Update 9/8/06
This morning the Oregionial Editorial Board weighed in, opposing tolling 99W where it would parallel the new bypass.
Original Post: 9/5/06
the phrase quoted in this morning’s O from a county commissioner describing the potential toll road bypass around Newberg and Dundee:
“That’s just not going to fly,” said Yamhill County Commissioner Leslie Lewis, one of the leading local officials trying to get the bypass built. “We need to have a real conversation about how to fund this thing. I’m hoping a train wreck will be avoided, and we’ll get to have that meaningful conversation.”
Seems like ODOT still needs to do some more groundwork on support for this one :-)
43 responses to “Train Wreck”
A train, not a “train wreck” is just what we need.
Spend a fraction of the money to upgrade the rail line to Yamhill county for tourist, gamblers (or is it gamers), and commuters. Add freight at night to the paper mill in Newberg, the steel mill in McMinnville, and all the industrial “ag” down that way. Let 99W take care of itself.
Otherwise a “train wreck” is better than the bypass.
Interesting comment Lenny…is upgrading or building additional rail capacity on the table with the ODOT study or is it focused solely on increasing road capacity through the area?
This real congestion problems that are to be addressed by this by-pass have been known for years. The area’s successful businesses have been fighting this problem just as much as the weekend tourist trying to get to the coast.
The problems are;
That the Federal Government already approved a different plan/routing of a way correct the problem.
This is an example of statewide funding problem for needed transportation infrastructure.
The locals will be picking up the majority of the expense (the toll) when they in their minds are not the problem.
It is hard to put a toll on an existing road without making real improvements.
To me this is the tip of a iceberg of a funding problem and priority that has been given to our road and highway system starting with Neil Goldsmith.
We need to have the State Legislature to develop a new funding plan that includes new increased fuel/road tax. The revenue from this new tax should exclusive fund road and highway improvements.
I am sure it would be debated well from all sides as it should be.
This debate should be part of this years Governor’s race.
We also need to know how all of the canidates in this years election feel about making needed and necessary improvement to our transportation infrastructure and how they think it should be funded.
I have no problem getting through the city of Newberg on their oneway grid, and very little trouble getting through Dundee, thought he road through Dundee could stand improvement and widening… Anybody ask the people of Dundee if they want to be bypassed?? and lose that potential business…???? who needs this bypass except valley dwellers who want to get to the beach a bit faster, but are better off taking it easier….
“Neil Goldsmith”
Hey Paul,
Who the heck is this Neil Goldsmith you keep referring to in your posts. I’ve lived in Portland all my life and have never heard of him.
Now, there was this other guy, Neil Goldschmidt, who’s been in the papers now and then over the years…
Don’t know if you’re trying to be funny or snarky, but either way, it’s not working.
This problem has been know for years. This is not just a local problem to the immediate residents that will pickup the majority of this toll tab.
It is a problem where we have not been addressing the needs and priority of our roads and highways.
The legislature needs to come up with a plan to fund road and highway infrastructure improvements that are critical and needed on a statewide basis.
I support a new state road and fuel tax increase, if it is totally targeted at adding new capacity to our roads and highways.
This should be part of a real debate for all canidates running for local office and the legislature.
It should also be part of this years Governor’s race.
Hey Nuovorecord,
I am sorry for any confusion on the name and just have fun with it.
Yes, we are talking about the same person Neil Goldschmidt, ex-mayor of Portland, ex-US Secretary of Transportation, ex-Governor and child rapist.
The problem is how he and his clones have controlled the transportation agenda and the priority that was given to our roads and highways.
The legislature and governors from that point on equally should share some of the blame
State Transportation Commission was controlled by Neil Goldschmidt clones and law partners.
We can laugh all we want about my miss-spelling of a name but for the people and businesses of our state who are caught in congestion this is a serious problem that needs real debate and real solutions.
As someone who used to live in Yamhill County from 1997-99, what would I suggest for Yamhill County?
A. Road bypass
B. Passenger rail service
C. Increased bus service
D. all of the above
If you answered “D,” you’re right.
On the bypass: I thought the Hwy. 18/McKay Rd. (“regional”) bypass was a better option. A cable access show back then once said except for the bridge across the Willamette River between Dayton and St. Paul, it could be built for the same price as the local bypass, and affect less people (espically those in lower income housing). They could change the signs along I-5 to point traffic to Yamhill county along that route, rather than force all of it to go over Rex Hill (between Newberg and Sherwood), as it does now.
They’ve talked about setting up some form of rail – for commuters, tourists, special interests, etc. – for some time now, I’d guess at least 10-15 years, mentioning that the line was once part of an electric train service in the early 20th century.
In the meantime, I think the Link bus service (which I discussed in the thread about the proposed Yamhill County Wine Train) would be great if it could be upgraded to offer 7 day a week service, including hourly service on weekdays. Perhaps if it were that convinent and well-advertised, there’d be enough interest and enough fare-paying riders to keep it running with that much frequency indefinitely.
