According to an article in Oregon Live, ODOT is in the preliminary stages of requesting permission to place tolls on at least two Portland-area freeways in order to raise funds for congestion relief. Apparently there are some slots open in the FHWA program allowing "pilot program" tolling of extant Interstate facilities after requests from MO and VA "timed out". Right now, ODOT is negotiating with the state legislature regarding whether to pursue this venture. The two freeways cited are I-5 in the central part of Portland as well as the I-205 Abernethy Bridge over the Willamette River near Oregon City.
It's pretty clear that ODOT doesn't look at this as a form of "central district access pricing"; placing tolls on both N-S Interstate facilities indicates that a price-based through-traffic diversion to the bypass facility isn't a consideration here. Whether vocal opposition to this concept will materialize from either interests outside Portland metro, drivers' organizations (AAA and truckers among these), or lower-income residents affected by tolls is yet to be determined. The article concludes by saying that it will likely be a long haul to actual implementation of tolls if the concept is actually initiated.
www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/02/oregon_to_seek_federal_approva.html
Man, people are going to really be freaking out about this. I can understand that sentiment, considering the fact that they think they've already paid for the road in gas taxes. But as for me, I say go ahead, do it! Freeways, because of their high speed and high(ish) capacity, should be tolled because it is a luxury to be able to drive on a road that you don't have to stop at any traffic lights, nor have any left turns into oncoming traffic. And, when demand is high, the toll price should go up just like gas prices go up during the summer because demand is higher.
I disagree it is a luxury to drive on freeways.
Quote from: compdude787 on February 28, 2017, 12:36:08 AM
Freeways, because of their high speed and high(ish) capacity, should be tolled because it is a luxury to be able to drive on a road that you don't have to stop at any traffic lights, nor have any left turns into oncoming traffic. And, when demand is high, the toll price should go up just like gas prices go up during the summer because demand is higher.
Freeways become a luxury only when space becomes a luxury as well. If the 5 and 205 are suffering from severe congestion throughout the day, they could be tolled to combat congestion (i.e. a congestion charge of sorts). The 5 should be tolled, but I don't think the 205 should be. Congestion tolls work better when drivers have an alternative, and if the alternative is also tolled, they're just gonna keep using the primary road.
Portland could benefit from some toll lanes on area freeways, like those seen in Seattle.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 28, 2017, 04:00:03 AM
Portland could benefit from some toll lanes on area freeways, like those seen in Seattle.
IMO, a tolled through lane on I-205 (both directions) from Oregon City up to the Columbia River bridge, providing a bypass for vehicles wishing to avoid the normal congestion on that road would be a better solution than a general toll at specific points along that road
or I-5. One pass through Portland during commute time would likely be all that it would take to get repeaters (such as commercial trucks) to pony up the bucks and use such a lane. The section of I-5 from the north I-405 junction north to the river could also use such a bypass lane -- although the bridge itself poses its own problems but is not upgradeable. I lived there for a little under four years in the early/mid '90's and quickly discovered -- the hard way -- that
every freeway in town gets congested on weekdays. Tolling the "easy way out" would probably be better in terms of revenue generation than attempting to force all through traffic into a toll situation.
What the hell, they may as well do it! As long as the rates are reasonable, I'm all for it.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 28, 2017, 04:00:03 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on February 28, 2017, 12:36:08 AM
Freeways, because of their high speed and high(ish) capacity, should be tolled because it is a luxury to be able to drive on a road that you don't have to stop at any traffic lights, nor have any left turns into oncoming traffic. And, when demand is high, the toll price should go up just like gas prices go up during the summer because demand is higher.
Freeways become a luxury only when space becomes a luxury as well. If the 5 and 205 are suffering from severe congestion throughout the day, they could be tolled to combat congestion (i.e. a congestion charge of sorts). The 5 should be tolled, but I don't think the 205 should be. Congestion tolls work better when drivers have an alternative, and if the alternative is also tolled, they're just gonna keep using the primary road.
Portland could benefit from some toll lanes on area freeways, like those seen in Seattle.
Yeah, I actually disagreed with I-205 being tolled. Really, the bypass around Portland should not have a toll on it.
Somehow I doubt Portland-area freeways will receive tolls. The city is much more interested in densifying its neighborhoods, building light rail, and letting the roads and freeways be perpetually gridlocked.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 28, 2017, 02:11:49 PM
Somehow I doubt Portland-area freeways will receive tolls. The city is much more interested in densifying its neighborhoods, building light rail, and letting the roads and freeways be perpetually gridlocked.
