at the site of a Sarah Palin rally in a D.C. suburb"
Do you see something that can get abused? I do...
People: I-205 is a bottleneck
ODOT: OK, we'll widen it but we'll have to pay for it with tolls
People: WHY
ODOT: We have a significant funding problem as MPG goes up (and in some cases, becomes moot)... let's charge by use instead of by gallon
People: OMG THEN THE GOVERNMENT COULD TRACK ME
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on December 15, 2020, 01:25:02 PM
People: I-205 is a bottleneck
ODOT: OK, we'll widen it but we'll have to pay for it with tolls
People: WHY
ODOT: We have a significant funding problem as MPG goes up (and in some cases, becomes moot)... let's charge by use instead of by gallon
People: OMG THEN THE GOVERNMENT COULD TRACK ME
How about that:
People: I-205 is a bottleneck
ODOT: OK, we'll widen it but we'll have to pay for it with tolls
People: WHY
ODOT: We have a significant funding problem as MPG goes up (and in some cases, becomes moot)... let's charge by use instead of by gallon
People: (reluctantly OK)
ODOT: (establishes tolls)
People: I-205 is still a bottleneck
ODOT: OK, we'll widen it when we have money... sometime in distant future
Quote from: kalvado on December 11, 2020, 04:51:40 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 11, 2020, 03:56:14 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 11, 2020, 03:41:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 11, 2020, 01:25:33 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2020, 11:19:44 PM
So far. That you know about.
So let's hypothesize: in what ways could toll record-keeping be abused?
"if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear", right?
There may be aspects of people's lives they don't want to publish.
As of right now, third party access to EZpass data in NY is limited to legal subpoenas. A process which have never been abused, you know...
https://www.nyclu.org/sites/default/files/2013_EZPass_Requests_Redacted.pdf - an older list of requests.
The potential for legal subpoenas exists in pretty much every industry for pretty much anything. I don't see how the subpoenas for tolling data is necessarily unique or justification for not using electronic tolling. Nor is there any evidence, to my knowledge, that it has actually been abused in anyway elsewhere. At least not to an extent beyond any other legal subpoenas. I also think Alps was trying to say that the tolling agency itself has never abused the data. Which is correct to my knowledge.
Good will of tolling agency aside, what prevents the data from being mistreated?
A mere existence of recorded license plates provides material to request, unlike no tolling - or even cash tolling leaving no records behind. In general, records can get stolen, legal framework protecting them may change etc. Of course, few things prevent government, or even private entities, to have license plate readers all over the place. Add some facial recognition on top of that as images are already collected... But those cameras would need to paid for in some way, unlike readily available tolling funds. And constitutional basis of blanket reader usage is shaky - unlike specific need for toll collection with a justified pretty long data retention.
Clearly yes, you could consider toll systems to be an agency's "foot in the door" when it comes to automatic plate recognition, and it could reasonably be used for alternative ways of enforcement for things like vehicle registration.
However, a few things:
(1) I think plate recognition systems are going to become normal no matter what; whether it becomes a standard part of the police cruiser or a toll gantry is semantics when both treat each driver the same: there is no "just cause" in scanning the plate but, by using the road, you are submitting to a certain set of conditions, up to and including allowing your license plate to be read automatically by cameras. The legal framework that either permits or prohibits this setup is not set in stone, so I would advise against ignoring this point.
(2) "cash" tolling is increasingly a misnomer: many people use credit/debit cards or even tap to pay for agencies that support it -- those definitely leave a record, at least in terms of where your card has been. This could be even less ideal than plate reading technology, as those generally aren't used to capture faces and thus it is simply a record of where your
car has been. I'm not familiar with any road-based camera system in the US that uses face-capture technology, so fearing that seems baseless when it is not a necessary component of the technology.
(3) the only sure-fire way of avoiding the above situation is to simply not have tolls, but that is not always a reasonable option for some agencies, especially as federal funding for roads becomes increasingly competitive and states are left to fend for themselves.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 15, 2020, 04:23:43 PM
However, a few things:
(1) I think plate recognition systems are going to become normal no matter what; whether it becomes a standard part of the police cruiser or a toll gantry is semantics when both treat each driver the same: there is no "just cause" in scanning the plate but, by using the road, you are submitting to a certain set of conditions, up to and including allowing your license plate to be read automatically by cameras. The legal framework that either permits or prohibits this setup is not set in stone, so I would advise against ignoring this point.
(2) "cash" tolling is increasingly a misnomer: many people use credit/debit cards or even tap to pay for agencies that support it -- those definitely leave a record, at least in terms of where your card has been. This could be even less ideal than plate reading technology, as those generally aren't used to capture faces and thus it is simply a record of where your car has been. I'm not familiar with any road-based camera system in the US that uses face-capture technology, so fearing that seems baseless when it is not a necessary component of the technology.
(3) the only sure-fire way of avoiding the above situation is to simply not have tolls, but that is not always a reasonable option for some agencies, especially as federal funding for roads becomes increasingly competitive and states are left to fend for themselves.
I am specifically responding to @Alps statement
Quote from: Alps on December 10, 2020, 09:26:31 PM
That has never been abused by any other toll agency. Dead issue.
There are ways for such abuse, though, even if that never happened. The issue is not the highest priority - but I don't see it as a dead one. Legal framework is still being developed, as you pointed out - so if you believe glass is half-empty - that means things are open for abuse.
Overall, this is a much broader discussion of privacy protection of things being in open view; and massive data collection vs just having things visible. A discussion which will continue for decades to come, IMHO, and going way beyond the scope of a road forum.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 15, 2020, 04:23:43 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 11, 2020, 04:51:40 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 11, 2020, 03:56:14 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 11, 2020, 03:41:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 11, 2020, 01:25:33 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2020, 11:19:44 PM
So far. That you know about.
So let's hypothesize: in what ways could toll record-keeping be abused?
"if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear", right?
There may be aspects of people's lives they don't want to publish.
As of right now, third party access to EZpass data in NY is limited to legal subpoenas. A process which have never been abused, you know...
https://www.nyclu.org/sites/default/files/2013_EZPass_Requests_Redacted.pdf - an older list of requests.
The potential for legal subpoenas exists in pretty much every industry for pretty much anything. I don't see how the subpoenas for tolling data is necessarily unique or justification for not using electronic tolling. Nor is there any evidence, to my knowledge, that it has actually been abused in anyway elsewhere. At least not to an extent beyond any other legal subpoenas. I also think Alps was trying to say that the tolling agency itself has never abused the data. Which is correct to my knowledge.
Good will of tolling agency aside, what prevents the data from being mistreated?
A mere existence of recorded license plates provides material to request, unlike no tolling - or even cash tolling leaving no records behind. In general, records can get stolen, legal framework protecting them may change etc. Of course, few things prevent government, or even private entities, to have license plate readers all over the place. Add some facial recognition on top of that as images are already collected... But those cameras would need to paid for in some way, unlike readily available tolling funds. And constitutional basis of blanket reader usage is shaky - unlike specific need for toll collection with a justified pretty long data retention.
Clearly yes, you could consider toll systems to be an agency's "foot in the door" when it comes to automatic plate recognition, and it could reasonably be used for alternative ways of enforcement for things like vehicle registration.
However, a few things:
(1) I think plate recognition systems are going to become normal no matter what; whether it becomes a standard part of the police cruiser or a toll gantry is semantics when both treat each driver the same: there is no "just cause" in scanning the plate but, by using the road, you are submitting to a certain set of conditions, up to and including allowing your license plate to be read automatically by cameras. The legal framework that either permits or prohibits this setup is not set in stone, so I would advise against ignoring this point.
(2) "cash" tolling is increasingly a misnomer: many people use credit/debit cards or even tap to pay for agencies that support it -- those definitely leave a record, at least in terms of where your card has been. This could be even less ideal than plate reading technology, as those generally aren't used to capture faces and thus it is simply a record of where your car has been. I'm not familiar with any road-based camera system in the US that uses face-capture technology, so fearing that seems baseless when it is not a necessary component of the technology.
(3) the only sure-fire way of avoiding the above situation is to simply not have tolls, but that is not always a reasonable option for some agencies, especially as federal funding for roads becomes increasingly competitive and states are left to fend for themselves.
I believe the NY toll gantries include facial recognition, and the Wyoming speed camera proposal includes it as well.
Quote from: vdeane on December 15, 2020, 09:46:01 PM
I believe the NY toll gantries include facial recognition, and the Wyoming speed camera proposal includes it as well.
I did some Googling. Didn't see anything on Wyoming, but I did find articles about the NY facial recognition system. I had no idea that system had made its way to the US. Still, I'd like to think its use would be reserved for specific areas. I don't believe toll gantries on Oregon's I-205 would include it, for example. Perhaps a congestion zone in the center of Portland might enjoy the benefits of facial recognition in comparison.
Do toll gantries in rural areas of NY also use facial recognition? Or just the city?
Quote from: jakeroot on December 15, 2020, 11:28:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 15, 2020, 09:46:01 PM
I believe the NY toll gantries include facial recognition, and the Wyoming speed camera proposal includes it as well.
I did some Googling. Didn't see anything on Wyoming, but I did find articles about the NY facial recognition system. I had no idea that system had made its way to the US. Still, I'd like to think its use would be reserved for specific areas. I don't believe toll gantries on Oregon's I-205 would include it, for example. Perhaps a congestion zone in the center of Portland might enjoy the benefits of facial recognition in comparison.
Do toll gantries in rural areas of NY also use facial recognition? Or just the city?
Recognition is a software feature, function of image quality. Camera good enough to read the plate should be good enough to read the face, rest is again a subject of good (bad) will.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 15, 2020, 11:28:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 15, 2020, 09:46:01 PM
I believe the NY toll gantries include facial recognition, and the Wyoming speed camera proposal includes it as well.
I did some Googling. Didn't see anything on Wyoming, but I did find articles about the NY facial recognition system. I had no idea that system had made its way to the US. Still, I'd like to think its use would be reserved for specific areas. I don't believe toll gantries on Oregon's I-205 would include it, for example. Perhaps a congestion zone in the center of Portland might enjoy the benefits of facial recognition in comparison.
Do toll gantries in rural areas of NY also use facial recognition? Or just the city?
The Wyoming one was from the article just posted to the thread for that state on this board. While the exact phrase "facial recognition" was not used, the article notes that tickets will be sent to the driver, or, if the driver can't be identified, to the registered owner of the vehicle. I can't imagine that not using some form of facial recognition to accomplish.
