AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: No More Freeways PDX  (Read 1361 times)

Sub-Urbanite

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 195
  • There's at least a 60% chance I'm just trolling

  • Location: Portland, OR
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 02:36:06 PM
No More Freeways PDX
« on: September 22, 2017, 05:59:46 PM »

So this is a thing.

https://nomorefreewayspdx.com

They are literally opposing construction of an auxiliary lane between I-405 and I-84 on I-5 through the Rose Quarter… and a freeway deck lid to make it less noxious.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2017, 11:36:08 PM by Bickendan »
Logged

sp_redelectric

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 409
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Tigard, OR
  • Last Login: October 01, 2017, 05:52:54 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2017, 07:20:37 PM »

The anti-freeway groups are mobilizing, and they are now pushing for a congestion tax on the region as their "solution".

But because they are the vocal minority that are aligned with the bicycle interests in this city, the 5% will get to trample on the 95%.
Logged

Indyroads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 225
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Lebanon, Indiana
  • Last Login: September 24, 2017, 10:11:24 AM
    • Indyroads.com
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2017, 11:44:55 PM »

Nothing new .. This has been going on for years all over the country... just under the auspices of environmental protection
Logged
And a highway will be there;
    it will be called the Way of Holiness;
    it will be for those who walk on that Way.
The unclean will not journey on it;
    wicked fools will not go about on it.
Isaiah 35:8-10 (NIV)

compdude787

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 348
  • Age: 22
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:13:51 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2017, 11:57:44 PM »

Their opposition is utterly stupid and backwards. It is clear that this organization really hates cars!

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1124
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:06:17 AM
    • Wikipedia
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2017, 02:10:34 AM »

Well duh, when you don't have a car, cars are a problem. A pest.

This freeway expansion seems to be pretty pointless, though, and will do little to "fix" congestion. Just correct the merges without increasing the number of lanes. Call it a geometric revision, not an expansion.

Duke87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4765
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Queens, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 12:17:28 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2017, 12:21:51 AM »

This freeway expansion seems to be pretty pointless, though, and will do little to "fix" congestion.

But it will improve throughput. Four congested lanes is still a 33% capacity improvement over three congested lanes.

This might not be sexy but it is objectively a benefit.
Logged
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1124
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:06:17 AM
    • Wikipedia
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2017, 12:28:58 AM »

This freeway expansion seems to be pretty pointless, though, and will do little to "fix" congestion.

But it will improve throughput. Four congested lanes is still a 33% capacity improvement over three congested lanes.

This might not be sexy but it is objectively a benefit.

What good is it when the downtown streets and connectors are clogged up and can't handle that throughput? It's an overflowing sink that you're plugging more pipes into.

Duke87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4765
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Queens, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 12:17:28 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2017, 01:13:42 AM »

What good is it when the downtown streets and connectors are clogged up and can't handle that throughput? It's an overflowing sink that you're plugging more pipes into.

This statement is directly contradictory to the original assertion that the widening would not fix congestion.

If capacity on streets downtown were the singular limiting factor in the freeway's utility, adding lanes to it would make it less congested because you would have more space for the same number of vehicles. More vehicles wouldn't use the road because they'd have nowhere to go once off of it / be unable to get to it on the return trip.

If lanes are added to a freeway and getting used by additional traffic, somewhere there must be available capacity for those vehicles once they get off the freeway because we know they're successfully completing their trips.


Now it may well be the case that downtown streets cannot really handle more traffic (I'm not familiar enough with Portland to know whether that is the case or not). But, who says the traffic is going downtown? Those extra lanes are useful for people going from Tigard to Vancouver. Or from Montavilla to St John's.

Even if we accept the analogy that downtown is an overflowing sink (flawed, IMO), adding another pipe doesn't necessarily mean dumping more water into it. It can also mean helping drain water out of it so it stops overflowing.
Logged
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2468
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:08:54 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2017, 02:41:11 AM »

As a former PDX resident, the notion that the 5/405 downtown "loop" can and will collectively disperse traffic from all four directions -- with only 2 lanes per travel direction -- was and is absurd to the nth degree!  If the longer routes extending from the routes (5 [x2], 84, and 26 -- even though west 30 is contributory, it has relatively lesser effect on the overall flow) effectively divide the loop into overlapping halves, each half (regardless of whether it's on a N-S or E-W axis) can be expected to host traffic from both the through route and the entering outer extension; 3 lanes for the outer and inner loops (not considering the connections west of Marquam and east of Fremont bridges) would be the minimum required to effect continuous flow.

