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

[Plutonic Panda]

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?

[Sub-Urbanite]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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."

[Sub-Urbanite]

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?

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."

[Plutonic Panda]

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

[cl94]

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.

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.

[kkt]

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

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.

[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.

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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

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.

[Sub-Urbanite]

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

- 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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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

- 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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Sub-Urbanite]

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.

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

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.

I guess time will tell.

[ErmineNotyours]

[RoadWarrior56]

Instead of tolling roadways that were constructed as free facilities and operated that way for 60 years, how about just adjusting the fuel tax for inflation and chrarging an annual regisistration fee for EV's that account for their use of the roadway facilities.  And if the state and their voters don't want to do that, let them deal with their crappy roads and everything else wrong in that state.

But then again, IMO, Oregon is almost beyond redemption whatever they do.  I speak from some experiece being that my daughter and her family live in Portland, and I experience their traffic and antiquated roadways at least twice a year when I fly to there from the Southeast.

[kalvado]

Instead of tolling roadways that were constructed as free facilities and operated that way for 60 years, how about just adjusting the fuel tax for inflation and chrarging an annual regisistration fee for EV's that account for their use of the roadway facilities.  And if the state and their voters don't want to do that, let them deal with their crappy roads and everything else wrong in that state.

But then again, IMO, Oregon is almost beyond redemption whatever they do.  I speak from some experiece being that my daughter and her family live in Portland, and I experience their traffic and antiquated roadways at least twice a year when I fly to there from the Southeast.

One issue here is expensive bridges (and tunnels - not in this case, but elsewhere). Looks like tolling bridges above certain threshold is close to best and most fair solution all around. Threshold in terms of cost, complexity, abundance.

[RoadWarrior56]

Tolling the bridges is a likely solution.  Louisville had to toll the I-65 crossing over the Ohio River, when they added a new bridge and rehabbed the existing one.  I do know that bridges can be tolled on Interstates. But KYTC and INDOT did not toll the entire freeway. 

[kkt]

No surprise, when people get used to something being free they hate having to start paying.
Death and taxes.

[Bruce]

Instead of tolling roadways that were constructed as free facilities and operated that way for 60 years, how about just adjusting the fuel tax for inflation and chrarging an annual regisistration fee for EV's that account for their use of the roadway facilities.  And if the state and their voters don't want to do that, let them deal with their crappy roads and everything else wrong in that state.

But then again, IMO, Oregon is almost beyond redemption whatever they do.  I speak from some experiece being that my daughter and her family live in Portland, and I experience their traffic and antiquated roadways at least twice a year when I fly to there from the Southeast.

Oregon already has an annual $316 registration fee for EVs (compared to $126 for old or low MPG ICE vehicles; and $156 for newer vehicles with over 40 MPG). There's also an extra fee for vehicles registered in Multnomah County ($112) or Washington and Clackamas counties ($60).

One has to remember that Oregon only has 4.2 million people (just over half of Washington's population) and a lot of rural roads that also need maintenance from the same funding sources, largely derived from the Portland metro area. The state simply cannot afford to build all the projects it needs in the Portland area, on top of needing to placate the rural areas with their own pork barrel dreams. Washington manages it by going big on giant transportation packages every few years, but this doesn't seem to be as palatable in Oregon.

[edwaleni]

Instead of tolling roadways that were constructed as free facilities and operated that way for 60 years, how about just adjusting the fuel tax for inflation and chrarging an annual regisistration fee for EV's that account for their use of the roadway facilities.  And if the state and their voters don't want to do that, let them deal with their crappy roads and everything else wrong in that state.

But then again, IMO, Oregon is almost beyond redemption whatever they do.  I speak from some experiece being that my daughter and her family live in Portland, and I experience their traffic and antiquated roadways at least twice a year when I fly to there from the Southeast.

Oregon already has an annual $316 registration fee for EVs (compared to $126 for old or low MPG ICE vehicles; and $156 for newer vehicles with over 40 MPG). There's also an extra fee for vehicles registered in Multnomah County ($112) or Washington and Clackamas counties ($60).

One has to remember that Oregon only has 4.2 million people (just over half of Washington's population) and a lot of rural roads that also need maintenance from the same funding sources, largely derived from the Portland metro area. The state simply cannot afford to build all the projects it needs in the Portland area, on top of needing to placate the rural areas with their own pork barrel dreams. Washington manages it by going big on giant transportation packages every few years, but this doesn't seem to be as palatable in Oregon.

Help me understand some of those pork barrel dreams of highways east of the Willamette.

- OR62 in Medford
- US97 through Bend

Is the only significant highway upgrade I can think of outside the Portland Metro in the last 20 years.

If I missed any, please update me.

[Sub-Urbanite]

Well, the 217 has been in the midst of a massive rebuild for more than a year, something that's been promised-but-not-delivered for decades.

The Sunrise Corridor's first phase was a nice chunk of asphalt, although it may or may not have a second phase.

I think the Newberg-Dundee Bypass was a pretty significant upgrade.

But, I think US 97 in Central Oregon is the only example where ODOT has really "gotten away with" new controlled access facilities on a systemic scale. Too much congestion in the city, and too many head-ons and T-bones in the sticks, will convince even the most ardent enviros that a freeway is the best treatment for problems. Still, it feels like those days are numbered, too – the new plan for US 97 rebuild in southern Redmond is expressway-at-best, instead of continuing the freeway bypass through town.

Instead of tolling roadways that were constructed as free facilities and operated that way for 60 years, how about just adjusting the fuel tax for inflation and chrarging an annual regisistration fee for EV's that account for their use of the roadway facilities.  And if the state and their voters don't want to do that, let them deal with their crappy roads and everything else wrong in that state.

But then again, IMO, Oregon is almost beyond redemption whatever they do.  I speak from some experiece being that my daughter and her family live in Portland, and I experience their traffic and antiquated roadways at least twice a year when I fly to there from the Southeast.

Oregon already has an annual $316 registration fee for EVs (compared to $126 for old or low MPG ICE vehicles; and $156 for newer vehicles with over 40 MPG). There's also an extra fee for vehicles registered in Multnomah County ($112) or Washington and Clackamas counties ($60).

One has to remember that Oregon only has 4.2 million people (just over half of Washington's population) and a lot of rural roads that also need maintenance from the same funding sources, largely derived from the Portland metro area. The state simply cannot afford to build all the projects it needs in the Portland area, on top of needing to placate the rural areas with their own pork barrel dreams. Washington manages it by going big on giant transportation packages every few years, but this doesn't seem to be as palatable in Oregon.

Help me understand some of those pork barrel dreams of highways east of the Willamette.

- OR62 in Medford
- US97 through Bend

Is the only significant highway upgrade I can think of outside the Portland Metro in the last 20 years.

If I missed any, please update me.