Quote from: kalvado on December 16, 2020, 07:58:00 AM
Recognition is a software feature, function of image quality. Camera good enough to read the plate should be good enough to read the face, rest is again a subject of good (bad) will.
Right, but camera angles designed to read rear license plates, the standard in the US given the sheer number of states that do not require front license plates, naturally cannot see someone's face. Cameras would have to be placed specifically to look at oncoming traffic rather than simply looking at the rear of a vehicle. Placing those cameras requires a bit more than just ignoring good will.
Quote from: vdeane on December 16, 2020, 12:58:29 PM
The Wyoming one was from the article just posted to the thread for that state on this board. While the exact phrase "facial recognition" was not used, the article notes that tickets will be sent to the driver, or, if the driver can't be identified, to the registered owner of the vehicle. I can't imagine that not using some form of facial recognition to accomplish.
Thanks, I will go take a look. It sounds more like a scare tactic, since Wyoming does not strike me as a state that would be likely to use any sort of facial recognition software to ticket anyone.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 16, 2020, 01:03:12 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 16, 2020, 07:58:00 AM
Recognition is a software feature, function of image quality. Camera good enough to read the plate should be good enough to read the face, rest is again a subject of good (bad) will.
Right, but camera angles designed to read rear license plates, the standard in the US given the sheer number of states that do not require front license plates, naturally cannot see someone's face. Cameras would have to be placed specifically to look at oncoming traffic rather than simply looking at the rear of a vehicle. Placing those cameras requires a bit more than just ignoring good will.
I wonder if this is more of east coast vs west coast thing.. I definitely see a lot of cameras looking into the windshield. I don't see it on Google, but my impression was NYSTA specifically has one looking into driver's face:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6987241,-73.8438627,3a,75y,153.67h,101.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfgFM6j7T03Ihb31HO89wFA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Another example: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2974512,-73.2444127,3a,75y,171.3h,124.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sf-LyeWeTy2DnkFfaB_B4Yg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I certainly see something aiming at the windshield here as well, looks like 2 different cameras.
Quote from: kalvado on December 16, 2020, 02:11:06 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 16, 2020, 01:03:12 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 16, 2020, 07:58:00 AM
Recognition is a software feature, function of image quality. Camera good enough to read the plate should be good enough to read the face, rest is again a subject of good (bad) will.
Right, but camera angles designed to read rear license plates, the standard in the US given the sheer number of states that do not require front license plates, naturally cannot see someone's face. Cameras would have to be placed specifically to look at oncoming traffic rather than simply looking at the rear of a vehicle. Placing those cameras requires a bit more than just ignoring good will.
I wonder if this is more of east coast vs west coast thing.. I definitely see a lot of cameras looking into the windshield. I don't see it on Google, but my impression was NYSTA specifically has one looking into driver's face:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6987241,-73.8438627,3a,75y,153.67h,101.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfgFM6j7T03Ihb31HO89wFA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Another example: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2974512,-73.2444127,3a,75y,171.3h,124.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sf-LyeWeTy2DnkFfaB_B4Yg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I certainly see something aiming at the windshield here as well, looks like 2 different cameras.
So I had to go and do some more research. Turns out, cameras looking at the front of cars is actually quite common at overhead toll gates, but they are apparently there for two reason: (1) to detect toll tags, and (2) to record the interaction. But they don't seem to be angled to view faces.
There is only one toll booth in WA (WA-16, eastbound Tacoma Narrows Bridge) and the only cameras
point at the rear of the vehicle (https://goo.gl/maps/MxBmkujGBEgfKbC39). Cameras like those at NY toll gates (which I would guess are on the way out) are not something I've seen before.
To use facial recognition, I think you need the cameras to be lower than what you'd normally see at toll gates.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 16, 2020, 04:05:28 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 16, 2020, 02:11:06 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 16, 2020, 01:03:12 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 16, 2020, 07:58:00 AM
Recognition is a software feature, function of image quality. Camera good enough to read the plate should be good enough to read the face, rest is again a subject of good (bad) will.
Right, but camera angles designed to read rear license plates, the standard in the US given the sheer number of states that do not require front license plates, naturally cannot see someone's face. Cameras would have to be placed specifically to look at oncoming traffic rather than simply looking at the rear of a vehicle. Placing those cameras requires a bit more than just ignoring good will.
I wonder if this is more of east coast vs west coast thing.. I definitely see a lot of cameras looking into the windshield. I don't see it on Google, but my impression was NYSTA specifically has one looking into driver's face:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6987241,-73.8438627,3a,75y,153.67h,101.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfgFM6j7T03Ihb31HO89wFA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Another example: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2974512,-73.2444127,3a,75y,171.3h,124.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sf-LyeWeTy2DnkFfaB_B4Yg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I certainly see something aiming at the windshield here as well, looks like 2 different cameras.
So I had to go and do some more research. Turns out, cameras looking at the front of cars is actually quite common at overhead toll gates, but they are apparently there for two reason: (1) to detect toll tags, and (2) to record the interaction. But they don't seem to be angled to view faces.
There is only one toll booth in WA (WA-16, eastbound Tacoma Narrows Bridge) and the only cameras point at the rear of the vehicle (https://goo.gl/maps/MxBmkujGBEgfKbC39). Cameras like those at NY toll gates (which I would guess are on the way out) are not something I've seen before.
To use facial recognition, I think you need the cameras to be lower than what you'd normally see at toll gates.
Well, with overhead gantry it will look at the face at a weird angle, but the face will come into field of view at some point. Not sure how much software can do about it these days. I don't know why the camera has to look for the tag; at least in case of EZpass those big flat antennas are doing the job.
And I visually remember some face looking cameras on Thruway booths, don't want to scan entire state on google.
My specific impression about Masspike is that there are much more than just plate readers - at least 6 devices per lane. EZpass antenna, 2 cameras, 2 lidars as they say, and something else.
God I hope they don't toll any roads in Portland. What a dumb decision if they go through with it. Widen the fucking highways and add two express lanes each way with a GP lane or two in each direction. Simply tolling it to price out cars is lazy, discriminatory, and bad government.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 17, 2020, 03:06:34 PM
God I hope they don't toll any roads in Portland. What a dumb decision if they go through with it. Widen the fucking highways and add two express lanes each way with a GP lane or two in each direction. Simply tolling it to price out cars is lazy, discriminatory, and bad government.
There's actually studies that have shown toll roads are better for low income individuals. Particularly because they tend to improve bus reliability, and reduce the need to increase general-use taxes (particularly sales) which places a greater burden on lower income individuals more often than others. Additionally, homes near freeways are often lower value; demolishing them to widen a freeway often means displacement of lower income individuals, who may not necessary have somewhere else to go. Especially if they are renting something affordable.
In the case of the 205, there's also the MAX tracks to deal with, which in some spots directly abut the freeway. Widening through here would either mean relocating the MAX tracks, or curving the freeway to account for additional lanes.
I'm not here to say that widening with proper GP+ETL isn't better overall, but that's not always physically possible with whatever funds might have already been set aside, much less politically viable.
Quote from: kalvado on December 16, 2020, 04:30:25 PM
My specific impression about Masspike is that there are much more than just plate readers - at least 6 devices per lane. EZpass antenna, 2 cameras, 2 lidars as they say, and something else.
MassPike gantries include E-ZPass antennas, rear cameras and lights, front cameras and lights, and an additional camera and sensor system used to detect and classify vehicles.
I almost died reading the back half of this post. Some people really do think the government is benevolent with the info collected by tracking its residents. That's pretty terrifying.
Quote from: SectorZ on December 18, 2020, 12:38:23 PM
I almost died reading the back half of this post. Some people really do think the government is benevolent with the info collected by tracking its residents. That's pretty terrifying.
All this info is being collected anyway, dude. At least the government has a modicum of transparency. You think Google is benevolent with its information?
I don't get why people are cool with Google having all this but not cool with the government, which *allows* you to use motor vehicles on a highway (it's not a right!), tracking you to figure out how much to charge you for road usage.
I don't like private companies tracking people and having all that data either, but at least they can't arrest you, and their data is a step removed from the people who can (IMO not anywhere close to a big enough step, but that's beyond the purview of this forum).
I'm also not a fan of the "driving is a privilege" view overall, but I recognize it's necessity to some extent, as otherwise we wouldn't have licences and would have no recourse against bad drivers. That said, IMO if you're a good driver and your car is in good condition and you're not doing anything that would likely harm others (like driving drunk), then it should be treated as a right.
Quote from: vdeane on December 18, 2020, 01:29:53 PM
I don't like private companies tracking people and having all that data either, but at least they can't arrest you, and their data is a step removed from the people who can (IMO not anywhere close to a big enough step, but that's beyond the purview of this forum).
I'm also not a fan of the "driving is a privilege" view overall, but I recognize it's necessity to some extent, as otherwise we wouldn't have licences and would have no recourse against bad drivers. That said, IMO if you're a good driver and your car is in good condition and you're not doing anything that would likely harm others (like driving drunk), then it should be treated as a right.
As a side comment - there is a concept of "qualified right", although not in US legal vocabulary. That wording is used in European Convention of Human Rights, and means just what you describe, something above the privilege: a right which is not absolute, but which needs to be balanced against higher-order rights- e.g. the needs of public safety.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 17, 2020, 07:12:39 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 17, 2020, 03:06:34 PM
God I hope they don't toll any roads in Portland. What a dumb decision if they go through with it. Widen the fucking highways and add two express lanes each way with a GP lane or two in each direction. Simply tolling it to price out cars is lazy, discriminatory, and bad government.
There's actually studies that have shown toll roads are better for low income individuals. Particularly because they tend to improve bus reliability, and reduce the need to increase general-use taxes (particularly sales) which places a greater burden on lower income individuals more often than others. Additionally, homes near freeways are often lower value; demolishing them to widen a freeway often means displacement of lower income individuals, who may not necessary have somewhere else to go. Especially if they are renting something affordable.
In the case of the 205, there's also the MAX tracks to deal with, which in some spots directly abut the freeway. Widening through here would either mean relocating the MAX tracks, or curving the freeway to account for additional lanes.
I'm not here to say that widening with proper GP+ETL isn't better overall, but that's not always physically possible with whatever funds might have already been set aside, much less politically viable.
You make several good points here. Didn't want to let this post go. I definitely agree with your last paragraph.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on December 18, 2020, 01:05:52 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 18, 2020, 12:38:23 PM
I almost died reading the back half of this post. Some people really do think the government is benevolent with the info collected by tracking its residents. That's pretty terrifying.
All this info is being collected anyway, dude. At least the government has a modicum of transparency. You think Google is benevolent with its information?