But that's not what this group (and others of its ilk) want -- as they consider all traffic modes to be part of a fungible continuum, their goal is to render metro driving so onerous that mass abandonment of the automotive mode occurs as a natural progression.  However, if I-5 in the north half remains as is with the likely resultant increase in congestion in short order, the "overflow" traffic will simply move to parallel streets -- N. Interstate, MLK, and even local arterials (to the consternation of neighborhood residents).

The prevailing public response to efforts to curb urban driving (and/or driving in general!) has decidedly not been an attitudinal sea change to "Gosh -- since I can't make good time between point A and point B, I'm just going to give up my car and take public transit -- even though I can't "trip-chain" anymore and now I have to get up at 5 in the morning to catch all the necessary buses/LR/trolleys to make it to work at 8!"  Nah -- they're going to grit their teeth and do what's necessary to maintain a personal mode as close to their accustomed methodology.  While some folks assume (w/o much besides low "n" anecdotal evidence as backing) that we're shooting headlong into a postconsumer/postcapitalist modality, the plain truth is that folks require the movement flexibility that the individual-automotive mode provides -- the willingness to accept extremely bounded rationality is limited to a relatively few parties; the ranks of those, despite the "throw enough shit out there and someone will believe it" mentality of some activists (ironically mirroring in their own way the efforts of the current national administration), isn't increasing outside small circles of those same activists (the old adage of "preaching to the choir" applies here as well).       

I hear the clarion cry of "sustainability" ready to pounce on my previous assertations.  But the reality is that within the overall realm of our current democracy and its various components, elevating a reductionist agenda to the position of being the sole methodology considered to achieve sustainability is not only politically but logistically infeasible; taking things away from folks -- particularly their flexibility regarding freedom of living choices -- is hardly an acceptable or even realistic course of action.  Rather than engage in a wholesale condemnation of those who make the choice to function within a commercial/consumer atmosphere -- and attempt to limit their ability to do so -- the more rational -- and (small "d") democratic choice would be to make their current modus operandi compatible with those goals of sustainability -- which, of course, will mean hard corporate choices (eliminating fossil fuels in favor of biofuels and/or electricity would go far toward that) that may mean some severe "blips" for Wall Street. 

Essentially, this argument is simple -- turn populist energy toward technical changes to effect sustainability -- and whatever structural modifications are necessary to achieve those -- rather than attempting to change basic human nature and/or create a new "homus urbanus communitarius" species.  And to all those activists out there -- please resist the temptation to look at yourself in the mirror each morning and think "....if everyone were like me, all would be right with the world!" -- and don't elevate methodology to ideology.   Perhaps I'm just your basic utilitarian -- always looking for ways to get things done without banging my head against too many walls; but I learned long ago that eschewing ideology in favor of effectuality was invariably the way to go!  Change the environment in which people operate; don't try to change people in a wholesale manner.   
Logged

compdude787

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 348
  • Age: 22
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:13:51 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2017, 05:03:01 PM »

^ Sparker is exactly right here. He hits on a principle, which is: People. Like. Their. Cars. They will be hard pressed to give them up. Only the lack of inexpensive parking will force people to consider alternate modes of transportation. Making congestion worse by not doing anything about it--or hanging on to this delusional fantasy that adding more light rail and buses will reduce congestion--will not make people get out of their cars. Oh, and speaking of public transit, I think that it's going to be replaced by services like Uber and Lyft, and we won't need to waste taxpayer money on something that does NOTHING to reduce congestion! Oh what a day that will be!!! :D

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1124
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:06:17 AM
    • Wikipedia
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #10 on: September 24, 2017, 09:34:04 PM »

^ Sparker is exactly right here. He hits on a principle, which is: People. Like. Their. Cars. They will be hard pressed to give them up. Only the lack of inexpensive parking will force people to consider alternate modes of transportation. Making congestion worse by not doing anything about it--or hanging on to this delusional fantasy that adding more light rail and buses will reduce congestion--will not make people get out of their cars. Oh, and speaking of public transit, I think that it's going to be replaced by services like Uber and Lyft, and we won't need to waste taxpayer money on something that does NOTHING to reduce congestion! Oh what a day that will be!!! :D

Transit is meant to bypass congestion, not directly affect it. Lyft and Uber are not going to be able to carry the same amount as a single bus or light rail vehicle (even the under-sized Portland version) as efficiently, even with everything automated.

