August 19, 2007
Are Oregon's Roads Better Than Washington's?
I haven't seen a formal
comparison of the roads in the two states, but that's certainly my impression after driving through Oregon
on my third disaster area tour. (For the curious, I traveled
on Oregon roads in this order: I-205, I-5, Route 22, Route 97, Route 199, I-5, Route 140, Route 97, Route 62,
Route 138, Route 97, Route 58, I-5, and I-205.)
I did not encounter really terrible road conditions anywhere along those roads, no terrible pavement
conditions such as you will find on I-5 near the Sea-Tac
airport, no bizarre intersections such as the one between Route 167 and I-405, and no crazy restrictions,
such as the low occupancy* lane on I-405. (Oregon's comparable route, I-205, has no such
restriction.)
In some ways, this is puzzling. Oregon has a larger area, fewer people, and a lower per capita income
than Washington. All three of those would lead one to expect that Washington, not Oregon, would have
the better roads. But that wasn't what I found.
Is there a political explanation for this difference? Possibly. Oregon is more conservative,
or, to be more precise, less leftist than Washington. (For example, Al Gore carried Oregon in 2000 by
just 6,765 votes; Washington wasn't nearly that close.) In general, leftists prefer not to spend money
on roads, though they are usually happy to spend money on cargo cult
projects, such as (un)Sound Transit's light rail
boondoggle. (As I have said before, leftists want people — or at least other people — to
take buses and ride light rail, rather than drive.)
And leftists are far more likely to impose union rules on road building, rules that make road building
significantly more costly, so even when leftists spend money on roads, they get less for the money than
conservatives would.
If this speculation is correct, then one would expect to see better roads in states where leftists are
less influential, better roads, for instance, in Texas than in California. (And in the Northwest,
better roads in Idaho than in Washington.) On the average, anyway, since a single governor can
almost always have a very large effect on a state's roads, if the governor is determined.
If you live in other parts of the country, or have traveled in them recently, I would be interested to
hear if your experience is similar to mine. I'd be especially interested in hearing about the road
conditions in pairs of states that differ in ideology, but are similar in other ways, such as New Hampshire
and Vermont.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(*These are generally called "High Occupancy Vehicle" lanes, or, informally, car pool lanes. But
anyone who looks at them outside rush hour in this area can see that
my term is more accurate.)
Posted by Jim Miller at August 19, 2007
02:47 PM | Email This
1. Yeah and then they can hit us for income tax! OH BOY!
2. Your fallacy is:
"Oregon has a larger area, fewer people, and a lower per capita income than Washington. All three of those would lead one to expect that Washington, not Oregon, would have the better roads."
In my experience, the opposite is true. Denser locations (New York City, Boston) have the worst roads and traffic, and less dense areas have the best (I've never been stuck in traffic in North Dakota). There are probably lots of reasons for this, such as cost of land and constraints building in developed areas. But you're really stretching to look for a political explanation.
3. I think it has something to do with how dense the population is as apposed to the population density.
4. In late April, I drove I-5 from Mt Vernon to Ashland Oregon. Would take any 10 miles of Oregon I-5 over any 5 miles of Washington's. I don't think I buy the density bit that bruce puts up. It's the political fortitude to maintain the roads.
I recall mayor nickelbag saying the roads can't be ignored forever, yet driving in Seattle's city limits is a contest for any front end alignment. But hey, they pave a mean bike path.
5. Having just returned from a trip to Southern Oregon, I too experienced the same observation. Oregon roads are far better. Yet we have had 2 gas tax increases since Queen Gregiore claimed we needed more money to fix our roads, and we have one of the highest gas taxes in the nation. Where is all that money going? Not to a new viaduct or 520 bridge as promised.
6. Having just returned from a trip to Southern Oregon, I too experienced the same observation. Oregon roads are far better. Yet we have had 2 gas tax increases since Queen Gregiore claimed we needed more money to fix our roads, and we have one of the highest gas taxes in the nation. Where is all that money going? Not to a new viaduct or 520 bridge as promised.