I don't get why people are cool with Google having all this but not cool with the government, which *allows* you to use motor vehicles on a highway (it's not a right!), tracking you to figure out how much to charge you for road usage.
(Hoping to bank on your promise that there is a 40% chance this isn't trolling)
Where did I say I was happy with Google or anyone tracking? I bring Google to court over transparency issues, I have a chance. I've seen Google have their ass handed to them by courts all over the Western world for a decade for lying about many things they do or promise to do. What happens if I bring the government to court, given Congress hasn't exempted many reaches of government from any liability for their actions.
Where is it not a right to drive on a highway? It is indeed a right if you can pass a driving test and play by the rules once doing so - a right to the privilege at a minimum. A government cannot prevent you from driving on a highway if you follow the laws outlining they wrote about accessing said highway.
I can't wrap my head around people thinking the government is transparent. Maybe living in Massachusetts (and actually paying attention, something few in my allegedly intellectual state do) has battle hardened me a tad. Don't take it personally.
I think people who are worried about privacy are clinging to the idea that their lives are more significant that they are. For most of us, our data is pretty boring. We get up, we go to work, we go to sleep. People afraid of government knowing...that? There's nothing that interesting about us.
Quote from: Rothman on December 18, 2020, 08:59:38 PM
I think people who are worried about privacy are clinging to the idea that their lives are more significant that they are. For most of us, our data is pretty boring. We get up, we go to work, we go to sleep. People afraid of government knowing...that? There's nothing that interesting about us.
Our data, out of context, can lead to interest. Imagine a government applying AI to look for suspicious travel patterns to locate potential criminals and terrorists. Something gets flagged? Better arrest them and bring them in for questioning! SWAT team shows up at your door, and you get dragged off in a bathrobe with the whole world seeing when the footage makes the nightly news in a few weeks...
I think people who think "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" either vastly underestimate what can be constructed from data points or lead very boring lives. Or they just have no sense of privacy and boundaries. There have been known cases of people at the intelligence agencies stalking people they know with the data the government gathers.
Or just think about the cyber security scenarios. Some criminal hacks into the database and installs a backdoor. Now they just need to look for when people are away from home to break in and steal their stuff...
Pfft. What do we have that's worth going to all that trouble to steal?
Our lives are pretty...mundane. Thinking the Government will have an interest in them is just a desperate stretch for significance.
There's a lot to be said for contentment in insignificance.
Quote from: vdeane on December 19, 2020, 09:23:40 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 18, 2020, 08:59:38 PM
I think people who are worried about privacy are clinging to the idea that their lives are more significant that they are. For most of us, our data is pretty boring. We get up, we go to work, we go to sleep. People afraid of government knowing...that? There's nothing that interesting about us.
Our data, out of context, can lead to interest. Imagine a government applying AI to look for suspicious travel patterns to locate potential criminals and terrorists. Something gets flagged? Better arrest them and bring them in for questioning! SWAT team shows up at your door, and you get dragged off in a bathrobe with the whole world seeing when the footage makes the nightly news in a few weeks...
I think people who think "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" either vastly underestimate what can be constructed from data points or lead very boring lives. Or they just have no sense of privacy and boundaries. There have been known cases of people at the intelligence agencies stalking people they know with the data the government gathers.
Or just think about the cyber security scenarios. Some criminal hacks into the database and installs a backdoor. Now they just need to look for when people are away from home to break in and steal their stuff...
I would be more concerned about the emergence of some sort of classification. Right now Chinese social rating is pretty much unthinkable in US, so we have 20-30 years until it becomes a reality. If you think it will never happen - well, it is already somewhat here
If nothing else, it will show up in private background checks - and I, for one, was subject to such check last year. I wasn't too comfortable reading the report (which was sent to HR for review) - despite it being crispy clean, one speeding ticket being the only speckle... Whatever it worth.
Quote from: kalvado on December 19, 2020, 10:17:24 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 19, 2020, 09:23:40 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 18, 2020, 08:59:38 PM
I think people who are worried about privacy are clinging to the idea that their lives are more significant that they are. For most of us, our data is pretty boring. We get up, we go to work, we go to sleep. People afraid of government knowing...that? There's nothing that interesting about us.
Our data, out of context, can lead to interest. Imagine a government applying AI to look for suspicious travel patterns to locate potential criminals and terrorists. Something gets flagged? Better arrest them and bring them in for questioning! SWAT team shows up at your door, and you get dragged off in a bathrobe with the whole world seeing when the footage makes the nightly news in a few weeks...
I think people who think "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" either vastly underestimate what can be constructed from data points or lead very boring lives. Or they just have no sense of privacy and boundaries. There have been known cases of people at the intelligence agencies stalking people they know with the data the government gathers.
Or just think about the cyber security scenarios. Some criminal hacks into the database and installs a backdoor. Now they just need to look for when people are away from home to break in and steal their stuff...
I would be more concerned about the emergence of some sort of classification. Right now Chinese social rating is pretty much unthinkable in US, so we have 20-30 years until it becomes a reality. If you think it will never happen - well, it is already somewhat here
If nothing else, it will show up in private background checks - and I, for one, was subject to such check last year. I wasn't too comfortable reading the report (which was sent to HR for review) - despite it being crispy clean, one speeding ticket being the only speckle... Whatever it worth.
If more people are disqualified because of a lack of higher social ratings I can see this leading to a large increase in crime and it would be justifiable.
Quote from: Rothman on December 19, 2020, 09:40:46 PM
Pfft. What do we have that's worth going to all that trouble to steal?
Our lives are pretty...mundane. Thinking the Government will have an interest in them is just a desperate stretch for significance.
There's a lot to be said for contentment in insignificance.
You're still imagining a world where humans will have to analyze everything. But that's not the way the world is evolving. And with computers analyzing things, they can analyze everyone, "mundane" or not. And the computers won't know what roadgeeking is. They'll just see travel patterns that deviate from the norm, as determined by their algorithms forged by machine learning (which will definitely NOT include roadgeek itineraries!).
And you'd be amazed what cyber criminals will do sometimes. People have hacked into high-profile accounts for twitter handles. Yes, really. And if private companies that house customer data and credit card info can't be bothered to secure their systems, do you really think the government will? The Thruway Authority hasn't even bothered to make SSL the default on their website, and that takes only a minute or two with a .htaccess file. All traffic to the Thruway site goes over insecure HTTP in plain text for anybody sniffing internet traffic anywhere in the chain to see unless the user manually changes the URL (which, if someone is using Chrome, may require enabling a flag and restarting the browser, because Google assumes everyone is thinking about security and has deemed the "https://www." part of the URL to be unimportant). The NY E-ZPass site stores passwords in plain text instead of hashing them, and even has a maximum character limit that is fairly low, no doubt using very outdated guidelines that emphasized complexity over length (guidelines that were written, by the way, before automated attacks were a thing). And they expect people to store credit card and bank account (!) information in their accounts. Insane.
https://medium.com/@N/how-i-lost-my-50-000-twitter-username-24eb09e026dd
https://www.wired.com/2012/08/apple-amazon-mat-honan-hacking/
OK, but to all of the people listing these dystopian scenarios: All of these are already happening. Private industry has your location data. Private companies can put license plate readers on the side of the road and track where you're driving. And police can get a warrant to get any of that data if they want.
So using it to pay for highway infrastructure — on a highway the state is not obligated to provide to us — seems fairly innocuous. Especially when the alternative is the status quo.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on December 20, 2020, 10:31:23 PM
OK, but to all of the people listing these dystopian scenarios: All of these are already happening. Private industry has your location data. Private companies can put license plate readers on the side of the road and track where you're driving. And police can get a warrant to get any of that data if they want.
So using it to pay for highway infrastructure — on a highway the state is not obligated to provide to us — seems fairly innocuous. Especially when the alternative is the status quo.
This is not about elections, where you have a choice between 70+ year old fart and an old fart who is 70+ years old.
Things are much more gradual, and they can change to better or worse.
Addressing public concerns is definitely a good idea for any government agency, and concerns are expressed. Many of us will never drive I-205, but discussion is pretty universal, regardless of specific road.
From my perspective, a clear and legally enforceable policy on data handling and usage, preferably mandated by federal law, would be a good starting point. I have a few other questions to the way tolls, especially toll by plate, is handled as well.
Things being done certain way in the past doesn't mean changes are impossible.
It probably would gain a lot more support if the toll revenues were required to be spent on the roadway, but instead this is a ploy by Metro to rob Peter (highway users) to pay for Paul (light rail and other non-highway uses). That's why there is so much opposition.
At least the proponents have wised up - in previous incarnations of the "we won't dare have a tollbooth" toll plan for the I-5/Interstate Bridge/Columbia River Crossing project the idea was to force non-transponder users to actually exit the freeway and purchase a one-time use toll at local businesses like convenience stores. Yeah, let's clog up Hayden Island and Delta Park more than it already is...
Quote from: sp_redelectric on December 20, 2020, 10:55:51 PM
It probably would gain a lot more support if the toll revenues were required to be spent on the roadway, but instead this is a ploy by Metro to rob Peter (highway users) to pay for Paul (light rail and other non-highway uses). That's why there is so much opposition.
Which is interesting, given that A) the plan is from the Legislature, and B) the Oregon Constitution limits how toll revenue could be spent. I'm curious if the "transit improvements in or along the roadway" is just for capital improvements or if it can be used for, say, operation of a bus from the Oregon City Transit Center to the Tualatin Transit Center. But I'm pretty sure anyone who tried to build light rail with toll money would get sued and lose.
https://www.oregon.gov/odot/tolling/Documents/2020_0430_ODOT_I-5_I-205_TollProjects_FAQs.pdf
"The Keep Oregon Moving legislation (House Bill 2017) established a Congestion Relief Fund which would receive any net proceeds from tolling. The Oregon Constitution (Article IX, Section 3a) specifies that revenues collected from the use or operation of motor vehicles is spent on roadway projects, which could include construction or reconstruction of travel lanes, as well as bicycle and pedestrian facilities or transit improvements in or along the roadway."
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on December 20, 2020, 10:31:23 PM
OK, but to all of the people listing these dystopian scenarios: All of these are already happening. Private industry has your location data. Private companies can put license plate readers on the side of the road and track where you're driving. And police can get a warrant to get any of that data if they want.
And that makes it OK? I don't agree - we need to roll this back and get more protections for people's privacy.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on December 20, 2020, 10:31:23 PM
OK, but to all of the people listing these dystopian scenarios: All of these are already happening. Private industry has your location data. Private companies can put license plate readers on the side of the road and track where you're driving. And police can get a warrant to get any of that data if they want.