Add to that the almost perpetual Portland-"downstate" conflict (priorities, funding, and often raw ideology differences) in the state legislature, which often has the effect of stymieing the aims of either category (ODOT's direction over the last couple of decades has generally reflected that of metro Portland and/or Salem). Tolling efforts will likely be just another iteration of that conflict, and will go unresolved for at least the near term.
Quote from: compdude787 on February 28, 2017, 12:36:08 AMit is a luxury to be able to drive on a road that you don't have to stop at any traffic lights, nor have any left turns into oncoming traffic.
Tell that to the folks in eastern Oregon along I-84 where the freeway IS the only west-east route.
Maybe just institute tolls on I-5 - since there is U.S. 97 and U.S. 101, plus Oregon 99/99E/99W (and decommissioned segments that are now county roads) as alternates?
Will the tolls pay for rebuilding the I-5 bridge? I'm in favor of replacing it before it falls into the river.
Quote from: kkt on March 04, 2017, 09:27:34 PM
Will the tolls pay for rebuilding the I-5 bridge? I'm in favor of replacing it before it falls into the river.
There is no plan to replace/rebuild the Interstate Bridge. The previous proposal was killed off due to bickering by the "stakeholders".
There are some folks up in Washington State that want to start a new proposal, but the Washington side was the most vocal against any tolls - they argue that since Washington residents who work in Oregon are forced to pay Oregon income tax yet get no benefit from it, they shouldn't have to pay a toll.
Yes, I know, Oregon doesn't use income tax revenues to fund roads...
What's going to happen to their jobs if the bridge has to be closed because it's too dangerous? Stupid.
I know, preaching to the converted here.
Quote from: sp_redelectric on March 05, 2017, 11:05:00 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 04, 2017, 09:27:34 PM
Will the tolls pay for rebuilding the I-5 bridge? I'm in favor of replacing it before it falls into the river.
There is no plan to replace/rebuild the Interstate Bridge. The previous proposal was killed off due to bickering by the "stakeholders".
There are some folks up in Washington State that want to start a new proposal, but the Washington side was the most vocal against any tolls - they argue that since Washington residents who work in Oregon are forced to pay Oregon income tax yet get no benefit from it, they shouldn't have to pay a toll.
Yes, I know, Oregon doesn't use income tax revenues to fund roads...
It's hard to take that particular argument seriously, when the fact is that because of Oregon's lack of a sales tax, southern Washington residents regularly cross the Columbia to purchase "big-ticket" items simply because they'll save the 7-8% tariff on in-state purchases. It's a bit of a wash -- lose a bit at the input, gain some at the output. WA residents who work in-state but purchase a sizeable amount of merchandise in OR have it the best; these are often characterized as a type of "free rider".
Quote from: jakeroot on February 28, 2017, 04:00:03 AM
Freeways become a luxury only when space becomes a luxury as well. If the 5 and 205 are suffering from severe congestion throughout the day, they could be tolled to combat congestion (i.e. a congestion charge of sorts). The 5 should be tolled, but I don't think the 205 should be. Congestion tolls work better when drivers have an alternative, and if the alternative is also tolled, they're just gonna keep using the primary road.
I'd love for drivers — particularly truckers — to think twice before taking 205. I live a couple blocks away and cringe when I think about how much in the way of fine particulates my neighbors & I are inhaling every day.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on March 12, 2017, 11:30:43 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 28, 2017, 04:00:03 AM
Freeways become a luxury only when space becomes a luxury as well. If the 5 and 205 are suffering from severe congestion throughout the day, they could be tolled to combat congestion (i.e. a congestion charge of sorts). The 5 should be tolled, but I don't think the 205 should be. Congestion tolls work better when drivers have an alternative, and if the alternative is also tolled, they're just gonna keep using the primary road.
I'd love for drivers — particularly truckers — to think twice before taking 205. I live a couple blocks away and cringe when I think about how much in the way of fine particulates my neighbors & I are inhaling every day.
205 exists for a reason. It's your fault for moving next to a freeway and expecting clean air.
What of the people along I-5? Do they deserve dirtier air?
Quote from: Bruce on March 13, 2017, 12:44:25 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on March 12, 2017, 11:30:43 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 28, 2017, 04:00:03 AM
Freeways become a luxury only when space becomes a luxury as well. If the 5 and 205 are suffering from severe congestion throughout the day, they could be tolled to combat congestion (i.e. a congestion charge of sorts). The 5 should be tolled, but I don't think the 205 should be. Congestion tolls work better when drivers have an alternative, and if the alternative is also tolled, they're just gonna keep using the primary road.