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2152
  • Last Login: Today at 06:06:52 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #11 on: September 24, 2017, 11:36:01 PM »

Bruce is right -- Uber and Lyft can only supplement public transit. They might be able to replace yellow cabs, but not buses, streetcars, and LRTs.
As far as LRT goes in Portland, the two care limitation a bane for MAX capacity, not to mention the downtown and Lloyd District routings. MAX should have been built as a subway downtown, like Seattle's transit tunnel, which would have allowed for three or four car trains.

As for cars, and this anti-freeway sentiment this group is harboring, I'd like to have whatever they're smoking. Widening I-5 through Rose Quarter isn't for the sake of widening the freeway; it's to remove a long-standing bottleneck on I-5 and mitigate several dangerous weaving sections. Notably, the two lane section between the Marquam Bridge and I-84 remains...
Logged

AlexandriaVA

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 793
  • Location: Virginia
  • Last Login: October 12, 2017, 09:08:24 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2017, 11:55:18 PM »

A lot of city traffic is caused by cars searching for parking spaces. Hired cars (cab, uber, limo, etc) eliminate the parking need.

Think of how many people get around by cab in New York...imagine if they all drove and trolled around for spots.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 252
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 12:02:32 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #13 on: September 25, 2017, 06:42:58 AM »

Bruce is right -- Uber and Lyft can only supplement public transit. They might be able to replace yellow cabs, but not buses, streetcars, and LRTs.
As far as LRT goes in Portland, the two care limitation a bane for MAX capacity, not to mention the downtown and Lloyd District routings. MAX should have been built as a subway downtown, like Seattle's transit tunnel, which would have allowed for three or four car trains.

As for cars, and this anti-freeway sentiment this group is harboring, I'd like to have whatever they're smoking. Widening I-5 through Rose Quarter isn't for the sake of widening the freeway; it's to remove a long-standing bottleneck on I-5 and mitigate several dangerous weaving sections. Notably, the two lane section between the Marquam Bridge and I-84 remains...
I think ridesharing services have greatly impacted transit. Transit ridership is down in almost every city. Uber and Lyft have likely played some part in that.
Logged

Stephane Dumas

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1566
  • Last Login: Today at 08:02:34 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #14 on: September 25, 2017, 10:21:04 AM »

^ Sparker is exactly right here. He hits on a principle, which is: People. Like. Their. Cars. They will be hard pressed to give them up. Only the lack of inexpensive parking will force people to consider alternate modes of transportation. Making congestion worse by not doing anything about it--or hanging on to this delusional fantasy that adding more light rail and buses will reduce congestion--will not make people get out of their cars. Oh, and speaking of public transit, I think that it's going to be replaced by services like Uber and Lyft, and we won't need to waste taxpayer money on something that does NOTHING to reduce congestion! Oh what a day that will be!!! :D

Also, just imagine having lots of groceries bags in public transit or worse as shown in the 1985 movie "Moving Violations" in this clip at 2:55. ;)
Logged

kalvado

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1296
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 12:13:13 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #15 on: September 25, 2017, 12:40:30 PM »

^ Sparker is exactly right here. He hits on a principle, which is: People. Like. Their. Cars. They will be hard pressed to give them up. Only the lack of inexpensive parking will force people to consider alternate modes of transportation. Making congestion worse by not doing anything about it--or hanging on to this delusional fantasy that adding more light rail and buses will reduce congestion--will not make people get out of their cars. Oh, and speaking of public transit, I think that it's going to be replaced by services like Uber and Lyft, and we won't need to waste taxpayer money on something that does NOTHING to reduce congestion! Oh what a day that will be!!! :D

Also, just imagine having lots of groceries bags in public transit or worse as shown in the 1985 movie "Moving Violations" in this clip at 2:55. ;)

Probably much less of an issue with services like Amazon pantry, Uber Eats and home delivery from local grocery store.
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 66
  • Last Login: October 12, 2017, 12:37:13 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #16 on: September 28, 2017, 01:29:55 PM »

In response to the various demands for more bicycle lane availability/accessibility, Oregon has passed a bicycle tax.