So using it to pay for highway infrastructure — on a highway the state is not obligated to provide to us — seems fairly innocuous. Especially when the alternative is the status quo.
I can also sue the living shit out of them over that. I may not win, but I can.
The government has near complete immunity, short of fear of tarring and feathering, from the same actions.
Quote from: SectorZ on December 21, 2020, 06:28:28 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on December 20, 2020, 10:31:23 PM
OK, but to all of the people listing these dystopian scenarios: All of these are already happening. Private industry has your location data. Private companies can put license plate readers on the side of the road and track where you're driving. And police can get a warrant to get any of that data if they want.
So using it to pay for highway infrastructure — on a highway the state is not obligated to provide to us — seems fairly innocuous. Especially when the alternative is the status quo.
I can also sue the living shit out of them over that. I may not win, but I can.
The government has near complete immunity, short of fear of tarring and feathering, from the same actions.
Sovereign immunity differs state to state.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on December 21, 2020, 01:54:42 PM
https://www.oregon.gov/odot/tolling/Documents/2020_0430_ODOT_I-5_I-205_TollProjects_FAQs.pdf
"The Keep Oregon Moving legislation (House Bill 2017) established a Congestion Relief Fund which would receive any net proceeds from tolling. The Oregon Constitution (Article IX, Section 3a) specifies that revenues collected from the use or operation of motor vehicles is spent on roadway projects, which could include construction or reconstruction of travel lanes, as well as bicycle and pedestrian facilities or transit improvements in or along the roadway."
Relevant part highlighted. Given ODOT's track record I find it very hard to believe they would spend toll revenue on projects to benefit auto traffic.
Quote from: US 89 on December 21, 2020, 07:42:07 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on December 21, 2020, 01:54:42 PM
https://www.oregon.gov/odot/tolling/Documents/2020_0430_ODOT_I-5_I-205_TollProjects_FAQs.pdf
"The Keep Oregon Moving legislation (House Bill 2017) established a Congestion Relief Fund which would receive any net proceeds from tolling. The Oregon Constitution (Article IX, Section 3a) specifies that revenues collected from the use or operation of motor vehicles is spent on roadway projects, which could include construction or reconstruction of travel lanes, as well as bicycle and pedestrian facilities or transit improvements in or along the roadway."
Relevant part highlighted. Given ODOT's track record I find it very hard to believe they would spend toll revenue on projects to benefit auto traffic.
Hard disagree, if only because they're going to bond out the construction costs of the 205 widening from Stafford to Oregon City and the Abernethy Bridge improvements. Assuming that they've bonded against toll revenue, they'll be legally obligated to use that toll revenue for the bond payments first.
After they've paid down legal obligations, then the fuzzy math can begin.
Personally I'd be much more worried about the tracking devices that literally everyone carries around with them in their pockets much more than tolling gantries that might be collecting a few sparse data points that could infer a travel pattern.
Quote from: stevashe on December 22, 2020, 05:23:42 PM
Personally I'd be much more worried about the tracking devices that literally everyone carries around with them in their pockets much more than tolling gantries that might be collecting a few sparse data points that could infer a travel pattern.
Given that the end game for people who advocate tolls is to toll
everything (seriously, ideas like expanding tolling on existing interstates and VMT taxes have bipartisan support), it won't remain a few sparse data points forever. As for phones, one can always turn it off or not take it with them if they're really concerned, the government would have to go to the phone company for info rather than looking into its own records, and I actually have kept location services turned off when not needed during the pandemic (and I might just keep it that way afterwards), which makes it harder to track since then one would have to triangulate the position from cell tower data, which is harder and less precise.
Quote from: vdeane on December 22, 2020, 08:58:02 PM
Quote from: stevashe on December 22, 2020, 05:23:42 PM
Personally I'd be much more worried about the tracking devices that literally everyone carries around with them in their pockets much more than tolling gantries that might be collecting a few sparse data points that could infer a travel pattern.
Given that the end game for people who advocate tolls is to toll everything (seriously, ideas like expanding tolling on existing interstates and VMT taxes have bipartisan support), it won't remain a few sparse data points forever. As for phones, one can always turn it off or not take it with them if they're really concerned, the government would have to go to the phone company for info rather than looking into its own records, and I actually have kept location services turned off when not needed during the pandemic (and I might just keep it that way afterwards), which makes it harder to track since then one would have to triangulate the position from cell tower data, which is harder and less precise.
... just as one can choose to commute by other methods, such as bicycle, bus, foot or even taxi / ride share.
Where you drive just isn't that interesting, except for the purposes of figuring out how much to charge you for road usage.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on December 23, 2020, 12:01:44 AM
Quote from: vdeane on December 22, 2020, 08:58:02 PM
Quote from: stevashe on December 22, 2020, 05:23:42 PM
Personally I'd be much more worried about the tracking devices that literally everyone carries around with them in their pockets much more than tolling gantries that might be collecting a few sparse data points that could infer a travel pattern.
Given that the end game for people who advocate tolls is to toll everything (seriously, ideas like expanding tolling on existing interstates and VMT taxes have bipartisan support), it won't remain a few sparse data points forever. As for phones, one can always turn it off or not take it with them if they're really concerned, the government would have to go to the phone company for info rather than looking into its own records, and I actually have kept location services turned off when not needed during the pandemic (and I might just keep it that way afterwards), which makes it harder to track since then one would have to triangulate the position from cell tower data, which is harder and less precise.
... just as one can choose to commute by other methods, such as bicycle, bus, foot or even taxi / ride share.
Where you drive just isn't that interesting, except for the purposes of figuring out how much to charge you for road usage.
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!". Any specific reason you're using a nickname, as opposed to a full legal name, on this forum, then?
Quote from: kalvado on December 23, 2020, 01:10:23 AM
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!". Any specific reason you're using a nickname, as opposed to a full legal name, on this forum, then?
Unfortunately, there are now people old enough to vote who weren't even alive in a time when the US government wasn't spying on everyone in violation of the 4th Amendment.
Update:
QuoteSome of the priorities, they say, are to avoid punishing those who drive and to reduce trips overall.
https://www.koin.com/local/multnomah-county/odot-considers-adding-tolls-for-i-205-improvements/
lol to then saying they want to avoid doing exactly what tolling highways does which is making it harder for the working class to drive.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 29, 2021, 04:36:10 PM
Update:
QuoteSome of the priorities, they say, are to avoid punishing those who drive and to reduce trips overall.
https://www.koin.com/local/multnomah-county/odot-considers-adding-tolls-for-i-205-improvements/
lol to then saying they want to avoid doing exactly what tolling highways does which is making it harder for the working class to drive.
It's worth noting that there are tools that can be used to offer people on a low income discounts on tolling. TriMet already does this; there's no reason ODOT couldn't just line up with TriMet's system and offer discounts on both tolls and fares.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on November 01, 2021, 12:44:38 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 29, 2021, 04:36:10 PM
Update:
QuoteSome of the priorities, they say, are to avoid punishing those who drive and to reduce trips overall.
https://www.koin.com/local/multnomah-county/odot-considers-adding-tolls-for-i-205-improvements/
lol to then saying they want to avoid doing exactly what tolling highways does which is making it harder for the working class to drive.
It's worth noting that there are tools that can be used to offer people on a low income discounts on tolling. TriMet already does this; there's no reason ODOT couldn't just line up with TriMet's system and offer discounts on both tolls and fares.
Oh geez what a deal the lower income people are getting. A discount on a proposed toll for a road they can currently drive with no toll at all. I'm sure people will be lining up for that.
Seems to me that no one on the West Coast cares about highway improvements, and that dates back to the 1960s freeway revolts that took place in Portland, San Francisco, L.A. and Seattle. At least this time that perception may change if tolls are accepted, but don't hold your breath.
Saying the no one cares about highway improvements on the west coast is a huge overstatement.
I-205 around Portland was completed in 1983.
I-405 around Seattle has been straightened and widened. The 520 bridge has been widened.
I-5 through Everett has been widened.
S.F. area has seen CA 17 substantially upgraded at every interchange to make I-880, I-680 greatly upgraded, the Carquinez and Benicia bridges have been doubled, the Caldecott Tunnel get an additional bore.
The projects that the freeway revolts rejected were mostly poorly thought out with no consideration for anything except cars, and certainly not for the neighborhoods the proposed freeways would pass through.
Yeah I really didn't understand that post either. SoCal has billions if not tens of billions of dollars for highways to either be reconstructed expanded or both in the near future
Shit, Seattle is building two brand new freeways (branded 'expressways' to not scare people?) in decidedly suburban, slightly-urban environments that both require some fairly significant demolition.
You know how often I hear about people revolting against either? So far, not even a peep. In fact, the last meeting I went to, people were looking forward to selling their property.
Quote from: Henry on November 11, 2021, 10:10:52 AM
Seems to me that no one on the West Coast cares about highway improvements, and that dates back to the 1960s freeway revolts that took place in Portland, San Francisco, L.A. and Seattle. At least this time that perception may change if tolls are accepted, but don't hold your breath.
I moved from Massachusetts to SoCal 21 years ago. They're
constantly widening roads around here, and even building some new freeway segments. CA-58 Bakersfield, Mojave, Kramer Junction, and Hinkley; CA-210 east of San Dimas; CA-52 east of CA-125; CA-125 south of CA-94; CA-905; CA-11; CA-78 around Brawley. I'm sure north and central California is the same.
When I go back to visit Boston, it's like a time warp. Cloverleaf interchanges still abound; flyovers are almost unknown outside of the city. They finally widened the middle part of 128 to eight lanes, where I remember everyone driving in the breakdown lanes in rush hour back in 1971. Aside from the Big Dig and a bit of US-44 in Plymouth, what freeways have they built around there?
As to the NW, Washington seems to be a lot more interested in freeway building than Oregon.
Quote from: pderocco on November 14, 2021, 09:32:44 PM
Aside from the Big Dig and a bit of US-44 in Plymouth, what freeways have they built around there?
146 Providence-Worcester.
It's really hard to build new freeways or even upgrade interchanges because there's just no space.
Quote from: 1 on November 14, 2021, 09:35:43 PM
Quote from: pderocco on November 14, 2021, 09:32:44 PM
Aside from the Big Dig and a bit of US-44 in Plymouth, what freeways have they built around there?
146 Providence-Worcester.
It's really hard to build new freeways or even upgrade interchanges because there's just no space.
RI 403
Quote from: pderocco on November 14, 2021, 09:32:44 PM
As to the NW, Washington seems to be a lot more interested in freeway building than Oregon.