I'd love for drivers — particularly truckers — to think twice before taking 205. I live a couple blocks away and cringe when I think about how much in the way of fine particulates my neighbors & I are inhaling every day.
205 exists for a reason. It's your fault for moving next to a freeway and expecting clean air.
What of the people along I-5? Do they deserve dirtier air?
So, setting aside whether I was a dipstick for moving next to a freeway when I was younger and dumber, the fact is that I could move tomorrow and there would still be tens of thousands of Portlanders who live within a half-mile of that freeway.
And, we know a lot more than we used to about what's in freeway exhaust. A decade ago, fine particulates from diesel weren't on anyone's radar. Now, we know that there is a strong correlation between fine particulates and autism; and a strong link between them and childhood asthma.
These are things that cost you and I money. Even if it's not our kid with autism or asthma, the social safety net means that we're going to pay for their care anyway. Meanwhile, the millionaire owners and investors of companies that ship goods by truck won't pay their fair share of the impacts.
I'm not saying that all the trucks should go onto I-5 instead. I'm saying that there should be a cost associated with generating that exhaust, and it should be greater than just what is paid through VMT for trucks/gas tax for drivers. The best way to spark innovation is to make it cheaper to innovate than to proceed with the status quo.
I don't think there is any disagreement, but pushing trucks into central downtown and where thousands of other people live - and through some poorer neighborhoods, is not an effective solution, either. I wouldn't live next to a freeway or major arterial, either, for the same reasons that you have given. Particulates by diesels are linked to cancer, and there is a strong correlation between that and autism and asthma. It's not as if that black belch that comes out of the stacks is clean; it's far from it.
And the noise? No thanks.
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on March 13, 2017, 11:34:37 AM
I don't think there is any disagreement, but pushing trucks into central downtown and where thousands of other people live - and through some poorer neighborhoods, is not an effective solution, either. I wouldn't live next to a freeway or major arterial, either, for the same reasons that you have given. Particulates by diesels are linked to cancer, and there is a strong correlation between that and autism and asthma. It's not as if that black belch that comes out of the stacks is clean; it's far from it.
And the noise? No thanks.
But is selective tolling any sort of remedy for this? It may be best -- despite political considerations -- for commercial vehicles, particularly diesel-fueled trucks and vans, to be addressed -- as far as offset and/or remedial fees are concerned -- at the time such are either registered or show up at a state's "port of entry" facility. If trucks utilize 5, it affects those along that route; likewise with 205, 217, 84, or any other regional highway that regularly sees heavy commercial usage -- there's no getting away from that! Until such time that carbon-emitting fuels are effectively history, the only "offset" is to wring additional $$ from the most egregious offenders in the most specific way possible; ORT may not be specific enough to do the job.
Quote from: sparker on March 13, 2017, 02:20:10 PM
But is selective tolling any sort of remedy for this? It may be best -- despite political considerations -- for commercial vehicles, particularly diesel-fueled trucks and vans, to be addressed -- as far as offset and/or remedial fees are concerned -- at the time such are either registered or show up at a state's "port of entry" facility. If trucks utilize 5, it affects those along that route; likewise with 205, 217, 84, or any other regional highway that regularly sees heavy commercial usage -- there's no getting away from that! Until such time that carbon-emitting fuels are effectively history, the only "offset" is to wring additional $$ from the most egregious offenders in the most specific way possible; ORT may not be specific enough to do the job.
I personally think so. You use the ports of entry and VMT and whatnot for general maintenance of the state highway system as a whole — because industry needs a comprehensive state highway system. Then you selectively toll certain areas for the health / community impacts on top of that. A hauler carrying barley from Burns to Bend isn't having a tremendous impact on the state's health — and shouldn't have to pay for that. But West Coast haulers carrying goods from California to Washington via I-205 should have to pay their fair share both for the system maintenance and the health impacts, IMHO.
There's also the other dirty issue that maintenance costs are going through the roof, nationwide, just because much of our system is 50 years old. We have to have creative ways to pay for maintenance and upgrades or things are going to only get worse. And if they get worse, more people will believe the system can't be trusted, which will lead to more disinvestment... ugh.
Quote from: compdude787 on February 28, 2017, 12:36:08 AM
Man, people are going to really be freaking out about this. I can understand that sentiment, considering the fact that they think they've already paid for the road in gas taxes. But as for me, I say go ahead, do it! Freeways, because of their high speed and high(ish) capacity, should be tolled because it is a luxury to be able to drive on a road that you don't have to stop at any traffic lights, nor have any left turns into oncoming traffic. And, when demand is high, the toll price should go up just like gas prices go up during the summer because demand is higher.
