91视频

Oregonians recognize that with utilities, at least, they get what they pay for. Their water, gas, sewer, electric and telecommunications usage determines how much they’re charged. Sure, they may grumble when rates seem too high, switch phone companies to save money or complain about how the Public Utility Commission regulates the industry. But when they fly somewhere, they pay for the runways in the ticket prices. They pay more for water and heating as their usage increases. If they want faster Internet downloads or more channels from their cable provider, then they can pay for them. They buy bus and MAX tickets based on far they travel.

But when it comes to access to mobility, namely roads and streets, Oregon hasn’t quite figured it out yet. Aside from the major state commercial routes, Oregonians increasingly encounter substandard roads because maintenance budgets don’t keep up with wear and tear. Only the most essential repairs are taking place, and these fall far short of preserving the infrastructure financed and constructed by the previous generations.

Paying according to usage, which works so well for other infrastructure elements, has little support in Oregon these days. But that wasn’t always the case. The Barlow Road, an iconic part of the historic Oregon Trail, was the result of a petition by Sam Barlow to the state’s provisional government to meet a clear need.

Immigrants needed to travel across the Cascades without the risk and cost of floating down the rapids on the Columbia River. For the exorbitant cost of $4,000 he was granted the right to construct a road across the mountains and charge a passage fee to recoup the costs. He was authorized to charge $5. Usage fees were necessary for the Astoria-Megler Bridge across the Columbia River to be constructed. Today, a fee is charged to cross either the Bridge of the Gods or the Hood River Bridge. Ferries that service Oregonians charge fees.

In addition, economic equity must be addressed in any financing plan. Projects cannot become the 鈥淟exus lanes鈥� for the wealthy. They must accommodate everyone without unfair cost shifting. Mass transit vehicles and those with large groups should be exempt from any access fees. Those on low-income subsidies should receive support much as they do for energy and utilities.

Support for the user-fee concept is particularly lacking for large-scale projects. Without an assured revenue stream, state, federal or private infrastructure design-build consortiums will not take leadership roles. The existing financing methodologies that rely on gas taxes are obsolete. Concerns about the future costs of gasoline and global climate change are driving up the demand for vehicles that rely on less gasoline or none at all.

Oregonians’ needs for access to mobility have never been greater. In a down economy, workers often need to travel farther for their jobs. Time spent idling in traffic wastes money and time. The income derived from user fees must be clearly limited to the transportation network, and not become a tax diverted to general revenue programs. User fees can and should be periodically adjusted to reflect economic conditions as well as impacts on users in regard to maintenance and initial capital costs.

Finally, there must be equity in payment. A 3,000-pound Prius leaves a much smaller footprint on infrastructure than an 80,000-pound Freightliner. Yet a Prius may travel on roads that a Freightliner rarely, if ever, accesses. Cost responsibility must be shared fairly if we are to preserve the sweat and wealth invested by previous generations.

Christian Steinbrecher is the owner of Capital Project Consultants and is on the board of Transcape LLC, a full-service transportation and infrastructure consulting firm. Contact him at [email protected].