I think that would be enough options to keep people moving in Yamhill County. It definitely needs more options than what exists now.
Paul,
Why should a fuel tax be dedicated to roadway capacity improvements?
Isn’t that like using cigarette tax money to get people to smoke?
Before any more transportation taxes, fees or tolls are placed on the backs of motorists that also subsidize other modes of travel, the users of alternative modes must pay a greater share of the price tag for transportation infrastructure. That means increasing transit fares so they cover a far greater amount than the current 20% of transit operational costs and directly taxing bicyclists for bicycle infrastructure. If a toll is added to any thoroughfare in Oregon, it should be for a bike lane, bike trail or bike path. Any motorist toll road in Yamhill County will only do damage to the economy there. Therefore any and all such plans should be discarded.
As for Lenny’s idea about a tourist train, I like the idea however it will never achieve financial self sufficiency and for that reason must be rejected. As I understand the concept, the upfront costs to upgrade the tracks are too expensive for the number of passengers the train would carry and the amount of revenue that could be collected from them. However, if the train went all the way to the Spirit Mountain Casino and the operators of the casino were willing to underwrite both the upfront costs and the operation of the train, the idea might just work.
Two points:
1. The Regional Bypass (connecting Highway 18 with I-5, via Marion County) would solve numerous problems – provide an alternative to the Wheatland Ferry and the Highway 219 bridge; reduce traffic on Rex Hill and into Sherwood, Tualatin and Tigard; link McMinnville with the Interstate Highway System (think: economic opportunities that McMinnville is losing out on); and bypass Newberg and Dundee – let still providing access to both. Unfortunately, everyone has all but ruled out such a progressive solution – yet this exact solution was applied to Highway 22 (to Stayton) and Highway 34 (to Corvallis and Lebanon) – and those two highways aren’t tolled.
2. Dundee would benefit from NOT being bypassed. Look at Dundee’s three-lane slab of asphalt – it is simply not attractive. The land between Highway 99W and the P&W railroad tracks is unproductive right now and largely vacant. Allowing 99W to be widened would utilize land that is otherwise being wasted, would allow Dundee to be “beautified” – and the city would get a new fire station and public works facility out of it. Local businesses would certainly benefit from better sidewalks, parking and access. Local residents would have a “downtown” to be proud of – this solution was applied in St. Helens and Scappoose with no ill effects. The remaining land between the newly widened highway and the railroad could be made into a park – imagine summertime concerts, a walking trail, maybe basketball and tennis courts – both for residents to enjoy, as well as travellers who need a break (and thus will patronize local businesses as well).
Not to mention we’ve already spent quite a few dollars fixing up 99W in Newberg – maybe the city of Newberg can repay ODOT for the funds that ODOT spent to rehab 99W from one city line to the other if it feels that it should be a city street.
Transit will help the M-F rush hour traffic, but will do ZERO for the weekend traffic. The bottom line is highway improvements have to be made to this stretch of road – or does one propose TriMet start running “busses to the beaches” routes?
I’d be interested in the contributors’ opinions about what seems to me to be the only viable alternative for a privately-operated, toll-financed newberg-dundee bypass– discouraging 99W through traffic. Macquarie, the Australian company considering building the bypass for profit, has said it doesn’t pencil out for them unless tolls are collected on 99W through Newberg and Dundee as well as on the bypass to prevent traffic from taking the free road. Local politicians vigrously oppose this idea, and Macquarie wont go where it’s not wanted. How else to pay for it? I can’t see the legislature agreeing to any kind of subsidy. Macquarie is keen on eliminating or reducing competition. So the company may be receptive to a plan to discourage through traffic on 99W by installing signals, narrowing lanes, widening sidewalks, the whole traffic calming regime. I know that the state has urged the company to financially evaluate this alternative, but I don’t know how the business community in these towns feel about losing their through traffic.
Reply to Jamie:
Increasing the “Fuel/Road Tax” in Oregon is going to be a hard sell. No manner how important it is to re-invest in transportation infrastructure and how it has been proven to provide the necessary ROI, it is a hard sell statewide.
LID’s and Tax Incentive Financing Districts have played a primary role in many of the important targeted transportation improvement in this state.
Remember that a lot of people who vote do not live in Portland and/or Metro. Their vote counts just as much as a Metro vote.
I do not see our legislature having what it takes to advance legislation that increases Fuel/Road Tax and without a buy-in by rual legislators. The head on the House Transportation Committee is from southern Oregon.
How would the spoils of any new Fuel/Road Tax get spent is very important to them and most of them do not share in the priorities and value structures found in more urban setting.
If you cannot prove that any transportation investment funded by a new Fuel/Road Tax will return an ROI and new jobs any proposal that includes this tax is to all effect “Dead-on-Arrival”.