Why would they do this? FHWA does not allow for tolls on existing freeways, unless ODOT has a different MUTCD or a state suppliment; but, either one would require to fall inline with the national standard in some way.
Quote from: IDriveArkansas on March 13, 2017, 03:49:16 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on February 28, 2017, 12:36:08 AM
Man, people are going to really be freaking out about this. I can understand that sentiment, considering the fact that they think they've already paid for the road in gas taxes. But as for me, I say go ahead, do it! Freeways, because of their high speed and high(ish) capacity, should be tolled because it is a luxury to be able to drive on a road that you don't have to stop at any traffic lights, nor have any left turns into oncoming traffic. And, when demand is high, the toll price should go up just like gas prices go up during the summer because demand is higher.
Why would they do this? FHWA does not allow for tolls on existing freeways, unless ODOT has a different MUTCD or a state suppliment; but, either one would require to fall inline with the national standard in some way.
Read the second sentence in the OP.
Quote from: compdude787 on March 13, 2017, 04:11:34 PM
Quote from: IDriveArkansas on March 13, 2017, 03:49:16 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on February 28, 2017, 12:36:08 AM
Man, people are going to really be freaking out about this. I can understand that sentiment, considering the fact that they think they've already paid for the road in gas taxes. But as for me, I say go ahead, do it! Freeways, because of their high speed and high(ish) capacity, should be tolled because it is a luxury to be able to drive on a road that you don't have to stop at any traffic lights, nor have any left turns into oncoming traffic. And, when demand is high, the toll price should go up just like gas prices go up during the summer because demand is higher.
Why would they do this? FHWA does not allow for tolls on existing freeways, unless ODOT has a different MUTCD or a state suppliment; but, either one would require to fall inline with the national standard in some way.
Read the second sentence in the OP.
Ah, ok I mean since they do have a different MUTCD (found out) and with the given information it makes sense, considering the circumstance.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 28, 2017, 04:00:03 AM
Portland could benefit from some toll lanes on area freeways, like those seen in Seattle.
Because that went well.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on March 15, 2017, 02:03:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 28, 2017, 04:00:03 AM
Portland could benefit from some toll lanes on area freeways, like those seen in Seattle.
Because that went well.
Since it's more than likely that the Oregon legislature won't approve full-facility tolling as cited in my OP, if some form of tolling remains under consideration, it might actually take the form of tolled "express" lanes. The most likely place to deploy these would be along the N-S section of I-205 (Oregon City to the Columbia River), where there is sufficient room in the either the median or alongside the existing carriageways to place such lanes (not the case for much of I-5). That section of 205 is the site of almost daily congestion; providing tolled bypass lanes for (ostensibly) non-PDX origin/destination traffic might not only serve a purpose (removing those vehicles from the general-purpose lanes) but also provide a revenue stream -- with relatively minimal political repercussions.
But we don't really want to be pushing through traffic to take I-5, which is also congested and with some undesirably below-standard exits and entrances as well.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on March 15, 2017, 02:03:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 28, 2017, 04:00:03 AM
Portland could benefit from some toll lanes on area freeways, like those seen in Seattle.
Because that went well.
Toll lanes go well if you improve GP conditions as well. Either upgrading interchanges or building aux lanes, etc. The 405 didn't do enough to accomodate the GP driver so the PR didn't go well.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 15, 2017, 04:25:23 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on March 15, 2017, 02:03:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 28, 2017, 04:00:03 AM
Portland could benefit from some toll lanes on area freeways, like those seen in Seattle.
Because that went well.
Toll lanes go well if you improve GP conditions as well. Either upgrading interchanges or building aux lanes, etc. The 405 didn't do enough to accomodate the GP driver so the PR didn't go well.
Agreed. It was a bad idea to convert I-405's HOV lane to an express toll lane north of SR 522 without adding additional capacity to the freeway.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on March 12, 2017, 11:30:43 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 28, 2017, 04:00:03 AM
Freeways become a luxury only when space becomes a luxury as well. If the 5 and 205 are suffering from severe congestion throughout the day, they could be tolled to combat congestion (i.e. a congestion charge of sorts). The 5 should be tolled, but I don't think the 205 should be. Congestion tolls work better when drivers have an alternative, and if the alternative is also tolled, they're just gonna keep using the primary road.
I'd love for drivers — particularly truckers — to think twice before taking 205. I live a couple blocks away and cringe when I think about how much in the way of fine particulates my neighbors & I are inhaling every day.
Why shouldn't truckers be taking I-205. It's the bypass, is it not?
