2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

This controversy -- and the invective on both sides -- clearly illustrates the cultural divide separating Clark County and the Portland Area. Neither side is going to suddenly change its mind. A majority on one side is conservative, tax-cutting, wants to drive, and prefers to live in a suburban setting. Most people on the other side are liberal, willing to pay for public services, ride transit and bikes, and are satisfied living in denser, more urbanize settings. The CRC attempts to "bridge" this political/cultural divide by proposing a massive project that includes a little bit for everyone. But it doesn't work. Instead of pleasing everyone, it infuriates.


Given the political stalemate, the best solution may be to simply wait.


There's no divine right to congestion-free highways, and nor is there a right to public transit and bikeways for all. And yet, cultures and opinions gradually change.


Over time, if congestion continues to increase, or fuel prices stay high, Clark County residents may reconsider their aversion to public transportation and and density, and start funding busses and moving to denser communities like Vancouver or (heaven forbid!) even Portland. Alternately, many of them may get sick of driving all the way to Portland and take jobs in Clark County. That seems like a good result for everyone: less traffic on I-5, and a more diversified economic base in Clark County. People nationwide are already carpooling and riding transit more every week, and traffic volumes on the I-5 bridge are declining. Transit ridership is increasing. All of this is happening without a $4.2 billion bridge.


My point is that this problem -- congestion -- is at least somewhat self-regulating. It will ultimately impact decisions and behaviors. With smart public policy we can accelerate those changes with inexpensive "tweaks" like: a dedicated HOV/transit/freight only lane on the bridge; changes in zoning to allow (not mandate!) denser, more mixed-use development in Clark County; better online carpool "ride matching" services; and modest, strategic tolls -- especially during peak demand periods. Those tolls should be applied everywhere during peak demand periods -- on Highway 26 and I-84 as well as I-5. These sorts of measures, collectively known as Transportation Demand Management, would not only cost far less than big new bridges and highway expansions, but they'd also, ultimately, be far more effective.


Transportation is at an inflection point not unlike the electricity generation sector was in 15-20 years ago, when utilities started realizing that building more power plants often isn't necessary. We just needed to insulate our homes, change our lightbulbs, tighten up building codes, and use energy more wisely. We should take a page from the power sector's playbook, and start doing the cheap, easy demand-reducing stuff first.

posted 5 years ago
view in context