From the DJC report: Brouwer said. “To a significant degree, we took projects that were already going to be constructed and added the stimulus money

If these project were already slated to be completed how is this adding anything to the economy? Are the project time lines being sped up? Were they unfunded projects?

2.5 million for Bicycle path and illumination?

OOOO KKK?

Well I guess that will provide a few jobs won't it?

Somehow I am getting a feeling that this so called "stimulus" package is going to stimulate very few people.

Looks like Al is enjoying his discovery of the "bold" option ;)

Aaron, yes, I always enjoy the artistic part of blogging!

Now if I can only figure out how to get my links into titles my life will have meaning!!

hehehe........

Chris:

If these project were already slated to be completed how is this adding anything to the economy? Are the project time lines being sped up? Were they unfunded projects?

The article said they were projects "on the shelf." Designed but not funded, so I guess they qualify as "shovel ready."

“2.5 million for Bicycle path and illumination?”

I agree with Al on this one. Unlike the preservation, maintenance and safety projects, this one appears to be less of a stimulus project and more of a pork barrel spending project that gives bicyclists yet another free pass to paying their own way.

Are the project time lines being sped up? Were they unfunded projects?

In general adopted transportation plans (ODOT's STIP, Metro's RTP) have more approved projects than funding is available for. My understanding is that the stimulus funds would be used either to move projects forward on the list (e.g., a project that might not have funding until 5-10 years from now) or to fund projects without currently identified funding.

But how these projects split across modes is critically important! Metro is required to do air quality modeling any time it amends its project list.

"stimulus" = "jobs." Anything that you need to hire people to build is a stimulus project. My concern is that to truly "stimulate" the economy the project needs to take a while to finish. Something that can be done in three months won't have much "stimulus" value, since someone who only has a job for ninety days will probably sock his money away. On the other hand, somebody who gets a job that will last for three or four years is more likely to go out and buy a new car or have the kitchen renovated or do something else that involves buying goods and services.

If building a bicycle path gives a dozen or so workers three years of job security at living wages, that's worthwhile stimulus. If it can be finished in six months, not so much.

"2.5 million for Bicycle path and illumination?"

The identified project is for I-205 in Clackamas County north of Gladstone. I-205 through there divides pedestrian and bicycle access in the community (the project really won't address that), and the existing trail is in deteriorating, dark, unsafe condition. This is a worthwhile and needed project which will benefit numerous people in the corridor, and not just bicyclists -- lighting enhancements benefit motorists as well.

Al, open this with A then HREF="http://www.portlandtransport.org/">Portland Transport then close with A. For example: Portland Transport

See This Site for more info

Terry, Did I miss something? Is the stimulus being paid for by user fees?

Bicycle path lighting sounds like it will be very labor intensive, it sounds perfect for a stimulus. Something that relies on buying large amount of steel from China on the other hand, not such a good stimulus. If you ranked the projects in terms of local jobs per dollar spent, I expect that bicycle path lighting is pretty high on the list.

And bicycle path lighting counts as a safety improvement. A lot of people don't ride/walk that trail at night because they are afraid of being mugged. Less chance of getting mugged = safety improvement, at least in my book.

It's not just a bike path, either. If you look at the PDF, the project also rolls in pedestrian improvements.

Here's a direct link to the list-of-projects PDF mentioned in the article:

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/docs/StimulusProjects2009.pdf

Hmmm. Oregon gets $350m, metro Portland gets about $33m, or roughly a tenth of the total.

Clackamas Co. and cities $5.8 Million
Washington Co. and cities $11.5 Million
East Multnomah Co. and cities $2.9 Million
Portland $12.8 Million

The US Census Bureau (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/41/41067.html) gives these population figures (estimated 2006):

Clackamas 374,320
Washington 514,269
Multnomah 681,454
3-county total 1,570,043

Oregon 3,700,758

So metro Portland has about 42% of the population but gets less than 10% of the funds?

OK, the ret of the state is rural but we all use the roads and bridges, so I'd expect metro Portland to "subsidize" the state somewhat. On the other hand, this is ridiculous. How did we end up with only 10% of the funds?

Mike

Thanks Aaron!

Al, I hope that works. It is hard to explain without actually creating the link :)

So metro Portland has about 42% of the population but gets less than 10% of the funds?

Welcome to the reality of the relative inefficiency of rural transportation networks.

If these project were already slated to be completed how is this adding anything to the economy? Are the project time lines being sped up? Were they unfunded projects?

Even if all we're doing is pulling them forward, that accomplishes the basic economic purpose of the stimulus - generating public sector demand during a period when private sector demand is down.

Agreed, if this speeds them up that would count as stimulus and I'd also see it as a stimulus if it relieved funds for other uses, but the article almost made is sound like they were already going to be funded and the timing was the same.