Interesting response from those who rely solely on highway taxes to pay for a bicycle way around town.

Oregon just passed the only bike-specific tax in the country

On Thursday, the Oregon Legislature approved an ambitious $5.3 billion transportation tax and fee package. House Bill 2017, which passed the Senate 22-7, includes a 4-cent gas tax hike, a $16 vehicle registration fee increase, 0.1 percent payroll tax and 0.5 percent tax on new car sales.

It also includes something that no other state in the country has: a tax on the sale of bikes.

That means, unless opponents challenge the bill at the ballot or in court, starting Jan. 1, 2018, new bicycles with a wheel diameter of 26 inches or more and a retail price of $200 or more will be taxed a flat rate of $15.

The tax will be collected by retailers at the time of sale. It should be noted that most states do tax the sale of bikes because they have sales tax and tax the sale of most goods, which Oregon does not.

The money raised by the bike tax will go directly to projects "that expand and improve commuter routes for nonmotorized vehicles and pedestrians."

While lawmakers consider the passage of the bill a big win, bicycle activists are less enthusiastic.

"Congrats to Oregon," wrote Angie Schmitt on Streets Blog USA, "on its preposterous bike tax that accomplishes no discernible transportation goal except dampening demand for new bikes."

"The only way to like this tax is to think 1) it will quell the anger from people who think, 'Those bicyclists don't pay their fair share!' (it won't)," wrote Jonathan Maus, editor of BikePortland.org, "or 2) you think the money it raises for infrastructure outweighs the potential disincentive to new bike buyers, the erosion of profits from bike retailers, and the absurdity of it on principle alone."

"Time will tell I suppose," he added.

Others are already coming up with ways to skirt the law. One suggestion? Buy bikes with smaller wheels:
Logged

jwolfer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1739
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Jacksonville, FL
  • Last Login: Today at 09:19:13 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #17 on: September 28, 2017, 04:19:20 PM »

In response to the various demands for more bicycle lane availability/accessibility, Oregon has passed a bicycle tax.

Interesting response from those who rely solely on highway taxes to pay for a bicycle way around town.

Oregon just passed the only bike-specific tax in the country

On Thursday, the Oregon Legislature approved an ambitious $5.3 billion transportation tax and fee package. House Bill 2017, which passed the Senate 22-7, includes a 4-cent gas tax hike, a $16 vehicle registration fee increase, 0.1 percent payroll tax and 0.5 percent tax on new car sales.

It also includes something that no other state in the country has: a tax on the sale of bikes.

That means, unless opponents challenge the bill at the ballot or in court, starting Jan. 1, 2018, new bicycles with a wheel diameter of 26 inches or more and a retail price of $200 or more will be taxed a flat rate of $15.

The tax will be collected by retailers at the time of sale. It should be noted that most states do tax the sale of bikes because they have sales tax and tax the sale of most goods, which Oregon does not.

The money raised by the bike tax will go directly to projects "that expand and improve commuter routes for nonmotorized vehicles and pedestrians."

While lawmakers consider the passage of the bill a big win, bicycle activists are less enthusiastic.

"Congrats to Oregon," wrote Angie Schmitt on Streets Blog USA, "on its preposterous bike tax that accomplishes no discernible transportation goal except dampening demand for new bikes."

"The only way to like this tax is to think 1) it will quell the anger from people who think, 'Those bicyclists don't pay their fair share!' (it won't)," wrote Jonathan Maus, editor of BikePortland.org, "or 2) you think the money it raises for infrastructure outweighs the potential disincentive to new bike buyers, the erosion of profits from bike retailers, and the absurdity of it on principle alone."

"Time will tell I suppose," he added.

Others are already coming up with ways to skirt the law. One suggestion? Buy bikes with smaller wheels:
People will buy bikes in Washington

Z981

Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6024
  • Don't do what Donny Don't does

  • Age: 21
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 04:13:21 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #18 on: September 28, 2017, 04:29:05 PM »

In response to the various demands for more bicycle lane availability/accessibility, Oregon has passed a bicycle tax.

