ODOT: ‘Strong opposition’ from public on I-205 tolling

[Plutonic Panda]

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?

[Bickendan]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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?

[Bruce]

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

[Bruce]

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

[Bruce]

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

[Bickendan]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[CovalenceSTU]

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.

[doorknob60]

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?).

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Bruce]

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.

[Rothman]

If it's not tolled now, why are tolls necessary on the replacement?

[Rothman]

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...

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[kkt]

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.

[J N Winkler]

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.  (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.)

[stevashe]

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.   

[Amaury]

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.

[Bruce]

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 due to project cost increases.

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.

[Rothman]

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%.

[Rothman]

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.

[kkt]

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?

[J N Winkler]

Really?  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.

[Bickendan]

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.