Updated: 5/22/09
Track Joe’s latest updates as the bill is amended.
Original Post: 5/21/09
I blogged last night about the alarm bells going off over the transportation bill in the Legislature.
Local economist Joe Cortright has done an analysis of the earmarked road projects to look at who benefits, by county.
Everyone ready to watch the Sellwood Bridge fall into the river?
| County | Dollars earmarked | Dollars per resident |
|---|---|---|
| YAMHILL | $192.0M | $2,036 |
| MORROW | $114.2M | $1,137 |
| TILLAMOOK | $127.0M | $1,036 |
| BAKER | $110.1M | $1,000 |
| WASCO | $119.0M | $786 |
| GRANT | $15.6M | $744 |
| WALLOWA | $15.0M | $703 |
| HARNEY | $15.0M | $649 |
| JACKSON | $125.0M | $609 |
| UNION | $112.0M | $473 |
| HOOD RIVER | $110.0M | $462 |
| MALHEUR | $112.5M | $395 |
| KLAMATH | $123.0M | $348 |
| CLACKAMAS | $122.0M | $324 |
| LANE | $182.0M | $237 |
| UMATILLA | $115.8M | $218 |
| WASHINGTON | $108.0M | $208 |
| MARION | $162.0M | $197 |
| DESCHUTES | $132.0M | $192 |
| DOUGLAS | $114.0M | $134 |
| JOSEPHINE | $110.0M | $120 |
| MULTNOMAH | $154.0M | $75 |
27 responses to “Updated: A Transportation Bill for Yamhill County”
Sweet! There is enough money going to Yamhill to finally build that 12-lane mega-bridge I’ve always wanted connecting Fir Crest Vineyards to Laurel Ridge Winery.
I gotta cry foul here, Chris–not because I think the bill is a good idea; but because the whole “by county” analysis smacks of the sort of “it doesn’t benefit me so why should I pay for it?” demagoguery often employed by transit opponents.
Yamhill County, for instance, is highly represented because of the Newberg/Dundee Bypass (or, as I like to call it, the Pinot-Casino Freeway), which is entirely located within the county. OR99W and OR18 are major state highways, and congestion on these is a big problem, not just for residents of Yamhill County, but for all sorts of statewide shipping and transportation. Indeed, Yamhill County residents are probably being adversely affected by out-of-towners running through their towns to get to the coast or to Spirit Mountain casino. (OTOH, the wine industry within the county is also a big draw, so some of the traffic is locally generated).
Whether or not the NDB is a good solution to the problem, I don’t know. Yamhill County congestion is largely tourism-driven, and the area is not urban, so alternative that would work in Portland probably wouldn’t work in the area. I’m kinda partial to rehabbing the Newberg Branch rail line so that it’s suitable for commuter and excursion trains–but that would be a partial solution at best. Telling people from Portland that they shouldn’t drink in Dundee, gamble in Grande Ronde, or take liberty in Lincoln City, is probably not gonna fly.
One other thought while I’m thinking of the proposed Pinot/Casino Freeway.
Many locals know that the fastest way to get from the Portland area to Grande Ronde or Lincoln City is NOT 99W to OR18, but I-5 to the Salem Parkway to OR22; joining OR18 southwest of Willamina. One OTHER major roadworks project in the state which is on the drawing board, is the Salem River Crossing–a proposed third roadway bridge between downtown Salem and west Salem. (The current OR22 crossing is counted as two bridges; as there are two separate structures, one in each direction). While a final route hasn’t been selected, many of the alternatives being advanced are essentially direct highway-to-highway connections between the Parkway (OR99E Business) on the east side of the river, and the OR22/OR221 interchange on the west side. Were this to be done, coupled with recent and proposed improvements to OR22 between Salem and Rickreall, it would probably save at least 5 minutes, if not more, of the Salem route to Lincoln City–and might alleviate the need for the Newberg/Dundee Bypass. (The reverse is probably less true).
Combined with rural broadband and other government funded grants for infrastructure projects, you’ve got what you call a “subsidy” for rural living.
Personally, the automobile-only crowd gets angry at mass transit getting a slice of the pie, but they should be more angry at low growth municipalities getting huge transportation projects, while high growth areas get screwed in regards to how much they contribute and how much they get back. A la ‘bridge to nowhere’ in Alaska.
There really is no reason for a federal gas tax, just make the states control the gas tax funds and redistribute according to their needs.