Washington says "no" except a few very limited segments, while Oregon says "hell no" :-D
And some of those limited segments aren't quite that useful (especially for the price). The North Spokane Corridor is a nice big money pit, but we've yet to finish grade separating on SR 522 and SR 18.
I may have missed it in the discussion, but has anyone considered HOT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-occupancy_toll_lane)(High-Occupancy Toll) lanes. They seem to be a nice political compromise elsewhere.
Is this part of the 205 project? Sorry I'm not too familiar with Oregon. I hope the tolling component isn't set in stone.
https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/odot-crews-set-to-begin-i-205-improvement-project/55321
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 11, 2022, 08:01:10 PM
Is this part of the 205 project? Sorry I'm not too familiar with Oregon. I hope the tolling component isn't set in stone.
https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/odot-crews-set-to-begin-i-205-improvement-project/55321
This would be the first phase of the Abernethy Bridge retrofit, which would need to be funded by tolls. No way around that, but luckily it won't impact you.
Quote from: Bruce on February 11, 2022, 10:31:11 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 11, 2022, 08:01:10 PM
Is this part of the 205 project? Sorry I'm not too familiar with Oregon. I hope the tolling component isn't set in stone.
https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/odot-crews-set-to-begin-i-205-improvement-project/55321
This would be the first phase of the Abernethy Bridge retrofit, which would need to be funded by tolls. No way around that, but luckily it won't impact you.
Have they already started tolling I-205? And it's irrelevant whether or not it affects me.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 11, 2022, 10:34:25 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 11, 2022, 10:31:11 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 11, 2022, 08:01:10 PM
Is this part of the 205 project? Sorry I'm not too familiar with Oregon. I hope the tolling component isn't set in stone.
https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/odot-crews-set-to-begin-i-205-improvement-project/55321
This would be the first phase of the Abernethy Bridge retrofit, which would need to be funded by tolls. No way around that, but luckily it won't impact you.
Have they already started tolling I-205? And it's irrelevant whether or not it affects me.
Hasn't reached the environmental assessment phase yet. Tolling could begin as early as late 2024.
Quote from: Bruce on February 11, 2022, 10:43:54 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 11, 2022, 10:34:25 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 11, 2022, 10:31:11 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 11, 2022, 08:01:10 PM
Is this part of the 205 project? Sorry I'm not too familiar with Oregon. I hope the tolling component isn't set in stone.
https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/odot-crews-set-to-begin-i-205-improvement-project/55321
This would be the first phase of the Abernethy Bridge retrofit, which would need to be funded by tolls. No way around that, but luckily it won't impact you.
Have they already started tolling I-205? And it's irrelevant whether or not it affects me.
Hasn't reached the environmental assessment phase yet. Tolling could begin as early as late 2024.
Good to know I need to get a refresher on this project. Thanks for the info.
Open house on tolling until January: https://www.oregon.gov/odot/tolling/Pages/RMPP-Scoping-Comment-Period.aspx
OPB reported on this: https://www.opb.org/article/2022/11/26/odot-portland-tolls-freeways-oregon-department-of-transportation/
Hopefully it's stopped:
https://katu.com/news/your-voice-your-vote/yvyv-odot-responds-to-community-concerns-about-tolling-on-i-205
I understand the emotional response folks have to tolling.
But I don't understand the academic response. Not only is the federal gas tax dropping every year — it's down to under 50% of what it was set at in 1993 — but the MPG of course is increasing.
Adjusted for inflation, you paid about 2¢ per mile to drive a Toyota Camry in federal gas taxes 1993. Now, you pay a penny every 2 miles to drive a Camry in the city. And none of that is accounting for the rapidly-growing EV market.
Sure, nobody likes tolls. But with MPG increasing, gas taxes not adjusting for inflation and construction costs increasing because of both inflation and awareness of seismic standards ... why is this something people academically oppose?
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on April 11, 2023, 04:49:20 PM
I understand the emotional response folks have to tolling.
But I don't understand the academic response. Not only is the federal gas tax dropping every year — it's down to under 50% of what it was set at in 1993 — but the MPG of course is increasing.
Adjusted for inflation, you paid about 2¢ per mile to drive a Toyota Camry in federal gas taxes 1993. Now, you pay a penny every 2 miles to drive a Camry in the city. And none of that is accounting for the rapidly-growing EV market.
Sure, nobody likes tolls. But with MPG increasing, gas taxes not adjusting for inflation and construction costs increasing because of both inflation and awareness of seismic standards ... why is this something people academically oppose?
$160/month for a daily commuter is hardly an academic amount....
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on April 11, 2023, 04:49:20 PM
I understand the emotional response folks have to tolling.
But I don't understand the academic response. Not only is the federal gas tax dropping every year — it's down to under 50% of what it was set at in 1993 — but the MPG of course is increasing.
Adjusted for inflation, you paid about 2¢ per mile to drive a Toyota Camry in federal gas taxes 1993. Now, you pay a penny every 2 miles to drive a Camry in the city. And none of that is accounting for the rapidly-growing EV market.
Sure, nobody likes tolls. But with MPG increasing, gas taxes not adjusting for inflation and construction costs increasing because of both inflation and awareness of seismic standards ... why is this something people academically oppose?
Literally everything except the EV part could be addressed by raising the gas tax. And there are even other ways to address the EV issue - how about taxing roadside chargers and adding an electricity tax to home bills that would not only have some part go to roads, but also fix and modernize the electric grid to better deal with routine disruptions, extreme weather, the increased load from electrifying cars/buildings, allowing for more capacity (currently a big holdup with renewables), resiliency against CMEs, etc.
Personally, I prefer taxes to be as invisible as possible, and I hate fees. IMO fees should only be allowed if they cover a service that has a specific cost for the government to provide the person being charged, and only if the fee is no more than said cost.
Why can other states like Utah, Arizona, California etc all have massive freeway networks and fund it without tolls? Oregon isn't a poor state. They can find a way to do this without tolls this is just an anti car thing. The funding isn't the issue.
Priorities, ideologies, politics. There are probably a dozen other reasons, but those first three definitely take the cake.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2023, 10:52:38 PM
Priorities, ideologies, politics. There are probably a dozen other reasons, but those first three definitely take the cake.
True but what I'm saying is it can and should be done. It looks like there is a decent amount of opposition to this so maybe it won't happen?
I don't think usage fees are that much to ask for. We have them for public transit too.
By and large, every freeway in Japan (expressways) have tolling. They're all in great shape...specious to assume tolls = roads in great shape, but it's money that wouldn't otherwise exist. I also feel good about spending money directly on the road knowing that it's being spent to keep it up. As opposed to taxing someone barely making ends meet and who doesn't even own a car.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 12, 2023, 05:49:48 AM
I don't think usage fees are that much to ask for. We have them for public transit too.
By and large, every freeway in Japan (expressways) have tolling. They're all in great shape...specious to assume tolls = roads in great shape, but it's money that wouldn't otherwise exist. I also feel good about spending money directly on the road knowing that it's being spent to keep it up. As opposed to taxing someone barely making ends meet and who doesn't even own a car.
Public transportation in US tends to have pretty small farebox recovery rates. Difference is covered by many other means, including toll raiding (Penn turnpike)
It's probably a good idea to make actual users pay for expensive pieces of infrastructure - and bridges tend to be expensive ones. Keeping that money pool separate from other uses is what governments typically not too good at.
Another question is the incredible cost of infrastructure given all the regulations. It is becoming prohibitive, with reasonable user fees payoff times going to centuries, way past structure service life. Tolls tend to expose those costs, and I would consider public unhappiness as attitude to those costs themselves rather than the way costs are passed to public
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 11, 2023, 09:40:52 PM
Why can other states like Utah, Arizona, California etc all have massive freeway networks and fund it without tolls? Oregon isn't a poor state. They can find a way to do this without tolls this is just an anti car thing. The funding isn't the issue.
Arizona: Sales tax for their urban freeways
Nevada: Sales tax for RTC operations and capital construction
Utah: Sales tax for UDOT capital construction
California: Sales tax
Oregon: Scotch tape and bailing wire
Regardless of how it is funded, I would like Interstate 205 to be a minimum of three lanes in each direction for the entire 37.13-mile length of the freeway. That is, unless there are portions of 205 that do not need three lanes in each direction.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 12, 2023, 10:09:10 PM
Regardless of how it is funded, I would like Interstate 205 to be a minimum of three lanes in each direction for the entire 37.13-mile length of the freeway. That is, unless there are portions of 205 that do not need three lanes in each direction.
It should be five lanes each way. Three GP lanes and two tolled lanes each way. But yes three at minimum would be better than nothing.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 12, 2023, 10:24:57 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 12, 2023, 10:09:10 PM
Regardless of how it is funded, I would like Interstate 205 to be a minimum of three lanes in each direction for the entire 37.13-mile length of the freeway. That is, unless there are portions of 205 that do not need three lanes in each direction.
It should be five lanes each way. Three GP lanes and two tolled lanes each way. But yes three at minimum would be better than nothing.
It absolutely does not need to be a minimum of five lanes each way.
Quote from: Bruce on April 13, 2023, 01:58:12 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 12, 2023, 10:24:57 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 12, 2023, 10:09:10 PM
Regardless of how it is funded, I would like Interstate 205 to be a minimum of three lanes in each direction for the entire 37.13-mile length of the freeway. That is, unless there are portions of 205 that do not need three lanes in each direction.
It should be five lanes each way. Three GP lanes and two tolled lanes each way. But yes three at minimum would be better than nothing.
It absolutely does not need to be a minimum of five lanes each way.
Bull fucking shit. Have you not seen the amount of traffic on this road? How congested streets are in Portland? They need to build the western bypass and there's no way in hell that's happening. At least widen the damn roads to what they need to be. Portland traffic competes with Dallas.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 13, 2023, 02:26:57 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 13, 2023, 01:58:12 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 12, 2023, 10:24:57 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 12, 2023, 10:09:10 PM
Regardless of how it is funded, I would like Interstate 205 to be a minimum of three lanes in each direction for the entire 37.13-mile length of the freeway. That is, unless there are portions of 205 that do not need three lanes in each direction.
It should be five lanes each way. Three GP lanes and two tolled lanes each way. But yes three at minimum would be better than nothing.
It absolutely does not need to be a minimum of five lanes each way.
Bull fucking shit. Have you not seen the amount of traffic on this road? How congested streets are in Portland? They need to build the western bypass and there's no way in hell that's happening. At least widen the damn roads to what they need to be. Portland traffic competes with Dallas.