Interesting response from those who rely solely on highway taxes to pay for a bicycle way around town.

Oregon just passed the only bike-specific tax in the country

...starting Jan. 1, 2018, new bicycles with a wheel diameter of 26 inches or more and a retail price of $200 or more will be taxed a flat rate of $15...

People will buy bikes in Washington

Probably not. Clark County has a 7.7% sales tax. If you're buying a bike at $200, that's ~ $215 after tax (no savings). Any more expensive than $200 (most bikes), and that flat tax looks really appetising.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2468
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:08:54 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #19 on: September 28, 2017, 04:36:23 PM »

In response to the various demands for more bicycle lane availability/accessibility, Oregon has passed a bicycle tax.

Interesting response from those who rely solely on highway taxes to pay for a bicycle way around town.

Oregon just passed the only bike-specific tax in the country

On Thursday, the Oregon Legislature approved an ambitious $5.3 billion transportation tax and fee package. House Bill 2017, which passed the Senate 22-7, includes a 4-cent gas tax hike, a $16 vehicle registration fee increase, 0.1 percent payroll tax and 0.5 percent tax on new car sales.

It also includes something that no other state in the country has: a tax on the sale of bikes.

That means, unless opponents challenge the bill at the ballot or in court, starting Jan. 1, 2018, new bicycles with a wheel diameter of 26 inches or more and a retail price of $200 or more will be taxed a flat rate of $15.

The tax will be collected by retailers at the time of sale. It should be noted that most states do tax the sale of bikes because they have sales tax and tax the sale of most goods, which Oregon does not.

The money raised by the bike tax will go directly to projects "that expand and improve commuter routes for nonmotorized vehicles and pedestrians."

While lawmakers consider the passage of the bill a big win, bicycle activists are less enthusiastic.

"Congrats to Oregon," wrote Angie Schmitt on Streets Blog USA, "on its preposterous bike tax that accomplishes no discernible transportation goal except dampening demand for new bikes."

"The only way to like this tax is to think 1) it will quell the anger from people who think, 'Those bicyclists don't pay their fair share!' (it won't)," wrote Jonathan Maus, editor of BikePortland.org, "or 2) you think the money it raises for infrastructure outweighs the potential disincentive to new bike buyers, the erosion of profits from bike retailers, and the absurdity of it on principle alone."

"Time will tell I suppose," he added.

Others are already coming up with ways to skirt the law. One suggestion? Buy bikes with smaller wheels:
People will buy bikes in Washington

Z981


Just like folks in Vancouver and environs buy many of their big-ticket goods in Oregon because of the lack of sales tax.  In this case, turnabout is certainly fair play! 
Probably not.  Clark County has a 7.7% sales tax. If you're buying a bike at $200, that's ~ $215 after tax (no savings). Any more expensive than $200 (most bikes), and that flat tax looks really appetising.

7.7% -- for the West Coast, that's nothing; we're 9.25% here in San Jose -- and some neighboring communities are up to 9.75%.  So far, nobody's dared to go into double figures -- but I figure that's coming within 2-3 years!
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6024
  • Don't do what Donny Don't does

  • Age: 21
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 04:13:21 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #20 on: September 28, 2017, 05:02:51 PM »

Probably not.  Clark County has a 7.7% sales tax. If you're buying a bike at $200, that's ~ $215 after tax (no savings). Any more expensive than $200 (most bikes), and that flat tax looks really appetising.

7.7% -- for the West Coast, that's nothing; we're 9.25% here in San Jose -- and some neighboring communities are up to 9.75%.  So far, nobody's dared to go into double figures -- but I figure that's coming within 2-3 years!

Tacoma (where I live) is 10.1% (6.5% state + 3.6% city). Figuring out after-tax prices is pretty easy! I believe we have one of the highest sales taxes in the country (.5% higher than Seattle!), although behind several Snohomish county cities (10.3% to 10.4% in many municipalities).
« Last Edit: September 28, 2017, 05:05:53 PM by jakeroot »
Logged

MisterSG1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 345
  • Civil Engineering Student - Better Late Than Never

  • Age: 29
  • Location: Brampton, ON
  • Last Login: Today at 07:59:01 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #21 on: September 28, 2017, 05:47:16 PM »

Regarding taking an uber versus "hunting around for parking". There is something to consider about Uber and it's impact on the transportation picture.