How about the Rural Electrification Act? If it were up to the power companies, many rural areas probably wouldn’t get basic utilities; it not being worth the power companies money to lay power lines, pipe, or fiber to serve a small customer base.
Should the US model itself after, say, China–a place with tremendous wealth (and the highest-tech infrastructure you will find) in the major cities like Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, or Shenzen/Hong Kong, but a third-world standard of living in many rural areas?
Certainly, blatant pork-barrel projects like the Gravina Island bridge (one of several proposed “bridges to nowhere” in Alaska, and the one that was an issue in the recent election after Sarah Palin became the GOP’s VP candidate), are a bad thing. And we shouldn’t encourage too much sprawl. On the other hand–some rural infrastructure is needed, and it’s almost never going to be cost effective when compared to the smaller number of persons served.
“Everyone ready to watch the Sellwood Bridge fall into the river?”
If the bicyclists would step up and open up their wallets, tax themselves and pay up for the more than half of the bridge they want as bicycle infrastructure, maybe there can be a financing plan that works and is fair to everybody.
I gotta cry foul here, Chris–not because I think the bill is a good idea; but because the whole “by county” analysis smacks of the sort of “it doesn’t benefit me so why should I pay for it?” demagoguery often employed by transit opponents.
The point isn’t that Yamhill County got too much, it’s the deliberate snub of the crying need in the State’s economic hub: the Sellwood Bridge.
It’s even worse. Part of the deal in this bill would remove the County’s ability to add an incremental registration fee to help fund the bridge.
The Sellwood Bridge is perfectly fine as bicycle infrastructure, Terry–it’s supporting the weight of larger vehicles–like cars–that’s the problem.
Many people take issue with the proposed Sellwood Bridge replacement because it–like the current bridge–is most useful to the Sellwood and Westmoreland neighborhoods–both of which are notoriously hostile to cut-through traffic in the neighborhood. The replacement bridge, like the current bridge–a two-lane bridge connecting to a neighborhood collector (Tacoma Street)–doesn’t serve regional transportation very well. Sellwood residents have made it clear they don’t want to (re-)widen Tacoma Street to handle more traffic.
Regional transportation needs would probably be better served with a different bridge in a different location. One idea that has been suggested, but I don’t know if it has been given serious consideration, would be an arterial bridge through Golf Junction, south of the current bridge, connecting to OR43 on the west end, and connecting to 17th, McLouglhin, and possibly Johnson Creek Boulevard. If you want to get fancy, even run it alongside the Springwater trail from 32nd to McLoughlin, and get through traffic out of the stretch of JCB and Tacoma currently between 32nd and McLoughlin–a stretch which is largely neighborhood street.
I’m not talking about a freeway, or even a highway-grade roadway; just something that bypasses the neighborhood. You could even run the streetcar across the thing, connecting to the future Tacoma Street station.
(If you really want to get fancy, and piss off a lot of rich people, extend OR224 through the golf course and across the river. That won’t fly, of course).
The restriction on local road taxes in the bill is kind of obnoxious, certainly–but I can see why statewide leaders might take a dim view of the proposed Sellwood replacement, or at least of funding it as is.
I live in Lake Oswego and not any of the communities mentioned in Scotty’s post, but think it would be a major mistake to do anything which would bring more eastside traffic onto Highway 43. We’re preparing to spend a lot of money for a streetcar extension which will do absolutely nothing to either alleviate the 70% of Hwy 43 traffic which involves the Sellwood Bridge or provide a safe way for cyclists and pedestrians to get from LO to Johns Landing. We don’t need to make it worse.
Chris- can you share the Cortright report or data? The counties total up to a billion dollars. Is that in one bill or does it combine multiple federal and state efforts?
Paul,
This is all within HB 2001. The specific reference for Joe’s data is HB 2001-A17 Allocations, Sec. 65.
My guess is that this represents the allocation from bonding the proceeds of increased gas taxes.
Anybody know the status of the bill to make the TriMet Board a locally elected body?
Thanks Chris – the bonding part is what I was missing. It was a bigger number than I expected.
Here is the amended bill language:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/comm/commsrvs/HB2001A17amendments.pdf
Bridges?
BRIDGES?
We don’t got no stinking bridges!
WE DON’T NEED NO STINKING BRIDGES!
Many locals know that the fastest way to get from the Portland area to Grande Ronde or Lincoln City is NOT 99W to OR18, but I-5 to the Salem Parkway to OR22; joining OR18 southwest of Willamina.
That’s true…. it’s even signed on I-5 as a route to the coast (it would be even better if ODOT removed any mention of coastal destinations at the exit to 99W between Portland and Tigard).