Quote from: Brandon on March 20, 2017, 05:18:17 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on March 12, 2017, 11:30:43 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 28, 2017, 04:00:03 AM
Freeways become a luxury only when space becomes a luxury as well. If the 5 and 205 are suffering from severe congestion throughout the day, they could be tolled to combat congestion (i.e. a congestion charge of sorts). The 5 should be tolled, but I don't think the 205 should be. Congestion tolls work better when drivers have an alternative, and if the alternative is also tolled, they're just gonna keep using the primary road.
I'd love for drivers — particularly truckers — to think twice before taking 205. I live a couple blocks away and cringe when I think about how much in the way of fine particulates my neighbors & I are inhaling every day.
Why shouldn't truckers be taking I-205. It's the bypass, is it not?
Because he's a NIMBY, that's why. :P
Quote from: Brandon on March 20, 2017, 05:18:17 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on March 12, 2017, 11:30:43 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 28, 2017, 04:00:03 AM
Freeways become a luxury only when space becomes a luxury as well. If the 5 and 205 are suffering from severe congestion throughout the day, they could be tolled to combat congestion (i.e. a congestion charge of sorts). The 5 should be tolled, but I don't think the 205 should be. Congestion tolls work better when drivers have an alternative, and if the alternative is also tolled, they're just gonna keep using the primary road.
I'd love for drivers — particularly truckers — to think twice before taking 205. I live a couple blocks away and cringe when I think about how much in the way of fine particulates my neighbors & I are inhaling every day.
Why shouldn't truckers be taking I-205. It's the bypass, is it not?
ODOT and WashDot have signed the approaches to both ends of I-205 as
THE through route through PDX metro; NB (Wilsonville area) is signed as the preferred Seattle/The Dalles (I-84 gets a mention) route; Salem is the control city SB on I-5 approaching the I-205 exit north of Vancouver. Obviously, both agencies appear to prefer that through traffic use the bypass rather than the in-town route variants.
Quote from: sparker on March 28, 2017, 02:48:13 AM
ODOT...have signed the approaches to both ends of I-205 as THE through route through PDX metro; NB (Wilsonville area) is signed as the preferred Seattle/The Dalles (I-84 gets a mention) route
ODOT replaced all the signs on I-5 northbound leading to I-205 (in Wilsonville and south Tualatin) and "Oregon City" is now the one AND ONLY control city listed for I-205 northbound. No mention at all of I-84, The Dalles, Seattle, etc.
The diagram sign has been replaced and is still there showing, and Portland Airport is given an auxiliary sign, but it's crystal clear with the recent ODOT sign replacement that I-205 is not "the" through route. Why ODOT changed it, is beyond me... Oregon City is hardly worthy of being a control city and frankly neither is The Dalles.
I do not understand ODOT's refusal to put Spokane or Boise or Salt Lake City as control cities for I-84 (Spokane might be a stretch given it would involve I-82, US 395 and I-90, but it is a major destination for I-84 traffic), but Caltrans considers Portland a control city for I-5 north of Redding, and WSDOT uses Spokane as a control city for I-90 in Seattle (and vice-versa). Maybe it has to do with UDOT removing Portland as a control city at the I-80/I-84 interchange...who knows...
QuoteI do not understand ODOT's refusal to put Spokane or Boise or Salt Lake City as control cities for I-84 (Spokane might be a stretch given it would involve I-82, US 395 and I-90, but it is a major destination for I-84 traffic), but Caltrans considers Portland a control city for I-5 north of Redding, and WSDOT uses Spokane as a control city for I-90 in Seattle (and vice-versa). Maybe it has to do with UDOT removing Portland as a control city at the I-80/I-84 interchange...who knows...
Oregon is notoriously finnicky about that - the most egregious example is Hermiston/Umatilla as the control cities for I-82 from both directions (with a side-mounted sign for Kennewick/Yakima).
Idaho doesn't actually acknowledge Portland as a control city anywhere either - it used to sign Ontario everywhere west of Boise, but that's been phased out for Meridian and Nampa, so now Ontario doesn't consistently appear until west of Nampa. Besides a single mileage sign for Baker City, nowhere further into Oregon is signed on I-84 in Idaho.
Hmm, sounds like it's time to come up with viable control cities for ODOT to ignore...
Quote from: sp_redelectric on March 29, 2017, 07:21:24 PM
ODOT replaced all the signs on I-5 northbound leading to I-205 (in Wilsonville and south Tualatin) and "Oregon City" is now the one AND ONLY control city listed for I-205 northbound. No mention at all of I-84, The Dalles, Seattle, etc.
