The Discovery Institute and tolls
Yesterday in Vancouver there was a forum about using tolls to pay for road projects. The event was put on by the Cascadia project, which is the "better transportation" part of the Discovery Institute, as opposed to the creationism/intelligent design part of the Discovery Institute.
I know, I know--Cascadia is a separate project from the overtly political attempts by Discovery to ram creationism in disguise down the throats of Kansans and others. Cascadia uses seemingly legitimate experts, etc. But still, how many groups on the left get to influence public policy like this? It must be nice to have all that non-profit money to promote your views, and then say they aren't political.
Leaving that aside, what did the experts hired by the non-Discovery Institute have to say to their business-group hosts?
Nothing that was reported of the Cascadia/Discovery event is radical, so don't get me wrong. But the real issue seems to be that we are moving towards an outcome in which the process is geared so favorably towards new road construction (ie, a new bridge geared mainly toward vehicle traffic) that maybe we ought to take another look.
The Oregonian recently profiled transportation guru Jim Howell, who is legendary in Portland for his decades of work and activism. If you say "Tom McCall Waterfront Park" or "light rail" in Portland, you really should say the name Jim Howell. And he's not so certain the bridge task force is on the right track.
But there are a few things that are becoming clear. First, there is support on the task force for a new bridge. Second, there is support for a transportation component, be that light rail or bus rapid transit. Third, this will have to be paid for by someone, and as nearly everyone hates taxes, or being assailed about taxes, tolls offer one way to pay for things.
Tolls are a legitimiate user fee, and people on large task forces probably don't have the luxury of piecing this together with an eye to the political landscape, but I'm going to issue a warning here. Regular citizens are not tuned into this project yet. Sure, it gets a little coverage here and there, but by and large the issue of what to do about the Interstate Bridge has not hit critical mass with the broader public.
One day people are going to wake up and hear the words "new bridge" followed by "light rail" and "toll" and some of them are going to have a cow, at least in Clark County. Most of them will be fine with the new bridge part, but the prospect of light rail juxtaposed, in the public mind anyhow, with tolls will not go over well in Clark County.
So what to do? For starters, political leaders in Clark County (I can't really speak for Oregon residents) need to realize that people outside of the business world might have some good ideas, too. For far too long, decision making in Clark County has been conducted as a charade. Public meetings are held, but the outcomes are pre-determined.
It's no secret, either, how this happens. Business groups and think tanks funded with millions of dollars have the money and staff to promote their preferred outcomes as full time jobs, while environmental, justice and other progressive groups in Clark County generally don't. There are some incredibly dedicated volunteers, but they have to eat. So unless public officials come up with something so awful that there is a gigantic outpouring of public outrage, the outcomes tend to be ones the planning staff and business groups work out. And if a bone is thrown to the neighborhoods or the enviros or some other non-business constituency, why they should be grateful.
I'm not sure yet what would be the best way to handle the problem of the I-5 bridge. But we shouldn't be pulling practical options off the table yet, and we should listen more to people like Jim Howell, who has been proven correct repeatedly in Portland.
As a friend of mine who is extremely well-versed in planning issues put it in an email discussion we are having about the Columbia River Crossing project:
Discovery Institute's Cascadia Center is pleased to sponsor another forum as part of our Transportation/Technology series—this time in Vancouver, Washington. The forum is hosted by Identity Clark County and the Portland Business Alliance.I was kind of wondering whose bright idea it was to involve the Discovery Institute in our little I-5 bridge discussions down here. It figures-Identity Clark County is a Chamber outfit.
Local and national tolling experts, including representatives from Booz Allen Hamilton and HNTB, will come together for a free-flowing panel discussion on the future of tolling in Southwest Washington. Specifically, the forum will examine tolling options on the I-5 bridge, the potential for public private partnerships in Metropolitan Portland, new technologies for tolling transponders, and the effect of tolling on demand management between Oregon and Washington.
I know, I know--Cascadia is a separate project from the overtly political attempts by Discovery to ram creationism in disguise down the throats of Kansans and others. Cascadia uses seemingly legitimate experts, etc. But still, how many groups on the left get to influence public policy like this? It must be nice to have all that non-profit money to promote your views, and then say they aren't political.
Leaving that aside, what did the experts hired by the non-Discovery Institute have to say to their business-group hosts?
Panelists agreed that money sources for new roads and bridges are growing scarce in the United States as the federal government steadily reduces its contributions. Common options include tolls, gasoline taxes and vehicle fees.Alert! Alert! For future reference, these are not "left wing radicals" proposing tolls. These are the experts brought in on behalf of the business guys 'n gals. We need to be very clear about that.
