Bridge to Endless Debt
Jenson Hagen
When I first moved to this area in 2002, I decided to live in Vancouver because of the cost and the commuting options down into Portland where I worked. Portland had Max lines that took longer to cover the same ground as compared to the the express buses coming down from Vancouver. In terms of commute times, express buses simply beat out Max lines. What happened to all of Portland's express buses?
Grabbing an express bus from Vancouver was still a pain. I had to drive way north to the Salmon-Creek park-and-ride early enough to still get a parking spot and then shuttle down the entire I-5 corridor. True, the I-5 bridge was always an ugly spot, but the express bus seemingly always got through the blockage without too much waiting around.
Now, I'm reading about the proximity of a new $3.6 billion bridge being passed that would attempt to alleviate this blockage in full for all commuters. Having worked now in the financial and accounting profession for 10 years now, I can only shake my head at this ill-conceived plan.
We don't have $3.6 billion. This is going on the Federal, state and local debt rolls. Assuming a 5% interest rate, that's $180 million in interest each year, or roughly 20% of TriMet's 2011 budget. That's just the interest and does not speak to the $3.6 billion principal to be repaid. Assuming we establish a sinking fund earning the same 5%, we would have to set aside $108 million in each of the next 20 years to cover the principal upon maturity of these bonds. So we are looking at around 20 years of paying out $288 million, or roughly 33% of TriMet's 2011 budget.
Why don't we just expand TriMet? The express bus options coming down from Vancouver are inadequate. Add some parking garages around the Hazel Dell area, especially where they just constructed a mega-big-box store playground, have express buses come down from that area and shuttle more people into Portland that way. We could include more express buses from other areas around Portland as well and keep the tax base here instead of watching Portlanders move over to Vancouver. We really have not explored the option of more express buses. It's almost like we see them as a relic of the past.
This bridge project will benefit single car occupancy commuters and carry a heavy price tag. I'm not in agreement that more expensive Max lines and bridges are the way to our commuting future. And using this as a short-term mechanism to create jobs is not an appropriate use of funds. Do we not have a long-term plan to create jobs sustainably without stacking on more debt?
|
2 readers like this.
Like it!
|
5:16 p.m.
Jun 7, '11
Of course we can't expand Tri-Met! That is supporting anyone who doesn't have their own car (poor, greedy, illegal-immigrant, meth-headed welfare queens who want a free ride on the hard working working people), or chooses to ride (eco-terrorist communist hippies, who are probably also gay). In other words, the only way to protect Our American Lifestyle is to fight the evil oppression of things like public transportation.
5:59 p.m.
Jun 7, '11
I fully support expansion of Max across the river, and a bridge built to accommodate traffic growth for the next 100 years.
Plus, every dollar spent on building the project goes back into the economy, much of it via the construction sector.
11:24 a.m.
Jun 8, '11
Mitch, are you on vacation? You have been relying on some pretty weak arguments on the CRC.
What does "every dollar spent on building the project goes back into the economy" mean? Whose economy? How would dollars spent otherwise not go back into the economy?
And what are your traffic growth projections for the next 100 years? I hope they are more reliable than those used in the CRC plan.
1:28 p.m.
Jun 8, '11
Tell me how my statements are weak please.
10:10 a.m.
Jun 9, '11
You write about accommodating 100 years' of traffic growth without any support for what you believe that growth will be.
You write is meaninglessly ambiguous terms about dollars going back into the economy.
Your statements in support of CRC imply that the alternative is to do nothing: no transportation development and no infrastructure spending. That is not the case.
1:40 p.m.
Jun 9, '11
Do you agree with extending the MAX line across the river?
Do you agree with creating bike and pedestrian crossing the river?
Do you think that public works projects create jobs?
Do you think the current bridge is adequate for the next 100 years of traffic demands?
What do you think traffic demands in 2085 will be?
5:26 p.m.
Jun 9, '11
I believe that appropriate infrastructure is a good public investment. I am in favor of energy efficient transportation that anticipates changes in economy and technology. I believe that traffic in 2085 across the Columbia will be not significantly greater than today.