The diagram sign has been replaced and is still there showing, and Portland Airport is given an auxiliary sign, but it's crystal clear with the recent ODOT sign replacement that I-205 is not "the" through route. Why ODOT changed it, is beyond me... Oregon City is hardly worthy of being a control city and frankly neither is The Dalles.
I do not understand ODOT's refusal to put Spokane or Boise or Salt Lake City as control cities for I-84 (Spokane might be a stretch given it would involve I-82, US 395 and I-90, but it is a major destination for I-84 traffic), but Caltrans considers Portland a control city for I-5 north of Redding, and WSDOT uses Spokane as a control city for I-90 in Seattle (and vice-versa). Maybe it has to do with UDOT removing Portland as a control city at the I-80/I-84 interchange...who knows...
After decades of listing Seattle as an I-205 control city they're just now deleting that reference? I wonder who in ODOT got a bug up their ass about mentioning an out-of-state city? You'd think that they'd
want to divert through traffic away from the downtown gauntlet. Maybe their priorities are changed -- give the driving public as little useful information as possible may be the new marching orders! What I'd like to know is if WashDOT has reciprocated as to the use of Salem as a SB I-205 control city. The whole thing sounds like a useless exercise in pettiness!
Quote from: sp_redelectric on March 29, 2017, 07:21:24 PM
I do not understand ODOT's refusal to put Spokane or Boise or Salt Lake City as control cities for I-84 (Spokane might be a stretch given it would involve I-82, US 395 and I-90, but it is a major destination for I-84 traffic), but Caltrans considers Portland a control city for I-5 north of Redding, and WSDOT uses Spokane as a control city for I-90 in Seattle (and vice-versa). Maybe it has to do with UDOT removing Portland as a control city at the I-80/I-84 interchange...who knows...
Well, given that Salt Lake City is 760 miles and a metropolitan area away, I get that, but Boise should absolutely be co-signed with The Dalles. I even get Medford as a control for I-5 south through most of the state, but why doesn't any California city show up on a distance sign until you get to at least Ashland. Or why I-5 north can't be co-signed Vancouver / Seattle as a tongue-in-cheek way to get three cities signed in two words.
Redding should be on distance signs from Eugene south. Roseburg, Medford, Redding. Grants Pass, Medford, Redding. Medford, Ashland, Redding. Ashland, Yreka, Redding. Yreka, Redding, Sacramento.
And Boise should be on at least *one* of the distance signs in the Columbia River Gorge, instead of the weird amalgam of Pendleton / La Grande / Baker City / Ontario.
But, ODOT is not exactly known as the highest-functioning of state DOTs. So on we go.
Quote from: sparker on March 29, 2017, 10:02:42 PM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on March 29, 2017, 07:21:24 PM
ODOT replaced all the signs on I-5 northbound leading to I-205 (in Wilsonville and south Tualatin) and "Oregon City" is now the one AND ONLY control city listed for I-205 northbound. No mention at all of I-84, The Dalles, Seattle, etc.
The diagram sign has been replaced and is still there showing, and Portland Airport is given an auxiliary sign, but it's crystal clear with the recent ODOT sign replacement that I-205 is not "the" through route. Why ODOT changed it, is beyond me... Oregon City is hardly worthy of being a control city and frankly neither is The Dalles.
I do not understand ODOT's refusal to put Spokane or Boise or Salt Lake City as control cities for I-84 (Spokane might be a stretch given it would involve I-82, US 395 and I-90, but it is a major destination for I-84 traffic), but Caltrans considers Portland a control city for I-5 north of Redding, and WSDOT uses Spokane as a control city for I-90 in Seattle (and vice-versa). Maybe it has to do with UDOT removing Portland as a control city at the I-80/I-84 interchange...who knows...
After decades of listing Seattle as an I-205 control city they're just now deleting that reference? I wonder who in ODOT got a bug up their ass about mentioning an out-of-state city? You'd think that they'd want to divert through traffic away from the downtown gauntlet. Maybe their priorities are changed -- give the driving public as little useful information as possible may be the new marching orders! What I'd like to know is if WashDOT has reciprocated as to the use of Salem as a SB I-205 control city. The whole thing sounds like a useless exercise in pettiness!
:clap:
Does anyone share my belief that this proposal will go down in flames? Given the history of Portland's transportation policies, I don't see this proposal being implemented. I could be wrong, though.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 31, 2017, 05:59:03 PM
Does anyone share my belief that this proposal will go down in flames? Given the history of Portland's transportation policies, I don't see this proposal being implemented. I could be wrong, though.