I visit Portland infrequently, but am in tune with the local culture and know that they'd do anything to stop wasteful road widening. Just look at how bogged down the Rose Quarter quagmire is. The city doesn't want or need those lanes or the western bypass.
Quote from: Bruce on April 13, 2023, 02:50:43 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 13, 2023, 02:26:57 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 13, 2023, 01:58:12 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 12, 2023, 10:24:57 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 12, 2023, 10:09:10 PM
Regardless of how it is funded, I would like Interstate 205 to be a minimum of three lanes in each direction for the entire 37.13-mile length of the freeway. That is, unless there are portions of 205 that do not need three lanes in each direction.
It should be five lanes each way. Three GP lanes and two tolled lanes each way. But yes three at minimum would be better than nothing.
It absolutely does not need to be a minimum of five lanes each way.
Bull fucking shit. Have you not seen the amount of traffic on this road? How congested streets are in Portland? They need to build the western bypass and there's no way in hell that's happening. At least widen the damn roads to what they need to be. Portland traffic competes with Dallas.
I visit Portland infrequently, but am in tune with the local culture and know that they'd do anything to stop wasteful road widening. Just look at how bogged down the Rose Quarter quagmire is. The city doesn't want or need those lanes or the western bypass.
Get a grip. It needs all of the above. The Rose Quarter segment needs to be 14 lanes. I can admit what's going to happen and what it really needs. You're just another anti car loon justifying Portland's ridiculous anti freeway mentality.
You're visiting Portland frequently and you don't see how bad the traffic is there?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 13, 2023, 03:14:52 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 13, 2023, 02:50:43 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 13, 2023, 02:26:57 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 13, 2023, 01:58:12 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 12, 2023, 10:24:57 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 12, 2023, 10:09:10 PM
Regardless of how it is funded, I would like Interstate 205 to be a minimum of three lanes in each direction for the entire 37.13-mile length of the freeway. That is, unless there are portions of 205 that do not need three lanes in each direction.
It should be five lanes each way. Three GP lanes and two tolled lanes each way. But yes three at minimum would be better than nothing.
It absolutely does not need to be a minimum of five lanes each way.
Bull fucking shit. Have you not seen the amount of traffic on this road? How congested streets are in Portland? They need to build the western bypass and there's no way in hell that's happening. At least widen the damn roads to what they need to be. Portland traffic competes with Dallas.
I visit Portland infrequently, but am in tune with the local culture and know that they'd do anything to stop wasteful road widening. Just look at how bogged down the Rose Quarter quagmire is. The city doesn't want or need those lanes or the western bypass.
Get a grip. It needs all of the above. The Rose Quarter segment needs to be 14 lanes. I can admit what's going to happen and what it really needs. You're just another anti car loon justifying Portland's ridiculous anti freeway mentality.
You're visiting Portland frequently and you don't see how bad the traffic is there?
So not wanting to destroy entire neighborhoods is being an anti-car loon? Seriously, you need to quit being so aggressive against everybody.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on April 13, 2023, 03:21:34 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 13, 2023, 03:14:52 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 13, 2023, 02:50:43 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 13, 2023, 02:26:57 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 13, 2023, 01:58:12 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 12, 2023, 10:24:57 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 12, 2023, 10:09:10 PM
Regardless of how it is funded, I would like Interstate 205 to be a minimum of three lanes in each direction for the entire 37.13-mile length of the freeway. That is, unless there are portions of 205 that do not need three lanes in each direction.
It should be five lanes each way. Three GP lanes and two tolled lanes each way. But yes three at minimum would be better than nothing.
It absolutely does not need to be a minimum of five lanes each way.
Bull fucking shit. Have you not seen the amount of traffic on this road? How congested streets are in Portland? They need to build the western bypass and there's no way in hell that's happening. At least widen the damn roads to what they need to be. Portland traffic competes with Dallas.
I visit Portland infrequently, but am in tune with the local culture and know that they'd do anything to stop wasteful road widening. Just look at how bogged down the Rose Quarter quagmire is. The city doesn't want or need those lanes or the western bypass.
Get a grip. It needs all of the above. The Rose Quarter segment needs to be 14 lanes. I can admit what's going to happen and what it really needs. You're just another anti car loon justifying Portland's ridiculous anti freeway mentality.
You're visiting Portland frequently and you don't see how bad the traffic is there?
So not wanting to destroy entire neighborhoods is being an anti-car loon? Seriously, you need to quit being so aggressive against everybody.
Characterize my statements how you want but I'm not going to ensure I'm not taken as "aggressive" when responding to a simple statement like "no." Explain yourself. Why shouldn't it be? Portland has serious traffic issues that rival cities much larger than it. It also has extremely narrow freeways and lacks beltways and additional bypasses most other larger cities have. Yes some homes would be needed but you're being extremely hyperbolic in claiming "entire neighborhoods" so quit doing that. Explain how my plan would level "entire neighborhoods." You don't even know what it is. What I'm suggesting other than an amount of lanes. No engineering made.
Why are people you like dead set on ensuring Portland remains the traffic choked hell hole it is without even trying mitigate the issues with some more lanes? Status quo thing, huh? Hope that wasn't too aggressive. . .
I live in Portland and know how bad traffic is. The 205 does not need to be a minimum of 5 lanes in each direction.
The Eastbank through Rose Quarter absolutely does not need to be 14 lanes.
Quote from: Bickendan on April 13, 2023, 10:15:31 AM
I live in Portland and know how bad traffic is. The 205 does not need to be a minimum of 5 lanes in each direction.
The Eastbank through Rose Quarter absolutely does not need to be 14 lanes.
So how many lanes does it need to be? Instead of just saying "no it doesn't need to be that wide" how about offering a response with a solution and not a problem.
One more lane isn't going to solve anything. It might help manage it better to be more effective more than one lane need be added. The 405 is consistently choked with traffic. So is I-5. There's no western bypass. Portland is a major city with heavy freight traffic. I-5 is a major spine for the west coast and Portland is a massive choke point.
I haven't seen one solution other than proposing to price the poor out of using these freeways other "oh no that's too many lanes it shouldn't five lanes each way or 14 lanes" like I am proposing a freeway to the moon. Absolutely ridiculous. Bring your version of a solution to this conversation.
Quote from: Bickendan on April 13, 2023, 10:15:31 AM
I live in Portland and know how bad traffic is. The 205 does not need to be a minimum of 5 lanes in each direction.
The Eastbank through Rose Quarter absolutely does not need to be 14 lanes.
Looking at the data, pre-covid daily volumes were 150-170k daily on I-205, 140k on I-5 and 115k on I-405
All these numbers are very easily in 4-5 lane per direction range
205 really only needs aux lanes between Johnson Creek and Foster, and Foster and Powell, outside of the widening from Stafford to McGloughlin.
I-5 needs an underground relocation from the Ross Island Maze to the Fremont Stack.
The Stadium needs weaving management but good luck with that.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on April 13, 2023, 03:21:34 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 13, 2023, 03:14:52 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 13, 2023, 02:50:43 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 13, 2023, 02:26:57 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 13, 2023, 01:58:12 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 12, 2023, 10:24:57 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 12, 2023, 10:09:10 PM
Regardless of how it is funded, I would like Interstate 205 to be a minimum of three lanes in each direction for the entire 37.13-mile length of the freeway. That is, unless there are portions of 205 that do not need three lanes in each direction.
It should be five lanes each way. Three GP lanes and two tolled lanes each way. But yes three at minimum would be better than nothing.
It absolutely does not need to be a minimum of five lanes each way.
Bull fucking shit. Have you not seen the amount of traffic on this road? How congested streets are in Portland? They need to build the western bypass and there's no way in hell that's happening. At least widen the damn roads to what they need to be. Portland traffic competes with Dallas.
I visit Portland infrequently, but am in tune with the local culture and know that they'd do anything to stop wasteful road widening. Just look at how bogged down the Rose Quarter quagmire is. The city doesn't want or need those lanes or the western bypass.
Get a grip. It needs all of the above. The Rose Quarter segment needs to be 14 lanes. I can admit what's going to happen and what it really needs. You're just another anti car loon justifying Portland's ridiculous anti freeway mentality.
You're visiting Portland frequently and you don't see how bad the traffic is there?
So not wanting to destroy entire neighborhoods is being an anti-car loon? Seriously, you need to quit being so aggressive against everybody.
Just looking at the maps and numbers... Portland seems to
that kind of neighbor - who is blocking the road and refusing to do anything about it because it's OK for them, and the world may spin around their city hall.
Quote from: Bickendan on April 13, 2023, 12:48:37 PM
205 really only needs aux lanes between Johnson Creek and Foster, and Foster and Powell, outside of the widening from Stafford to McGloughlin.
I-5 needs an underground relocation from the Ross Island Maze to the Fremont Stack.
The Stadium needs weaving management but good luck with that.
So you think traffic issues on the 205 would be "fixed" or alleviated with auxiliary lanes and that's it? You wouldn't even think a third GP lane is needed each way? And what about I-5? You don't like my 14 lane proposal. Most of that would be subterranean with tolls. How many lanes should I-5 through downtown have?
205 is already six-laned for the majority of it.
Where it isn't -- Stafford to McGloughlin, and north of WA 500 -- it's getting widened to that or doesn't need it. I drive the 205 every day. The pain points are where ODOT dropped the ball on the aux lane expansion a few years back, and the Jackson Bridge approaches.
As for the Eastbank, as I mentioned, relocated underground ala Alaskan Viaduct. 3x3 at most save aux lanes.
More lanes isn't going to gain functionality. Better lane discipline and driving habits will.
Quote from: Bickendan on April 13, 2023, 02:26:35 PM
205 is already six-laned for the majority of it.
Where it isn't -- Stafford to McGloughlin, and north of WA 500 -- it's getting widened to that or doesn't need it. I drive the 205 every day. The pain points are where ODOT dropped the ball on the aux lane expansion a few years back, and the Jackson Bridge approaches.
As for the Eastbank, as I mentioned, relocated underground ala Alaskan Viaduct. 3x3 at most save aux lanes.
More lanes isn't going to gain functionality. Better lane discipline and driving habits will.
More lanes arbitrarily won't gain functionality, but they need to be part of the solution. I hear what you're saying on the better lane discipline and driving habits but good luck fixing that. You probably have a better chance of getting a western bypass built.
So you'd use the 405 for local access then? What would become of existing I-5? A surface Boulevard? I suppose I can see that working. And regarding the tunnel, would you have any portals for local access? Or would it be strictly for through traffic?