Chris Smith wrote: The point isn’t that Yamhill County got too much, it’s the deliberate snub of the crying need in the State’s economic hub: the Sellwood Bridge.
How so?
Highway 99W in carries between 23,200 vehicles daily just north of the Highway 18 (McDougall’s Corner) interchange, to 31,100 ADT at the Yamhill/Washington County line, and a peak of 41,800 ADT in Newberg west of Villa Road (between Highway 219 and downtown Newberg).
Sellwood Bridge carries less than 30,000 vehicles per day according to City of Portland data.
The difference? Where else does traffic go on 99W? T.V. Highway to Forest Grove to McMinnville? I-5 to Salem to Wallace Road or 22, depending on destination?
Sellwood Bridge? Detour to the Ross Island or Oregon City Bridges.
Sellwood Bridge is not a major freight corridor; never was, never will be. 99W is. Unlike the supposed “experts”, 99W is not just a “winery” highway – McMinnville has a population of 32,400 and Newberg of 22,645. In comparison, Milwaukie’s population is 20,915 and Lake Oswego’s population is 36,590 – and neither of those cities has an industrial base similar to McMinnville or Newberg.
From a state perspective – Highway 99W is a state highway; the Sellwood Bridge isn’t. Highway 99W is part of the National Highway System (the system of roads eligible for federal funding) and the Sellwood Bridge isn’t. ODOT’s primary concern is intercity transportation, not local streets – and the Sellwood Bridge is just that.
It seems the only “snub” is that Portland once again wants to dictate transportation policy for the entire state, even when it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I don’t agree one bit with the Newberg-Dundee Bypass proposal (there are cheaper alternatives) but to suggest the Sellwood Bridge is of higher priority…please, explain it to me.
dan w wrote: it’s even signed on I-5 as a route to the coast (it would be even better if ODOT removed any mention of coastal destinations at the exit to 99W between Portland and Tigard)
There’s only one sign at Exit 294 (southbound only) and it states “McMinnville Lincoln City Next Exit”.
The control city for this offramp is Newberg (which is a technical error, the control city should be McMinnville – note that the exit for Highway 99W on Highway 217 is indeed McMinnville); and Newberg is also signed at Exit 278 (Aurora/Donald). Newberg has been removed as a control city for Exit 272 (Woodburn), however, despite the fact that Highway 219 terminates at I-5, and the first major city on Highway 219 is Newberg.
As for routes to the coast…there are numerous “routes” to the coast. Highway 99W provides access to Highway 18 and thus it is a rightful route to the coast. (Besides, we all know that the majority of people on I-5 in Wilsonville headed to points north of Vancouver STAY on I-5, despite ODOT’s attempts to suggest that Seattle is only reachable on I-205.)
does Cortright’s analysis make any sense at all? What does per capita spending have to do with anything? Why isn’t anyone more critical of the nonsense that fellow spews out?
Good points, Erik.
[D]oes Cortright’s analysis make any sense at all?
Yes.
What does per capita spending have to do with anything?
It’s a way of restating the information so larger areas can be compared with smaller ones. For example, it’s worth noting that Multnomah County is the smallest county in size in Oregon, but has the most population (at least as of the last I’ve heard). Yamhill county is a bit larger, but obviously has much less population.
The only problem with this is it assumes that everyone in the given area will benefit evenly, where the reality is the working poor and disabled out there will receive practically no benefit, people will lose their homes/land for construction of the Newberg Bypass, and traffic would continue to be the same problem it always has been.
Besides, we all know that the majority of people on I-5 in Wilsonville headed to points north of Vancouver STAY on I-5, despite ODOT’s attempts to suggest that Seattle is only reachable on I-205.
Their loss…. in spite of the somewhat longer mileage, I’d take 205 over 5 any day.
Newberg has been removed as a control city for Exit 272 (Woodburn)…
I’ve noticed that. Why they decided to remove Newberg is beyond me.
The only problem with this is it assumes that everyone in the given area will benefit evenly, where the reality is the working poor and disabled out there will receive practically no benefit, people will lose their homes/land for construction of the Newberg Bypass, and traffic would continue to be the same problem it always has been.
Don’t the poor and disabled in Newberg and Dundee get easier access within town? Getting through traffic off of the main street in town seems it would help all local residents by making their neighborhood to move around in.
Also, those whose land is used I assume get paid for it under Oregon state law. I know CalTrans has run into problems where people buy land and develop on it just to get the buyout price from them. (It raised the costs of CA-56 significantly during ROW acquisition.)