It'll probably pass muster with the City of Portland and PDX Metro -- despite a likely significant amount of complaints from lower-income urban residents. ODOT might even issue a positive recommendation. But it will most likely reach a dead end in the state legislature due to objections emanating from "downstate" (i.e., everything outside the Portland-Salem extended region).
Quote from: sparker on March 29, 2017, 10:02:42 PMWhat I'd like to know is if WashDOT has reciprocated as to the use of Salem as a SB I-205 control city.
No, at the southbound I-5/I-205 junction in Hazel Dell, the control city for I-205 is still "Salem". (And NE 134th Street, because the ramp to 134th is off the I-205 ramp.) However, the reference "TO SR 14/I-84" is removed from the current signage.
Quote from: Bickendan on March 29, 2017, 08:57:50 PMHmm, sounds like it's time to come up with viable control cities for ODOT to ignore...
Maybe it's just because I live in Tigard...but control sign signage for Highway 217 has always bothered me. Southbound, the control cities are Tigard and Salem (but not Lake Oswego or Tualatin). It gets even worse on Greenburg Road, the ODOT signage tells motorists going "to Tigard" to get onto 217 southbound; when 1: you're already within the city of Tigard, and 2: it's much easier to keep driving straight on Greenburg Road to get to downtown Tigard.
At least ODOT tried to rectify it on Canyon Road and Walker Road, doing away with control cities and simply offering "Oregon 217 North to US 26" or "Oregon 217 South to I-5".
Then again, on I-405 ODOT actually uses "Seattle" and "Salem" as control cities...why even bother with listing a control city... Whereas up north the signage for SR 500 on both I-5 and I-205 omit any kind of city, even though either Battle Ground (by way of SR 503) or Camas (albeit, a much slower route than SR 14) are valid control cities.
Recent article on Portland-area Interstate highway tolling:
Where Will Portland Drivers Get Tolled on the Interstate Highway: Officials Have Five Options; City officials like the biggest one.
http://www.wweek.com/news/city/2018/03/07/where-will-portland-drivers-get-tolled-on-the-interstate-highway-officials-have-five-options/
Quote
Portland-area drivers could soon see tolls along much of Interstates 5 and 205, if city officials have their way.
Last summer, the Oregon Legislature approved a plan to begin tolling on Portland-area highways, seeking to reduce traffic jams during rush hours and raise money for road construction.
What lawmakers didn't decide: the location of tolls, the amount to be charged or which hours the tolling would be in effect.
But an Oregon Department of Transportation committee tasked with making a recommendation by this summer is reviewing five concrete options for which roads would be tolled.
And the city of Portland has weighed in, saying it favors a plan that would implement tolls along all of I-5 and I-205 from the Washington state line down to the junction of the two highways south of Tualatin.
Options:
Option 1: Priced lanes on a northern segment of 1-5.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wweek.com%2Fresizer%2FDCnxg12NltnlZEJM0x5ibDtHKsY%3D%2F600x0%2Ffilters%3Aquality%28100%29%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Farc-wordpress-client-uploads%2Fwweek%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F03%2F06151157%2Ftoll-map-01.jpg&hash=f6c8797bf5886ae256d805708a416c662beaaf64)
Option 2: Toll all lanes on I-5.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wweek.com%2Fresizer%2FxK0LXItaew2pILAIZIXWhDMy0Bc%3D%2F600x0%2Ffilters%3Aquality%28100%29%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Farc-wordpress-client-uploads%2Fwweek%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F03%2F06151203%2Ftoll-map-02.jpg&hash=81d829fb820a3b05e421777e71774c9f9d3a5c74)
Option 3: Toll all lanes on I-5 and I-205.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wweek.com%2Fresizer%2FYtMXU1dq3Vjrqr7cK1Kh7IgwFJ4%3D%2F600x0%2Ffilters%3Aquality%28100%29%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Farc-wordpress-client-uploads%2Fwweek%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F03%2F06151208%2Ftoll-map-03.jpg&hash=34e86829a7a3d4d648e183c8c9a9503923a37a38)
Option 4: Add a priced lane on I-205.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wweek.com%2Fresizer%2FI4cZ7EnfEOLb-2XtywOXv2YX_bU%3D%2F600x0%2Ffilters%3Aquality%28100%29%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Farc-wordpress-client-uploads%2Fwweek%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F03%2F06151214%2Ftoll-map-04.jpg&hash=c72c8aa14c7870c173cb452b2aa2d6cd9b4da66c)
Option 5: Toll both directions on the Abernethy Bridge.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wweek.com%2Fresizer%2FTw4wIOY2tESSaiJLg49wNDI49Jk%3D%2F600x0%2Ffilters%3Aquality%28100%29%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Farc-wordpress-client-uploads%2Fwweek%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F03%2F06151218%2Ftoll-map-05.jpg&hash=be12baa7b3c82dbba6eeea47e7985d6af317eefe)
Let me guess: the money from the tolls will go to... transit projects. :pan:
Quote from: roadguy2 on March 10, 2018, 01:25:20 AM
Let me guess: the money from the tolls will go to... transit projects.