I do not believe the CRC plan is the way to get what we need. It is too expensive and too auto and truck oriented. In 2085, I expect a much higher percentage of transport of both people and freight to be over rails and water routes, and much less in cars, trucks, and airplanes. This is because the former modes are much more energy efficient and energy will undoubtedly become much more expensive. CRC would promote more sprawl in SW WA - neighborhoods that will quickly become obsolete with rising energy costs. That is extreme inefficiency of investment that should be avoided. Oregon's land use system is much better at containing such inappropriate development. CRC would favor the WA sprawl model over the Oregon compact growth model, so it is self-defeating of our values and efforts.
The phased in multi-span, multi-mode approach has many advantages:
5:42 p.m.
Jun 9, '11
Thank you for answering two of the five questions. What are your replies to the remaining three:
Do you agree with extending the MAX line across the river?
Do you agree with creating bike and pedestrian crossing the river?
Do you think the current bridge is adequate for the next 100 years of traffic demands?
9:18 a.m.
Jun 10, '11
Yes, yes, and no; but not by wasting money and promoting development that destroys the positive effects of light rail, bike and pedestrian infrastructure - therefore, not with CRC.
We need to use resources wisely. Putting a huge portion of our capital into infrastructure that does as much harm as good is not wise. Spending a huge amount on a project that has been shown to be poorly planned is the community equivalent of a bullet to the brain.
11:04 a.m.
Jun 10, '11
Thanks for the reply.
Do you agree then that the MAX line needs to be built, and that vehicle carrying capacity has to increase over the river?
1:45 p.m.
Jun 10, '11
Max is a good idea if the economics are right. We need efficient and sustainable transportation. If Max is part of an unsustainable plan, then it is part of inefficient and unsustainable transportation.
We would be better off with a different mix of carrying capacity, again, if it is done efficiently. As I already wrote, I do not expect need for much more capacity, not in the long term; and it is NOT worth building uber-expensive infrastructure for the short term. We cannot afford it.
You write as if you are a carnival barker trying to scam an unsophisticated adolescent. If this is your usual approach, then you are not worth the discussion, because few will take your views seriously anyway. If you have taken this attitude especially for me, then be prepared to be called foolish when you make foolish statements. We are discussing important matters and FoxNews level reasoning will not lead to worthwhile understanding.
8:18 p.m.
Jun 10, '11
Since you just accused me either not being worth the discussion, or engaging n Fox News level reasoning, I'll just write you off as an ass and not bother to take anything you say seriously.
2:17 p.m.
Jun 8, '11
Thanks for the good post, Jenson. But why not move back to Oregon and be a good citizen and pay Oregon taxes since you benefit from having a good Oregon job. I'm betting you shop in Oregon too to avoid sales taxes.
2:56 p.m.
Jun 8, '11
People who work in Oregon pay Oregon income taxes, even if they live in Washington.
7:29 p.m.
Jun 8, '11
Bill if Jensen works here then he pays the state taxes.
Good article Jensen! I'm actually not sure I support the bridge either. I do support a toll though to keep people from traveling back and forth all the time just to save a few bucks in sales taxes.
1:39 p.m.
Jun 9, '11
So you want to create tolls so as to incentivize less spending in the state which will lead to job cuts that disproportionately harm low-wage earners.
Brilliant.
1:55 p.m.
Jun 10, '11
Mitcell, tolls are part of the CRC funding plan. How can you support a plan you do not understand or want to fund?
from http://tolling.columbiarivercrossing.org/Funding/Default.aspx :
Tolling
Several variables can affect the amount of the toll: •Project design and the timing of construction •Amount of federal funding received •Amount of state funding received •Amount of regional and local contributions •Decisions about how toll rates should vary by type of user or by time of day •The effects of a toll on diversion whether one or two bridges are tolled
Tolling a facility requires approval by each state’s legislature. Actual toll rates will depend on a final finance plan and will be set by the Oregon and Washington state transportation commissions. Rates will be adjusted to keep pace with inflation if implemented.
from
8:20 p.m.
Jun 10, '11
Where in this thread did I say that a support the CRC as planned? I think tolling is a bad idea regardless of the crossing configuration or plan.
11:58 a.m.
Jun 15, '11
You wrote it it the previous thread on CRC:
"Sorry, I fully support the CRC which has to be built for potential traffic capacity for the nect 100 years."
You remind me of Tommy Flanagan. Yeah! That's the ticket!