I don’t see how traffic is going to be the same problem, if the traffic is moved to the bypass and out of town. Maybe if we do nothing about traffic for another 50 years while building out areas along the road we may have issues, but it should at least clean up the 99W corridor a bit.
Jason Barbour wrote: it’s worth noting that Multnomah County is the smallest county in size in Oregon, but has the most population (at least as of the last I’ve heard). Yamhill county is a bit larger, but obviously has much less population.
Multnomah County is the smallest county in area and largest in population (area: 435 square miles of land; popluation: 717,800)
Harney County is the largest county in area (10,134 square miles of land) and has a population of 7,705 – 3,025 of whom live in Burns, and 1,870 of whom live in Hines.
Wheeler County is the least populated county, with a mere 1,575 residents, the largest community being Fossil with 465 residents.
Dave H. wrote: Don’t the poor and disabled in Newberg and Dundee get easier access within town?
Hardly. The Newberg-Dundee Bypass project provides for no improvements in Dundee and 99W is still going to be a difficult street to cross (it’s probably easier to cross today with the gridlock, so you can simply walk between the cars instead of playing Frogger with cars moving 35 MPH.) A few years ago Newberg did a major street project covering nearly the entire length of 99W through town, which included numerous pedestrian improvements – new and improved sidewalks, crosswalks, and new (additional) traffic signals.
Dundee simply does not have the money to improve 99W on its own should the bypass be built and the street revert to city control.
I don’t see how traffic is going to be the same problem, if the traffic is moved to the bypass and out of town. Maybe if we do nothing about traffic for another 50 years while building out areas along the road we may have issues, but it should at least clean up the 99W corridor a bit.
Because Newberg/Dundee are still significant transportation generators. One need only look at ODOT traffic counts to see how much traffic moves WITHIN Newberg and Dundee, between the two cities, or to points north. (Despite popular opinion, the vast majority of the traffic does not go to the casinos or the beach. The only times this road really becomes a problem in terms of congestion is Friday and Sunday afternoons/nights when there is a huge rush of cars headed to the casinos/beaches all at once.)
If anything, this bypass project will induce sprawl just as has happened in Keizer (grew out to I-5), Woodburn (grew out to I-5), Wilsonville and Tualatin (sprouted out along I-5)… A more sensible plan is to take advantage of the money ALREADY SPENT to improve 99W in Newberg, and simply rebuild 99W in Dundee and four-lane the entire road out to the Polk County line. The land is for the most part already owned by ODOT and there are few acquisition costs. 99W seriously needs to be rebuilt anyways – and this need does not go away with the bypass. Dundee will benefit with a wider 99W and streetscaping and pedestrian improvements (I could actually see a pedestrian overpass built near the elementary school where the elevation of the school is higher than the road.) In Dundee, few businesses are located on the south (east) side of the road and can be easily acquired for little cost; the biggest cost would be building a new fire station and public works building for Dundee (of which I am sure the city would gladly appreciate and help pay for.) And it will protect the farmland between Dundee and the Willamette River as well as to the south of Dundee.
And if Dundee insists — there is a cheaper “bypass” of just Dundee that is possible, which connects the four lane segments of 99W to the north and south, provides for NO highway access between these two points and thus no ability for development to take off.
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=45.268786,-123.00735&spn=0.018363,0.028539&t=h&z=15&msid=105939017853465830090.00046aaa9ff4dad46cc60
One last comment…do we really want a repeat of Sherwood???
(Ironically…Sherwood, within the award-winning Metro regional boundary, the symbol of land use planning at its best…and yet Sherwood, an absolute and total FAILURE of land use planning right under Metro’s watch.)
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=45.354407,-122.866116&spn=0,359.971461&t=h&z=15&msid=105939017853465830090.00046aaa9ff4dad46cc60&layer=c&cbll=45.354543,-122.865922&panoid=lKWCBfWHlfaxuug2Nx4T2w&cbp=12,91.2,,0,9.09
Yeah, Jason, I know what per capita means. What I’m saying is that “analysis” doesn’t mean shit. Why don’t you look at price per square foot for homes – small houses generally cost more. Or per capita education spending, or about a million other things. When comparing such diverse things as transportation spending on a county level, per capita spending is a completely irrelevant way of drawing conclusions. Don’t embarrass yourself further by arguing otherwise.
Don’t embarrass yourself further by arguing otherwise.
Moderator: Ted, don’t get too personal.