In Portland’s Rose Quarter, Interstate-5 is slated for an overhaul. The project consists of adding auxiliary lanes and shoulders which aim to provide users with more lanes to merge, reducing crashes and saving drivers travel time. Induced demand tells us that if we build it, they will come. The construction of additional travel lanes will do nothing to relieve Portlanders of the pains of congestion and I-5 has a major congestion problem. Idling vehicles are a detriment to the environment and the hindered movement of goods costs the economy. So… What is a better option?
Congestion pricing. The City of Portland’s definition of congestion pricing is “strategies that involve charging people for driving or using roadway space.” Congestion pricing has a few options for implementation, each with its own costs and benefits. Traditional methods of generating revenue like tollbooths is an option. “Cordons” are areas that a user is charged to enter and move within, this could be applied to especially congested areas or downtown cores. Per-mile charges do just that, costing the user for how much they drive, not where they do it. Congestion pricing is dual purpose offering congestion relief and revenue generation (Schweitzer). The revenue generated can go back into the community and roads that suffer the most of overuse. Paying to use the road discourages unessential travel, relieving congestion.
This is not a new idea. Governor Kate Brown instructed the Department of Transportation to consider pricing mechanisms in their assessment saying “I would like you to include a full review of congestion pricing and how its implementation would impact the Rose Quarter.” They did not (Cortright).
It is okay because ODOT’s own consultants did it for them. Chris Swenson of WSP, a consultant on the project, said that congestion pricing is “our best alternative” as it is less expensive than adding lanes, and would relieve congestion in every lane. According to his analyses, improving congestion by 50% in two lanes relieves congestion to the extent of adding one additional lane. Let’s not forget that adding lanes does not actually reduce congestion, though (Cortright). The addition would increase the number of users and as a result, increase congestion.
If user fees are proven to reduce congestion, and the addition of travel lanes proven to do the opposite, what’s the issue? Equity is a main concern of congestion pricing. In a city that has a history of disenfranchisement and destruction of communities of color, specifically in the area of the proposed project, equity should be the starting point of every project. In a sincere effort to understand and address equity concerns, the City put together a task force called POEM (Pricing Options for Equitable Mobility). POEM includes community members, transportation professionals, academics, and advocates.
POEM identified the current state of Portland’s transportation system as inequitable; socially, economically, and environmentally. The prioritization of cars has come at the expense of Portland’s Black, Indigenous, and POC communities. POEM sees pricing as a way to address that. Their recommendations address pricing as a solution to transportation problems broadly, though some are applicable to the Rose Quarter project.
The recommendations include cordon pricing, highway tolling, and per-mile charges. The team proposes exemptions and cash rebates as solutions to the equity challenges congestion pricing presents. In addition, payment systems should be able to accommodate those without smartphones or bank cards.
Given the extensive research done by consultants and the resulting recommendations, Portland should move forward with congestion pricing to combat congestion. It is a low-cost solution that could be implemented easily as compared to constructing new roads. If guided by POEMS recommendations, the City can ensure that the program is equitable for all Portland residents and the revenue is used to address past injustices.
If that doesn’t work… Add another lane.
In my mind, nothing is more important to our region's climate resiliency than stopping this highway expansion, along with the one proposed for the IBR. I'll be focusing my regional OP-Ed on it. Frankly, I wish we'd all write Op-Eds requesting that these projects don't go through. I think it would be a strong message if the entire fall 2021 class wrote Op-Eds in opposition to them.
ReplyDelete