Tax money should be used on local streets and roads, providing services for the bulk of the public that is generating that revenue, said panelist Harold Worrall, an engineer and founder of Transportation Innovations Inc., a consulting company in Oviedo, Fla.
Tolls are a possible method of paying for a new $1 billion to $2 billion Columbia River crossing that is likely to replace the Interstate Bridge. And Worrall said tolls -- not gas taxes -- should be the key financing source for new freeways and freeway bridges, noting those projects help freight movement.
"That's probably why you're considering this (toll) here in Oregon," said Worrall.
Panelist John A.A. "Jack" Opiola, a principal of the London consultant Booz-Allen-Hamilton, dismissed the notion that the public reflexively rejects paying tolls. Motorists of all income classes understand that faster movement can be had for a price.
"If I'm facing a $1 or $2 toll, rather than a $20 charge from day care" for showing up late to retrieve a child, Opiola said, the toll is "worth the value."
Nothing that was reported of the Cascadia/Discovery event is radical, so don't get me wrong. But the real issue seems to be that we are moving towards an outcome in which the process is geared so favorably towards new road construction (ie, a new bridge geared mainly toward vehicle traffic) that maybe we ought to take another look.
The Oregonian recently profiled transportation guru Jim Howell, who is legendary in Portland for his decades of work and activism. If you say "Tom McCall Waterfront Park" or "light rail" in Portland, you really should say the name Jim Howell. And he's not so certain the bridge task force is on the right track.
Howell has tirelessly promoted the idea that the panel should also study an arterial bridge -- a secondary span -- to carry local traffic and light rail.Now, I've certainly had a lot of sympathy for the 39 members of the Columbia River Crossing task force. Theirs is no easy job.
Although his plan hasn't gotten much traction, he's not been defeated by the appearance of a done deal, citing his experience with thwarting such "done deals" as Harbor Drive.
But there are a few things that are becoming clear. First, there is support on the task force for a new bridge. Second, there is support for a transportation component, be that light rail or bus rapid transit. Third, this will have to be paid for by someone, and as nearly everyone hates taxes, or being assailed about taxes, tolls offer one way to pay for things.
Tolls are a legitimiate user fee, and people on large task forces probably don't have the luxury of piecing this together with an eye to the political landscape, but I'm going to issue a warning here. Regular citizens are not tuned into this project yet. Sure, it gets a little coverage here and there, but by and large the issue of what to do about the Interstate Bridge has not hit critical mass with the broader public.
One day people are going to wake up and hear the words "new bridge" followed by "light rail" and "toll" and some of them are going to have a cow, at least in Clark County. Most of them will be fine with the new bridge part, but the prospect of light rail juxtaposed, in the public mind anyhow, with tolls will not go over well in Clark County.
So what to do? For starters, political leaders in Clark County (I can't really speak for Oregon residents) need to realize that people outside of the business world might have some good ideas, too. For far too long, decision making in Clark County has been conducted as a charade. Public meetings are held, but the outcomes are pre-determined.
It's no secret, either, how this happens. Business groups and think tanks funded with millions of dollars have the money and staff to promote their preferred outcomes as full time jobs, while environmental, justice and other progressive groups in Clark County generally don't. There are some incredibly dedicated volunteers, but they have to eat. So unless public officials come up with something so awful that there is a gigantic outpouring of public outrage, the outcomes tend to be ones the planning staff and business groups work out. And if a bone is thrown to the neighborhoods or the enviros or some other non-business constituency, why they should be grateful.
I'm not sure yet what would be the best way to handle the problem of the I-5 bridge. But we shouldn't be pulling practical options off the table yet, and we should listen more to people like Jim Howell, who has been proven correct repeatedly in Portland.
As a friend of mine who is extremely well-versed in planning issues put it in an email discussion we are having about the Columbia River Crossing project:
I don't know the future--will cars be used less and less as oil becomes less available? Will building to today's model of 24 year traffic prediction make sense therefore? Will current growth of population and freight in the area make it necessary to expand the lanes to the 6 each way for the bridge anyway, no matter the future transporation modes?Good questions, ones that deserve to be asked. Hopefully there will be forums where regular people (as opposed to just business folks and transportation experts paid for by a think tank) get to ask these kind of questions. I know of one such forum that is in early planning stages, and as events warrant I'll post further.