Governor Kotek has ordered a pause on tolling in Oregon until January 2026: https://www.kgw.com/article/news/politics/oregon-governor-kotek-pauses-tolling/283-2812876e-2a6b-4260-8c91-388425773762
Cost is up to $550 million according to a new ODOT report, which recommends to indefinitely postpone the second phase's construction.
https://www.portlandmercury.com/news/2023/06/26/46578000/without-tolling-revenue-odot-puts-the-brakes-on-two-portland-area-freeway-projects
ODOT will not toll the Tualatin River Bridge and will also not add a third lane in the area. Tolls and construction the Abernethy are underway.
https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/2023/09/odot-nixes-plans-for-third-lane-some-tolling-on-i-205.html
The Tualatin bridge should never have been considered for a separate toll given its proximity to the Abernethy Bridge.
And adding a third lane to the area was one of the primary goals of the overall project.
Oregon seems pretty much hopeless at this point. This type of shit doesn't surprise me. They could find the money but the political will isn't there. I suspect ODOT knows this and just doesn't want to waste their breath. Let the people suffer since they either want to be opposed to expansion or those on the pro expansion side aren't making their voices heard enough. Enjoy your horrid traffic congestion and your shitty metro system.
Gov. Kotek calls for the Regional Mobility Pricing Plan to be scrapped: https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/kotek-scraps-portland-area-freeway-tolls/283-a9c0ef19-9673-464c-9beb-aac7c9869840
Note that this wouldn't affect tolling for the Abernethy and Interstate bridge replacements (starting 2026) but means no further tolls on either freeway.
Good news, but when I read the headline yesterday, my brain was assuming it would also scrap the Abernethy Bridge toll. Shame it's not, I think it's a bad idea there. I think you'll get a lot of Shunpiking on local roads and the OR-43 bridge which could be a total mess. Also may deflect some thru traffic (say, Hood River to Salem) onto I-5 through downtown instead, which is maybe not what you want.
However, I am fine with tolls on the interstate bridge replacement. For a project that big, it's kind of necessary. Tolls are par for the course for major bridges like this, especially in urban areas (see Bay Area, NY/NJ, etc.), though I hope tolls don't get anywhere near that high. Plus with rail being added, there will be another way for some to avoid the toll (and I-205 over the Columbia will probably remain free, I think?).
Great news. I wish the I-5 wouldn't be tolled as well but I can live with that. Hopefully the other expansions are still moving forward.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 12, 2024, 06:00:06 PM
the I-5
That's a $$$ fine in the Northwest.
The Interstate Bridge Replacement program absolutely needs to be tolled, since both states just don't have enough to spare in their budgets. Washington has some massive unfunded obligations, Oregon just doesn't have the same kind of revenue.
If it's not tolled now, why are tolls necessary on the replacement?
Quote from: Bruce on March 12, 2024, 08:15:13 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 12, 2024, 06:00:06 PM
the I-5
That's a $$$ fine in the Northwest.
The Interstate Bridge Replacement program absolutely needs to be tolled, since both states just don't have enough to spare in their budgets. Washington has some massive unfunded obligations, Oregon just doesn't have the same kind of revenue.
You think NY had a spare $2B to spend in Syracuse? Get that federal dough...
With the tolling plan outside of the Interstate Bridge Replacement under a moratorium, maybe Oregon will expand that mile-based fee pilot program to cover road expenses statewide.
Quote from: Rothman on March 12, 2024, 10:29:00 PM
If it's not tolled now, why are tolls necessary on the replacement?
Because Uncle Sugar isn't picking up 90% of the tab anymore.
Think of it this way: $6 billion for the replacement bridge is a bit much to swallow for a state that got just $669 million in fuel tax revenues last year (https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/the-story/oregon-winter-road-odot-cuts-gas-fuel-tax-revenue/283-d5caf10a-308e-40fc-836b-02357e234bfc). (And $6 billion is just the approximate midpoint of the current projected cost of $5 billion-$7.5 billion. Some observers sniff a $9 billion estimate in the offing.)
Quote from: Rothman on March 12, 2024, 10:29:00 PM
If it's not tolled now, why are tolls necessary on the replacement?
Well, it was tolled when they built it originally, they just
actually removed the tolls after the construction bonds were paid off. ;-)
I don't really have a problem paying tolls. I don't really go through tolled areas that often, but I think the highest I've paid was $2.50 two separate times for the Hood River Bridge and once for the Bridge of the Gods, which isn't expensive at all. I also paid a toll for going over the Governor Albert D. Rosellini Bridge / Evergreen Point Floating Bridge on WA 520. I don't remember how much that one was, but it wasn't much, and that one was billed to me in the mail since there's no tolling station.
There is a tolling station on eastbound WA 16 after the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, but that one may be optional? I'm not totally sure. They don't force you to get off the freeway, as it's just like a normal exit. The freeway also isn't built in a way that forces you to slow down and go through the tolling station with no other way to go, like California does on southbound Interstate 5 with its weird agriculture thing. The one and only time I went eastbound that way over the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 2021, there wasn't anything saying traffic is required to exit, so I just kept driving. I didn't get anything in the mail, either.
The eastbound Narrows Bridge is the only physical tollbooth on a non-ferry highway in the state. Good to Go is all electronic and either reads the tag or plate. SR 520 has a variable rate that is about to increase (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/higher-tolls-could-be-coming-to-make-dent-in-highway-520-budget-mess/) due to project cost increases.
Quote from: Rothman on March 12, 2024, 10:29:00 PM
If it's not tolled now, why are tolls necessary on the replacement?
We generally don't put tolls on existing bridges until after the plan for a replacement is settled and moving forward. The old SR 520 Bridge was tolled from 2011 to 2016 to help jumpstart project financing, but only after the design alternative was chosen.
Quote from: kkt on March 13, 2024, 03:15:04 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 12, 2024, 10:29:00 PM
If it's not tolled now, why are tolls necessary on the replacement?
Because Uncle Sugar isn't picking up 90% of the tab anymore.
That is not true. Although specific Interstate funds, like Interstate Maintenance, have been discontinued, NHPP funding can be used on Interstates at 90%.
Quote from: stevashe on March 13, 2024, 05:15:13 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 12, 2024, 10:29:00 PM
If it's not tolled now, why are tolls necessary on the replacement?
Well, it was tolled when they built it originally, they just actually removed the tolls after the construction bonds were paid off. ;-)
I like this answer rather than others that reflect a misunderstanding of transportation financing.
Quote from: Rothman on March 13, 2024, 07:17:26 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 13, 2024, 03:15:04 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 12, 2024, 10:29:00 PM
If it's not tolled now, why are tolls necessary on the replacement?
Because Uncle Sugar isn't picking up 90% of the tab anymore.
That is not true. Although specific Interstate funds, like Interstate Maintenance, have been discontinued, NHPP funding can be used on Interstates at 90%.
Really? For a large replacement bridge like this Oregon and Washington can expect 90% Federal funding?
Or just hope for a part of that, if their congressional delegations can cut a deal?
Quote from: kkt on March 13, 2024, 08:01:28 PMReally? For a large replacement bridge like this Oregon and Washington can expect 90% Federal funding?
The problem, as I understand it, is that federal match can be used up to a cost share of 90%, but the bridge replacement is so expensive it would suck up a large share of the federal funding that could otherwise be used for projects elsewhere in both states.
Quote from: doorknob60 on March 12, 2024, 05:33:19 PM
Good news, but when I read the headline yesterday, my brain was assuming it would also scrap the Abernethy Bridge toll. Shame it's not, I think it's a bad idea there. I think you'll get a lot of Shunpiking on local roads and the OR-43 bridge which could be a total mess. Also may deflect some thru traffic (say, Hood River to Salem) onto I-5 through downtown instead, which is maybe not what you want.
Oregon City wouldn't stand for such a shunpike, as it would clog McGloughlin Blvd. the narrow downtown OC streets, and the bridge itself, which is very narrow, not to mention that the money saved would be lost via massive time expenditure even if assuming zero traffic.
It's been a long time since I've seen the proposals and understood what is going on. ODOT was planning on widening these roads by a GP lane each way and/or an aux lane, right? That was going to be funded by tolls or am not remembering correctly?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2024, 05:48:50 PM
It's been a long time since I've seen the proposals and understood what is going on. ODOT was planning on widening these roads by a GP lane each way and/or an aux lane, right? That was going to be funded by tolls or am not remembering correctly?
Yes. Phase I, funded, is the reconstruction of the Abernethy Bridge over the Willamette, including a widening and approach reconstruction.
Phase II, which was to be funded by tolling, was to rebuild the Tualatin River bridges on I-205 and widen I-205 to 3 GP lanes in each direction from Highway 43 to Stafford Road, making 205 6 lanes for its entire length in Oregon. Phase II is now unfunded.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on March 17, 2024, 05:28:17 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2024, 05:48:50 PM
It's been a long time since I've seen the proposals and understood what is going on. ODOT was planning on widening these roads by a GP lane each way and/or an aux lane, right? That was going to be funded by tolls or am not remembering correctly?
Yes. Phase I, funded, is the reconstruction of the Abernethy Bridge over the Willamette, including a widening and approach reconstruction.
Phase II, which was to be funded by tolling, was to rebuild the Tualatin River bridges on I-205 and widen I-205 to 3 GP lanes in each direction from Highway 43 to Stafford Road, making 205 6 lanes for its entire length in Oregon. Phase II is now unfunded.
Interesting. So I wonder if that'll be funded or "shelved."
That is a question for the 2025 Legislature. Factors include:
- How badly does Clackamas County want it?
- If legislators say, "Do you want this or an extension of the Sunrise Corridor, which do you pick?"
- Are legislators going to be cranky about how Clackamas County said "If it comes with tolls, we don't want a widening?"
- How much money can the Legislature raise statewide, knowing that they'll need to A) pay for Rose Quarter, B) send enough money to the rural to buy those votes, and C) put enough money into transit and bike/ped to keep Portland happy?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 18, 2024, 07:34:41 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on March 17, 2024, 05:28:17 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2024, 05:48:50 PM
It's been a long time since I've seen the proposals and understood what is going on. ODOT was planning on widening these roads by a GP lane each way and/or an aux lane, right? That was going to be funded by tolls or am not remembering correctly?
Yes. Phase I, funded, is the reconstruction of the Abernethy Bridge over the Willamette, including a widening and approach reconstruction.
Phase II, which was to be funded by tolling, was to rebuild the Tualatin River bridges on I-205 and widen I-205 to 3 GP lanes in each direction from Highway 43 to Stafford Road, making 205 6 lanes for its entire length in Oregon. Phase II is now unfunded.
