PORTLAND OR:Extra Lanes for Tolling: Big Pricing Projects Bypassed

The three roads to be studied in more detail for implementation of dynamic pricing are:

(1) US-26 a 2x2-lane motorway heading out west for 13km (8mi) from the Oregon Zoo out to 185th Av – extra lanes are being built on part of the project already and will be built on the remainder as part of the project, the toll lanes equipped with 2 intermediate access/egress points

(2) OR-217 another 2x2-lane mwy, this peripheral link road is to have extra lanes added and priced for 9km (5.6mi), almost between US-26 and I-5 in Tigard, the priced lanes equipped with 3 intermediate access/egress points

(3) OR-99E or McLoughlin Blvd, a south heading arterial to have extra toll lanes added from across the river from downtown 5km (3mi) to OR-224 Willamette Exwy, the lanes equipped with 3 intermediate access/egress points.

Each of the projects has accompanying transit enhancements – new park & rides and new trolley or bus service, in addition to the wider road. Tolls modeled for these lanes by consultants ECONorthwest are $1.4m/$2.1m, $0.9m/$1.4m and $0.8m/$1.2m, the first being tolls during designated peak hours and the second reflecting tolls at any time during the day that there is congestion. Time savings in peak direction in the priced lanes are estimated at 9mins, 4mins and 5mins based on speed differences of 11mph, 20mph and 7mph.

Net traveler benefits are much higher at $13.7m/yr, $7m and $2.4m but only the first US-26 has substantial net social benefits after deducting costs from the traveler benefits – $9.3m regardless of how the revenue is spent and $12.4m if spent for the benefit of travelers. OR-217 and OR-99E show negligible social benefit, according to the calculations.

Pricing or capacity enhancement?

It is not clear from the working papers produced so far how much of the benefits come from the capacity enhancement and how much from the pricing. They seem to simply compare 2x2 lanes unpriced (the before) with 2x2 lanes unpriced plus 2x1-lane priced (the after.) It would be interesting to see another comparison with 3x2 lanes unpriced (the conventional alternate.) Since the pricing is not financing the widenings the last comparison seems to be of most relevance. Moreover the intermingling of transit enhancement and priced road widening makes it difficult to disentangle the effects of pricing from the transit changes.

The three projects remained after some 40 pricing proposals were reduced to eight (table above) for detailed study. Among the five which were rejected were some much larger proposals.

Metro chief intervened

There were three projects (B,C,D) that involved no extra capacity and a pricing of all lanes during the peak. On I-5/S and I-5/N and on the major east radial mwy I-84 – these are the busiest highways in the Portland area and mostly 6-lanes. The pricing projects modeled with major toll revenues and spectacular benefit-cost ratios. They would raise average traffic speeds in the rush hour from 25/30mph to 45mph – for everyone on the road. On a straight economic calculation these full pricing projects are the best.

But Metro chief Mike Burton told the panel early on that there was no way he would support any pricing project which denied motorists a choice of continuing to travel free. And he also insisted that any pricing project had to be accompanied by a capacity enhancement. That heavily undercut B,C and D (and also G a bridge pricing) before the study got very far.

Apparently the panel got similar feedback from focus groups and other public participation so it dumped the full pricing/no new capacity options despite their high economic viability.

Project A (see below) is a reversible tolled lane arrangement with a movable barrier on 9km (5.5m) of I-5 south of Portland. This would provide 3 unpriced lanes inbound in the morning plus the tolled lane and 2 outbound unpriced lanes, reverting to a 3/3 unpriced arrangemnt after the am peak, and then in the pm peak it would have gone to 3 unpriced out, toll lane out and 2 unpriced lanes inbound.

This is politically acceptable by the Burton formula. It maintains choice, allowing motorists to continue to travel free in relatively congested conditions, while gaining the peak direction lane extra capacity – the toll express lane – by using the moveable barrier to ‘borrow’ a lane from the non-peak direction roadway.

The project produces quite modest toll revenue apparently because the barrier-provided extra capacity is modeled to relieve a lot of the congestion that would otherwise provide an incentive to use the lane. At the peak the priced lane would flow at an average of 41mph vs 28mph on the free lanes for a 6min time saving.

Shouldered Out by Mayor Moonbeam

Project A seems to have flunked because engineers chose a concept that involved double movable barrier plus a fixed central median. With the extra barrier they wanted a lot of new breakdown shoulder by the second barrier. This stretch of I-5 moves away from the alignment of the Willamette River and turns, climbing westerly through a ridge running along the river. An expensive place to have to widen the highway, sure.

Expensive yes, but an annualized $18m cost, so perhaps $200m+ capital cost?

What could they have had in mind on which to spend this kind of money: goldplated barrier? A Signature Span perhaps looping over the river and back in a great suspension spiral? A grand new Southern Gateway to Portland, the World’s Wonder on the Willamette? Or just Wilson bridge style shouldermania rearing its ugly head on the Pacific coast?

Stay tuned. All these questions, and rumors of Mayor Moonbeam Brown visiting from Oakland CA, are at the top of our list to pursue. (Contacts Bridget Wieghart project mgr Metro 503 797 1775 wieghartb@metro.dst.or.us, Randall Pozdena, ECONorthwest 503 222 6060)