Mike Says:

OK, the ret of the state is rural but we all use the roads and bridges, so I'd expect metro Portland to "subsidize" the state somewhat. On the other hand, this is ridiculous. How did we end up with only 10% of the funds?

The rest of the state has a lot of roads and a lot of bridges desperately in need of maintenance, and there is an enormous amount of freight that relies on both the bridges and the roads.

Frankly, I can see how ODOT would want to spend money where it can have a real impact on the entire state's economy, which is directly affected by the condition of the infrastructure.

How did we end up with only 10% of the funds?

To be fair, I think the amounts listed are those turned over directly to the counties and Portland to spend. I believe ODOT will make additional expenditures on their facilities in the metro area. So the total amount spent in the metro area will be greater than this.

But still not likely to be near 42%.

How did we end up with only 10% of the funds?
This is what happens when states get the authority to spend the money.

Here's hoping that the next transportation bill reauthorization includes a new structure - cities and metro areas controlling where their money gets spent, and all the bureaucratic reform needed to make it possible.

It probably wasn't possible to do it in time for the stimulus, but it would have been nice.

Something has to be wrong here. US 30: Lewis and Clark Bridge (Longview)- Preserves US 30 bridge
across Columbia River between Longview and Rainier by painting. Cost: $50,000,000.

The bridge was $5.8 million in 1930, which is about $72 million (according to quick search I did) in today's dollars. How can it cost $50,000,000 to paint it?

From Wikipedia: The deck was replaced in 2003–04 at a cost of $29.2 million.

Dave. Simple answer is unions.

Union labor costs 3x what private sector non-union labor would cost.

Anthony -

I fully admit I don't have any facts about the US30 bridge proposal, but given the other projects on the list and the associated costs, I think there's more to the project than just painting and your assessment of union labor costs is not the primary explanation.

Assuming for a moment that your ratio of 3X is correct, that would imply that a non-union paint job of equal quality would cost over $16 million.

I suspect that there's a lot more going on in this project than just painting... some kind of rehab work. (After all, we build entire aerial trams for about that, right? :-) ) It could also be that the old paint is subject to environmental regulations regarding its safe removal.

Regardless of project scope, it is the single most expensive project on the list, so I expect it will get some scrutiny.

It's amazing how projects just seem so much more expensive in the NW than in California or the Northeast. Or the South, or the Southwest. I can't imagine it's just unions.

Outside Buffalo the state is extending the US-219 expressway 4.2 miles at a cost of $85.6 mil, including a bunch of protected land along the path of the freeway. (To both prevent sprawl along it and preserve the river.)

That's with eleven bridges, and fairly hilly terrain along a river. New York has unions too. $50 mil to paint a bridge is absolutely wrong.

It could also be that the old paint is subject to environmental regulations regarding its safe removal.

When they re-did the St. Johns (and I think Hawthorne) Bridges, they had to completely cocoon them and monitor the workers in order to remove the lead paint.

Also, regarding the geographic funding spread, rural Oregon wouldn't be happy if all of the money went to Portland/the valley like they see it so often happening.

Dave wrote: Something has to be wrong here. US 30: Lewis and Clark Bridge (Longview)- Preserves US 30 bridge
across Columbia River between Longview and Rainier by painting. Cost: $50,000,000.

Well, a nitpicking comment, this bridge isn't U.S. 30, it's Washington SR 422. It does not carry an Oregon highway number since the only portion of the road that is in Oregon is the interchange with U.S. 30. It is also this way as Washington is responsible for maintenance of this bridge, along with the U.S. 97 Sam Hill Bridge. (Oregon maintains the rest of the bridges, see below.)

Secondly, if Oregon is applying for $25M, does that mean Washington is also applying for $25M, which makes this $50M project really a $100M project? Oregon and Washington typically split the costs 50/50 of all state-owned Columbia River bridges (Astoria-Megler, Lewis & Clark, Interstate, Glenn Jackson, Sam Hill, and Umatilla. The Bridge of the Gods and the Hood River Bridges are not included, they are owned by local port authorities.)

Couple of points about the bridge:

first, its 8,400 ft long and 340 feet over the river. That's a lot of paint. There are significant safety issues involved, particularly if you planned on hiring a couple 8 bucks an hour temps to not plummet to their death 'cause they were too stupid and untrained in such an environment.

Back when it was first built... not a big issue. Workers died all the time. Today the DOT's would be subjected to so much liability it would make the union wages seem puny in comparison.

Plus there are environmental considerations, particularly with paint removal. You can't just sandblast it and hope that the workers and drivers don't get sick from lead poisoning and sue you into the ground. Plus, the river itself is protected by environmental law. Ever heard of "EPA?"