Interesting. So I wonder if that'll be funded or "shelved."
If Missouri can find a way to expand I-70 across the entire state why can't Oregon which is not a poor state find a way to fund these local projects in Portland?
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/the-story/odot-oregon-tolling-funding-mile-tax-revenue-gas-fuel/283-1814b94e-d650-4139-9d68-5b5dfb32417f
Quote from: Rothman on March 13, 2024, 07:18:25 PMQuote from: stevashe on March 13, 2024, 05:15:13 PMQuote from: Rothman on March 12, 2024, 10:29:00 PMIf it's not tolled now, why are tolls necessary on the replacement?
Well, it was tolled when they built it originally, they just actually removed the tolls after the construction bonds were paid off. ;-)
I like this answer rather than others that reflect a misunderstanding of transportation financing.
The problem now, of course, is that you don't get more federal funding if you remove tolls. So on roads that require tolls to pay for construction/maintenance, there is no incentive to remove them as that would decrease funding for other roads in the state. MassDOT looked at removing tolls along the Mass Pike shortly before the AET conversion and they decided not to, as this unfortunate reality meant that it made zero economic sense to remove tolls because the Pike is self-sustaining.
Some states have laws that require removal of tolls once construction bonds have been paid off. Kentucky and South Carolina are among them. But in most other states, thanks to how federal transportation funding is allocated, good luck removing tolls these days because federal funding is a zero-sum game.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 27, 2024, 12:50:38 AMIf Missouri can find a way to expand I-70 across the entire state why can't Oregon which is not a poor state find a way to fund these local projects in Portland?
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/the-story/odot-oregon-tolling-funding-mile-tax-revenue-gas-fuel/283-1814b94e-d650-4139-9d68-5b5dfb32417f
Oregon is not a rich state either. Sure, greater Portland is doing pretty okay, but there's lots of rural Oregon in the east that's not doing very well, and timber isn't bring in what it used to.
Quote from: cl94 on March 27, 2024, 02:00:34 AMQuote from: Rothman on March 13, 2024, 07:18:25 PMQuote from: stevashe on March 13, 2024, 05:15:13 PMQuote from: Rothman on March 12, 2024, 10:29:00 PMIf it's not tolled now, why are tolls necessary on the replacement?
Well, it was tolled when they built it originally, they just actually removed the tolls after the construction bonds were paid off. ;-)
I like this answer rather than others that reflect a misunderstanding of transportation financing.
The problem now, of course, is that you don't get more federal funding if you remove tolls. So on roads that require tolls to pay for construction/maintenance, there is no incentive to remove them as that would decrease funding for other roads in the state. MassDOT looked at removing tolls along the Mass Pike shortly before the AET conversion and they decided not to, as this unfortunate reality meant that it made zero economic sense to remove tolls because the Pike is self-sustaining.
Some states have laws that require removal of tolls once construction bonds have been paid off. Kentucky and South Carolina are among them. But in most other states, thanks to how federal transportation funding is allocated, good luck removing tolls these days because federal funding is a zero-sum game.
That's an interesting point, since types of mileage were significant variables in the old federal-aid formulas (although Congress has been lazier in recent bills, just dragging apportionments forward by previous percentages). So, you have states like NY, where the Thruway's mileage was indeed counted towards apportionments, but NY didn't distribute such for use on the Thruway (except for NYSDOT/NYSTA shared responsibility bridges over the Thruway, but those are a paltry amount in the overall picture).
Makes me wonder if there could be any toll road not on the Federal-Aid System that, if tolls were removed, could be added to the FAS in an attempt to bring in more funding...but then again, Congress hasn't used the old data-driven formulas since MAP-21.
Quote from: kkt on March 27, 2024, 02:04:21 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on March 27, 2024, 12:50:38 AMIf Missouri can find a way to expand I-70 across the entire state why can't Oregon which is not a poor state find a way to fund these local projects in Portland?
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/the-story/odot-oregon-tolling-funding-mile-tax-revenue-gas-fuel/283-1814b94e-d650-4139-9d68-5b5dfb32417f
Oregon is not a rich state either. Sure, greater Portland is doing pretty okay, but there's lots of rural Oregon in the east that's not doing very well, and timber isn't bring in what it used to.
Fair enough, but Missouri isn't exactly a rich state so I don't think it would be impossible for Oregon to emulate what Missouri has done in some cases.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 27, 2024, 12:50:38 AMIf Missouri can find a way to expand I-70 across the entire state why can't Oregon which is not a poor state find a way to fund these local projects in Portland?
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/the-story/odot-oregon-tolling-funding-mile-tax-revenue-gas-fuel/283-1814b94e-d650-4139-9d68-5b5dfb32417f
- Because of seismic standards? The 1500 foot long Stan Musial Bridge over the Mississippi cost $695 million to build; the 430-foot Abernethy Bridge seismic retrofit is costing about the same.
- Because of the way government is funded? Oregon's cockamamie sales tax-less system means lawmakers have to be more careful about how they budget cash
- Because Oregon isn't interested in simply "widening freeways" in urban areas? Politically (and practically), the conversation isn't "do we need a wider freeway," it's "do we need to move more people, and if so, how?" So you wind up with a Frankenstein-looking freeway widening project – which is probably necessary – and a bunch of funding for transit projects, sidewalks, bike paths, etc, that are also necessary and have no other source of revenue and get put into the big project. Guessing Missouri ain't putting transit alongside I-70.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on March 27, 2024, 04:56:13 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on March 27, 2024, 12:50:38 AMIf Missouri can find a way to expand I-70 across the entire state why can't Oregon which is not a poor state find a way to fund these local projects in Portland?
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/the-story/odot-oregon-tolling-funding-mile-tax-revenue-gas-fuel/283-1814b94e-d650-4139-9d68-5b5dfb32417f
- Because of seismic standards? The 1500 foot long Stan Musial Bridge over the Mississippi cost $695 million to build; the 430-foot Abernethy Bridge seismic retrofit is costing about the same.
- Because of the way government is funded? Oregon's cockamamie sales tax-less system means lawmakers have to be more careful about how they budget cash
- Because Oregon isn't interested in simply "widening freeways" in urban areas? Politically (and practically), the conversation isn't "do we need a wider freeway," it's "do we need to move more people, and if so, how?" So you wind up with a Frankenstein-looking freeway widening project – which is probably necessary – and a bunch of funding for transit projects, sidewalks, bike paths, etc, that are also necessary and have no other source of revenue and get put into the big project. Guessing Missouri ain't putting transit alongside I-70.
The bridge I can understand being tolled some extent But I'm not convinced it's the only way it can happen. At any rate, any modern bridge needs to be built to modern seismic standards And it isn't like Missouri doesn't have to worry about earthquakes either.
Sure, if the people the government aren't worried about widening, I-5 in an urban area to a mediocre 3 lanes reach way where in most cities it would already by that and probably 4-5 lanes each way.
The point is this project clearly is needed and is wanted or else this proposal wouldn't even be floated at all. Let alone continue to be pushed to this very day. The toll. component is what a lot of the upward is about. The anti-car "AH WHAT ABOUT INDUCED DEMAND" crowd exist in every city.
All I'm trying to say is they could go the route Missouri went with I 70 and earmark money for this project in Oregon is not a poor state. It even seems the governor has suggested the legislature explore ideas to get this funded.
And you know if your ideology of the people in the Portland metro not wanting freeways widened and so keen on taking alternative forms of transit why would they be against tolling these facilities? They could've just as easily have toll them and not widen them and used that to money for transit projects. New York does it all the time.
I don't think this has anything to do with anything other than the legislator being inept. You sound like the type of people from my hometown Edmond, who were saying we were facing Manhattan nation because they were proposing a five story apartment complex. We're talking about taking a four-lane interstate and adding a single lane each to make it six lanes.
This isn't some proposal to turn Portland's freeways into LA sized ones. I doubt we will ever see another proposal to widen these freeways for a very, very long time if ever.
It's also clear Oregon is not in any way shape or form interested in tolling its roads either which should be fairly obvious by now by the updates in this thread.
It's the worst of both worlds.
There's a bunch of people who don't want the freeway widened, but are willing to accept it if it's tolled to charge drivers in a way that potentially decreases driving
And there's a bunch of people who kinda-sorta want the freeway widened, but absolutely, positively don't want tolling under any circumstances because "freeways should be free" and "We're not on the East Coast."
And there really isn't anyone who is like "Absolutely, widen the freeway and use tolling to pay for it, I
love that option"
And so? It dies.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 27, 2024, 07:08:12 PMAnd you know if your ideology of the people in the Portland metro not wanting freeways widened and so keen on taking alternative forms of transit why would they be against tolling these facilities? They could've just as easily have toll them and not widen them and used that to money for transit projects. New York does it all the time.
I don't think this has anything to do with anything other than the legislator being inept. You sound like the type of people from my hometown Edmond, who were saying we were facing Manhattan nation because they were proposing a five story apartment complex. We're talking about taking a four-lane interstate and adding a single lane each to make it six lanes.
This isn't some proposal to turn Portland's freeways into LA sized ones. I doubt we will ever see another proposal to widen these freeways for a very, very long time if ever.
It's also clear Oregon is not in any way shape or form interested in tolling its roads either which should be fairly obvious by now by the updates in this thread.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on March 27, 2024, 08:15:58 PMIt's the worst of both worlds.
There's a bunch of people who don't want the freeway widened, but are willing to accept it if it's tolled to charge drivers in a way that potentially decreases driving
And there's a bunch of people who kinda-sorta want the freeway widened, but absolutely, positively don't want tolling under any circumstances because "freeways should be free" and "We're not on the East Coast."
And there really isn't anyone who is like "Absolutely, widen the freeway and use tolling to pay for it, I love that option"
And so? It dies.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 27, 2024, 07:08:12 PMAnd you know if your ideology of the people in the Portland metro not wanting freeways widened and so keen on taking alternative forms of transit why would they be against tolling these facilities? They could've just as easily have toll them and not widen them and used that to money for transit projects. New York does it all the time.
I don't think this has anything to do with anything other than the legislator being inept. You sound like the type of people from my hometown Edmond, who were saying we were facing Manhattan nation because they were proposing a five story apartment complex. We're talking about taking a four-lane interstate and adding a single lane each to make it six lanes.
This isn't some proposal to turn Portland's freeways into LA sized ones. I doubt we will ever see another proposal to widen these freeways for a very, very long time if ever.
It's also clear Oregon is not in any way shape or form interested in tolling its roads either which should be fairly obvious by now by the updates in this thread.
I guess time will tell.