Even in Washington, the tolls go back into freeway improvement projects. Most recently, shoulder running on the 405: https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/congestion/peak-use-shoulder-lanes
I agree with roadguy2. I see Metro using the toll money to fund new light rail projects. Given the way I've heard the roads are in Portland, this seems the most likely scenario.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 10, 2018, 02:41:39 PM
I agree with roadguy2. I see Metro using the toll money to fund new light rail projects. Given the way I've heard the roads are in Portland, this seems the most likely scenario.
Isn't this scenario a violation of federal law?
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 10, 2018, 07:10:43 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 10, 2018, 02:41:39 PM
I agree with roadguy2. I see Metro using the toll money to fund new light rail projects. Given the way I've heard the roads are in Portland, this seems the most likely scenario.
Isn't this scenario a violation of federal law?
I couldn't say, but vehicle registration taxes in Washington pay for transit improvements.
Also, how soe of the options don't covet the entire highways. I-84 is more congested than I-5/I-205 more often in most areas. US 26 in the Vista Ridge Tunnel as well?
It figures that the City of Portland would favor the plan that would have the greatest (read most deleterious) effect on the general driving public (against which they seem to have now officially declared war). Their position seems to be based on a twofold calculus: (1) encourage local traffic to stay off the tolled facilities, hoping this will result in increased congestion on nearby streets (82nd and 122nd, watch out!) resulting in movement toward public transit; and (2) to "soak" through traffic on both N-S corridors, since much of that will be coming from out-of-area/state drivers. It seems as tolling facilities -- in general -- appeals to both politicized and polarized segments of public discourse; the nominal left sees tolls as a way to draw funds from primarily the commercial sector that would tend to use the tolled facilities for efficiency -- funds that can be used to support other aspects of the transportation arena; and at the same time render travel through a given area as onerous as possible. OTOH, the nominal right sees it as a welcome move to more direct "user fees" rather than general taxation (i.e., replacing "progressive" taxation measures which may or may not be construed as resource redistribution).
Fortunately, with as many plans in the "hopper" as witnessed here, the Portland-favored plan likely will be an "outlier" and will probably not survive to the final round of determinations. My guess is that there will be dedicated toll bypass lanes on I-5 in the areas such lanes would both physically feasible and economically viable: between the I-205 south interchange and OR 99W merge, and between the I-405/north interchange and the Interstate Bridge, as well as on I-205 between OR 212/224 and the Jackson Bridge.
Also, options 1, 2, and 3 above (including the plan favored by Portland) would make I-5 and I-205 ineligible for federal funding, since they would be adding tolls to existing lanes on an interstate. That's probably not something ODOT wants to pursue.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 10, 2018, 07:10:43 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 10, 2018, 02:41:39 PM
I agree with roadguy2. I see Metro using the toll money to fund new light rail projects. Given the way I've heard the roads are in Portland, this seems the most likely scenario.
Isn't this scenario a violation of federal law?
The rule for tolling Interstates is that it has to be on bridges and the revenue has to be used on that roadway for improvements. So what would happen is that all of the improvements along the I-5/205 corridor would be funded by these tolls, freeing up revenue currently spent on the corridor to be used for transit. In essence the tolls would then end up paying for transit, but indirectly. Not that that's how they would do it, but that's probably how they would have to do it to survive a legal challenge.
Of course, who knows how long that rule will last given Trump's infrastructure proposal.
Quote from: Alps on March 24, 2018, 11:30:20 PM
So what would happen is that all of the improvements along the I-5/205 corridor would be funded by these tolls, freeing up revenue currently spent on the corridor to be used for transit. In essence the tolls would then end up paying for transit, but indirectly
Such would violate the Oregon Constitution. The monies freed up would go right back in ODOT's account, to be used for however ODOT sees fit.
Metro doesn't receive state gas tax funding; it merely has a say in how money is spent within its jurisdiction. Tolling freeways in Portland is just a sure-fire way for ODOT to spend the money outside of the Metro, since there is no requirement other than that gas tax money has to be spent on highways - and not light rail.