7. Hi all,
In order to maintain a level playing field between rails on the one hand and cars and trucks on the other, roads should not be funded by the taxpayer but strictly by the user.
Part of the reason trains have fared so poorly in this country is that they have to provide their own roadway and even have to pay taxes on it, while trucks don't even pay the extra wear and tear they put on bridges that fall down, much less pay a property tax on the land they use.
Conservatives on this site should quit promoting the socialization of the cost of the roadway, a great example of which is RTID.
Thanks, Newleftconservative#1
8. Having just returned from a trip to Southern Oregon, I too experienced the same observation. Oregon roads are far better. Yet we have had 2 gas tax increases since Queen Gregiore claimed we needed more money to fix our roads, and we have one of the highest gas taxes in the nation. Where is all that money going? Not to a new viaduct or 520 bridge as promised.
9. You miss one very important fact. The ports of Seattle and Tacoma move a tremendous amount of freight across the roads here.
That traffic creates a tremendous toll on on the roads here.
With ports that work bankers hours we have all of those trucks on the road during commuter hours. It just compounds the issue.
Don't even get me started on how clueless Seattle is on managing commercial traffic.
10. I prefer to call HOV lanes, "chauffeured limousine lanes." Those government big wigs in their limos can zip by us saps who have no choice about the number of occupants in our vehicle. Get rid of HOV lanes and turn them into toll and bus lanes.
newleftconservative#1,
So all gas tax revenues and car tab revenues should go towards roads? I agree! Car users shouldn't be subsidizing trains, bikes, and busses.
11. Bruce - I assume the advantages of a higher per capita income are obvious.
As for the other two points, you may be able to understand them if you consider a pair of states that are farther apart, for instance Delaware and Montana. Or you might look up just how much the federal government has to subsidize that North Dakota interstate, as compared to those in more populous states.
12. The HOV lanes carry more people per hour than the general purpose lanes. I think we want to move people, not cars.
13. Rob in 12 no they don't, the HOV lanes only carry more people per hour during rush hours. I am regularly driving on 167 to 405 around 10 am and there will be large distances (miles in my opinion) between vehicles in the HOV lane and feet between vehicles in the right two lanes. also the vehicles wanting to enter and leave the HOV lanes cause all sorts of problem to the flow of traffic when they cross lanes.
14. If the RTID in its present state is approved, weighted heavily toward light rail with a comparitive pittence for roads, the gap will widen for the difference of roads between Washington and Oregon. Oregon's highways will be more noticeably better.
15. It would be interesting to compare the cost in Oregon to fix one mile of Interstate and compare it to the cost in Washington State.
The only state I have information on cost per mile is North Dakota. About 1 Million dollars per lane mile. Building a 4 lane Highway for 80 miles costs less than 500 Million Dollars. I know Washington State is many times the cost to do the same work. And North Dakota builds most of this road through Large Marshes. But mostly comparable to KC roads. Repaving is a lot cheaper. We can not repave the roads at the Cost ND does buiding new roads. The costs are mostly related to Government rules and Regulations It seems like WA loves to pass laws that make new Highways very costly. The greenies at work to improve this state by preventing Road construction at all cost.
16. Newleft@ 7, for you to say trucks don't pay for the extra wear and tear is a real show of not knowing the facts.
Ask a fleet manager how much tax they pay on top of fuel tax to run those trucks. It's not the same as a GeoMetro by any stretch.
17. Newleft @ 7 .... and trails and bikeways should be funded strictly by those who use them??
18. PC, to create the 'ruts' in I-5, all the GeoMetros would have to run I-5 24-7 for about 20 years. The 'ruts' are created by the heavy loads. Simple.