6:01 p.m.
Jun 15, '11
Which was about highway expansion, which I fully support. I was a bit sloppy in that I didn't qualify my support as for the overall project, but not for tolling (which I do not support).
1:22 p.m.
Jun 12, '11
Mitchell, I know there will be some job losses but at the same time, there will be less cars polluting the air. When the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge was built and tolling went into effect, trips back and forth were heavily cut down. People decided they should spend their money at home and therefore, they invested in their communities.
5:39 p.m.
Jun 10, '11
Sorry about raising a false issue. My bad!
10:22 a.m.
Jun 9, '11
Mitchell- I can't believe you've not read last week's Willamette Week cover story about how all the CRC claims and projections are demonstrably false.
1:28 p.m.
Jun 9, '11
I read the piece.
2:34 p.m.
Jun 10, '11
You may have read the piece, but then you either forgot or ignored its important points. You certainly have offered nothing to rebut them.
8:21 p.m.
Jun 10, '11
Who says I did either?
You arrogance is stunning. And I say that as a bit of an arrogant poster.
Congrats.
1:32 p.m.
Jun 9, '11
Do you agree with extending the MAX line across the river?
Do you agree with creating bike and pedestrian crossing the river?
Do you think that public works projects create jobs?
Do you think the current bridge is adequate for the next 100 years of traffic demands?
What do you think traffic demands in 2085 will be?
1:40 p.m.
Jun 9, '11
That was supposed to be in reply to Tom Civilette upthread.
10:00 p.m.
Jun 9, '11
Expanding TriMet in an attempt to provide better bus service...you might as well have Sarah Palin be named as the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement health care reform.
TriMet has ZERO interest in improving the bus system and it shows. As a daily bus rider, I would rather TriMet be broken up and given to the individual cities to run for the benefit of their residents. In Tigard, one cannot even get from downtown Tigard's transit center to large parts of S.W. 72nd Avenue (just a couple miles away) in Tigard's industrial area, or on Kruse Way (just outside Tigard's city limits) by a bus, unless you travel all the way to downtown Portland, or possibly to Tualatin.
TriMet's only interest is expensive MAX lines, as well as WES - WES has done next to nothing for Tigard, except give an alternative for some 76/78 riders an express ride to Beaverton TC. Never mind that many people work at Washington Square and WES doesn't serve the mall - a Metro designated "Regional Center". In exchange, we have suffered through higher taxes, reduced bus service, one of North America's oldest and least reliable bus fleets (not to mention most polluting and least fuel efficient), one that is frequently at "crush load" (so full the bus has to pass up riders) on many popular routes.
Expanding TriMet is a disaster, since there is absolutely no accountability at TriMet. Just try to give some public comment at a TriMet board meeting (hopefully you won't be at work since they're usually scheduled during a weekday at 9:30 AM) and let me know how well it's received.
10:30 p.m.
Jun 9, '11
Today, Thurs., 6/9/11, the Metro Council voted 5-1 to approve the CRC plan.
Carl Hosticka lone dissenting vote. Although I read he voted against it because he doesn't think the funding is there.
Unless someone can effectively debunk the Willamette Week article which very effectively debunked the CRC, how can this most expensive boondoggle possibly proceed? HOW CAN THIS BE?
9:25 a.m.
Jun 10, '11
HOW CAN THIS BE?
Government policy is determined by the interests of those with political power. That is not the people under our system. It is the folks who have money to invest in political and public relations campaigns.
It's the same reason we have a healthcare system that does not work and wars that spend our vital resources on death and destruction.
11:11 p.m.
Jun 9, '11
Okay, here is Robert Liberty explaining how the drive to build a project (ill-advised or no) works (and is also probably an explanation as to why Liberty was fed up with the Metro Council):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Int7mw9iec
7:13 a.m.
Jun 10, '11
"We don't have $3.6 billion". That's about 2 weeks in Afghanistan.
There is plenty of money, we just don't tax it, collect it and spend it wisely.
2:00 p.m.
Jun 10, '11
What do you think the chance is that our federal government will forgo two weeks worth of national folly in Afghanistan to fund our bi-state folly called CRC?
I put the chance of it very low. Each folly must have its own interested boosters and revenue stream.