For starters, open up your Uber app, those cars on the map are those drivers currently waiting for rides, so thus they are out on the roads (if they can't find a parking spot especially in a downtown setting) with no destination in mind. This adds more traffic to the roads, sure Uber may be popular but it could arguably make road transportation worse.

An uber driver in essence with regards to a trip is active in 3 phases, only the third phase transports a passenger somewhere.

Phase 1: Driver online waiting for trips - A driver doesn't necessarily need to be on the road in this phase, but in urban settings, finding a decent place to "hide" while in Phase 1 can sometimes be difficult to find, so some drivers will be driving around aimlessly

Phase 2: Driver accepts ping and enroute to pick up rider - The closest driver on the map is now summoned to pick up the rider

Phase 3: Rider gets in vehicle and driver transports rider to destination - Only in this phase is the desired trip for the rider occurring


What I'm trying to say is that uber drivers take up a significant footprint in the role they do that many overlook.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2468
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:08:54 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #22 on: September 28, 2017, 05:47:48 PM »

Probably not.  Clark County has a 7.7% sales tax. If you're buying a bike at $200, that's ~ $215 after tax (no savings). Any more expensive than $200 (most bikes), and that flat tax looks really appetising.

7.7% -- for the West Coast, that's nothing; we're 9.25% here in San Jose -- and some neighboring communities are up to 9.75%.  So far, nobody's dared to go into double figures -- but I figure that's coming within 2-3 years!

Tacoma (where I live) is 10.1% (6.5% state + 3.6% city). Figuring out after-tax prices is pretty easy! I believe we have one of the highest sales taxes in the country (.5% higher than Seattle!), although behind several Snohomish county cities (10.3% to 10.4% in many municipalities).

Yikes!  Are all those 10%+ taxes general funding or are portions thereof dedicated to specific expenditures (i.e., buses, LR expansion, public housing, or other earmarked outlays?).  Many of the higher tax rates in CA can be "parsed" out, with fixed portions applied to certain projects (such as the BART extension to SJ, which accounts for about a half-percent of our local sales tax base); it would be interesting to see if WA is utilizing that concept as well.
Logged

Duke87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4765
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Queens, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 12:17:28 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #23 on: September 28, 2017, 07:02:33 PM »

It should be noted that Washington does not have a state income tax. Their sales taxes are high because, well, the money's gotta come from somewhere.

As for the bike tax, on the principle of infrastructure being paid for by those who use it, it makes perfect sense. Although, $15 per new bike seems like a trivial sum. How much of an impact will this have on bike sales, really? And, concurrently, how much money will it really raise? Seems like mostly a symbolic gesture to quell complaints about bikes getting a free ride.
Logged
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6024
  • Don't do what Donny Don't does

  • Age: 21
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 04:13:21 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #24 on: September 29, 2017, 12:01:46 AM »

Probably not.  Clark County has a 7.7% sales tax. If you're buying a bike at $200, that's ~ $215 after tax (no savings). Any more expensive than $200 (most bikes), and that flat tax looks really appetising.

7.7% -- for the West Coast, that's nothing; we're 9.25% here in San Jose -- and some neighboring communities are up to 9.75%.  So far, nobody's dared to go into double figures -- but I figure that's coming within 2-3 years!

Tacoma (where I live) is 10.1% (6.5% state + 3.6% city). Figuring out after-tax prices is pretty easy! I believe we have one of the highest sales taxes in the country (.5% higher than Seattle!), although behind several Snohomish county cities (10.3% to 10.4% in many municipalities).

Yikes!  Are all those 10%+ taxes general funding or are portions thereof dedicated to specific expenditures (i.e., buses, LR expansion, public housing, or other earmarked outlays?).  Many of the higher tax rates in CA can be "parsed" out, with fixed portions applied to certain projects (such as the BART extension to SJ, which accounts for about a half-percent of our local sales tax base); it would be interesting to see if WA is utilizing that concept as well.

As mentioned by Duke (previous page), these taxes are indeed traced to not having income tax. The Puget Sound region is paying for light rail through yearly vehicle registration fees (my tabs went from $80 to $300 but I'm fine with it).
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.