Sure, they pay a lot in taxes, but hardly enough to fix the roads. The rest of us are subsidizing the heavies. Do I think it a good idea to do so? Yes, but don't say the trucks pay their fair share.
19. Swatter, earlier here I mentioned the will to maintain the road.
Every city and county in this silly state has someone that plans the roads but never seems to consider materials other than price.
I'll give you the fact trucks are harder on roads than metros, but how about using harder surface material than black top? Particularly when there's a few industrial warehouses around that has freight going in and out. Oh, that's planning ahead, not what public types are noted for.
BTW, trucks may wear black top down into ruts, but those studded tires on the metros in March actually dig up the material.
20.
Oregon does not have good roads...some of them are rubble covered heaps. Try going East and South from Portland through the older suburbs and into the country.
21. Why are the HOV lanes restricted outside of rush hour?
Note, I've seen HOV lanes work quite well in the DC metro area (at least the Northern Virginia side), and on the Long Island Expressway. In NoVA; an entire interstate highway (I-66 inside the beltway) is HOV-2 during rush hour (no non-HOV lanes at all), and I-395 has a dediacted 2-lane HOV section running down the median. The big difference? All these examples are limited-access; you cannot just merge into them, you either have to join at the sart or come on from an on-ramp (I-66) or there are limited and defined access points (slipways) from the main part of the highway to the HOV lanes (i-395 and the LIE). Also, in all 3 cases; everyone is going to the same point (DC or NYC). In DC, of course, you get what is called "slugging" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slugging) - spontaneous carpooling (my born-and-bred-in-NJ wife thinks this is fascinating and a little creepy). It can work, but it takes some foresight, a defined desitnation area, and a little bit of common-sense.
Interestingly enough, NJ got rid of their HOV lanes on most roads (the Turnpike still has them, but they are essentially bus lanes - which for some reaosn are politically unacceptable to actually be called that), because of the high accident rate for people leaving them (the non-HOV vehicles wouldn't let hte HOV vehicles back in).
22. Oregon has okay roads, but the worst driving habits we've encountered anywhere. Passing, then IMMEDIATELY pulling back right in front of you and resuming a speed that is probably exactly what they were doing PRIOR to passing you. Drives us crazy. And they like to cluster-drive! Miles and miles of empty highway and you'll 2 or 3 or 4 cars within feet of each other.
Scary!
23. I think every state has better roads than WA. I'm originally from the midwest (Wisconsin), and their roads are in far better condition despite having much worse weather to contend with. However, Wisconsin also banned studded tires long ago, which is what I believe is largely responsible for the grooves in I-5 (you used to see those on WI freeways; not any more).
24. I understand the point you're making Jim, but to we really want to compare anything to a state which still refuses to allow its residents to pump their own gas?
25. to = do ^^^
26. I haven't been through much of Oregon lately, although I will say that the I-5 corridor through Portland is clearly the work of a madman... I had no idea it was possible to end up being lost when trying to go straight.
27. I disagree!
28. There was a time long, long ago when the Washington roads were the envy of the nation. That was in the 60s.
I remember during the global freezes of the 50s and early 60s in North Dakota (never had that good of roads) my dad always remarked about the Minnesota roads and how nice they were. Then he visited Washington in the mid60s and raved about the Washington roads.
Then the enviros hit us in the late 60s and Boeing almost went belly-up.
29. Y'all should try driving northbound on I-5 past the I-5 / Oregon 217 interchange while it's raining. You'll wind up surfing through ruts of standing water, which for some reason, don't drain. These are the most dangerous conditions I've encountered in either state.
30. My little 1 ton Ford Festiva with 12 inch wheels gives me a different perspective on Washington's road quality degradation. Eyman's Initiative lets SUVs, pickups, & other bigger rigs on WA roads at the same cost as smaller cars. Yes, Washington subsidizes expensive, big, more road wearing & more intensively polluting vehicles (especially if they have studded tires) rather than rewarding small, more efficient, & more ecologically driven cars.