Before any more transportation taxes, fees or tolls are placed on the backs of motorists that also subsidize other modes of travel, the users of alternative modes must pay a greater share of the price tag for transportation infrastructure. That means increasing transit fares so they cover a far greater amount than the current 20% of transit operational costs and directly taxing bicyclists for bicycle infrastructure. If a toll is added to any thoroughfare in Oregon, it should be for a bike lane, bike trail or bike path.
Should we directly tax pedestrians for building sidewalks as well?
The vast majority of bicyclists own cars and buy gas. Why shouldn’t their gas tax dollars pay for the sidewalks they walk on and the bike lanes & paths they ride on, as well as the roads they drive on? Similarly, most transit riders own cars that they use for most (but not all) of their trips.
Tell you what… you can send all of your gas tax money goes to roads and I’ll put a bigger chunk of my gas tax money to bike lanes and sidewalks, since I use them. That should balance nicely.
On the other hand:
However, if the train went all the way to the Spirit Mountain Casino and the operators of the casino were willing to underwrite both the upfront costs and the operation of the train, the idea might just work.
Not a bad idea there, if the casino’s willing to do it. I’d put a fair amount of public funding into the track anyway, if we can upgrade it to high-speed rail. A 90-120 mph trip from Beaverton Transit Center to Spirit Mountain Casino might well be competitive with most cars for travel time over that distance, even with a handful of stops along the way.
Kinda like the old days, when the streetcar companies built amusement parks at the end of the line to keep people riding the cars evenings and weekends.
Jim –
My impression, from attending a couple of the advisory committee sessions early on, was that the business community wants the traffic that stops but right now the business districts are drowning in traffic that doesn’t stop. They have a love/hate relationship with it that is common in many small towns. The tipping point probably depends on the business.
The question of it “penciling out” raises one of the major objections to the bypass – that you can end up with two congested roads and new congestion on either side. If the existing right of way remains desireable for through traffic, then congestion in the business districts will continue. If it remains desireable enough, the toll road doesn’t pencil out.
So there are reasons, aside from costs, to change the character of 99W through town. The question is how to do that in a way that still makes it attractive to traffic that does business there.
Using traffic lights to force people to stop as a means of traffic calming is something the communities ought to reject as totally unacceptable. It essentially restores the very problems that they are attempting to relieve with the bypass by reintroducing congestion. Any traffic calming needs to make the business district streets more useable for the people who continue to use them, not less.
So eliminating the couplet, putting parking on both sides of the street, curb extentions, bike lanes, a full canopy of street trees, narrow traffic lanes, slower speed limits, mid-block pedestrian crosswalks. Using traffic circles at intersections instead of lights if there is room. You want traffic to move smoothly, but slowly.
I have seen some designs that create deliberate weaves in traffic lanes so that you can’t drive straight down a block. I have no idea how well they work. My guess is that they keep the truck traffic to a minimum.
Essentially anything that makes it easy for people to stop and get out of their cars is going to make the street more business friendly while making it less attractive to people in a hurry to get through town. The question is whether you can make it unattractive enough that people driving through will pay a toll to avoid it without making the town an unattractive place to do business.
To Terry Parker:
I believe your basic tenet to be fundamentally flawed, my friend. Motor vehicles, as a transportation system, are nowhere near self-supporting. Huge costs are incurred to build and maintain roads, and these costs are borne mainly by taxpayers. Now, some taxpayers, indeed most, are motorists, so they are one and the same.
However, some taxpayers are not motorists and are involuntarily funding motor vehicle use and overuse. It is the same feeling of outrage that you feel when you think about YOUR tax dollars paying for things you don’t want them to be spent on. The big difference though, is that the sheer amounts spent specifically on public transit (which you don’t like) are miniscule when compared to the vast resources squandered on the motor vehicle system in this country (which I happen to dislike). In other words, roads are heavily subsidized, so why shouldn’t trains be too (or bike paths for that matter)? If we followed your ideas, drivers would need to pay the costs of roads directly—for example, through tolls or an at-the-pump tax—which would be so prohibitively expensive that driving would probably come to a grinding halt except for all but the wealthiest of motorists!
Anway, please do have a look at the national budgetary figures sometime. You still may not agree that we should subsidize trains and other modes of travel—and that is certainly your perogative—but you just cannot go on thinking that cars are not subsidized, because that simply is not the case.
The most recent statistics I’ve seen from the FHWA shows that, on a purely federal basis, the National Highway System (of which Highway 99W to McDougall’s Junction, and Highway 18 from end-to-end is a part of), is fully self-supporting through the assessment of the federal gas/diesel fuel tax. If you don’t buy gasoline, you’re not supporting it. Yes, it’s a tax – but it’s easier to collect than a toll – and affects the same people.
Further – of the federal gas tax – only 65% of it goes to highways; the rest goes to public transit, bikeways, etc.
On a state level, ODOT’s entire budget – except $5M – is from user fees and specific taxes, like the state gas tax. The $5M that comes out of the general fund (read: your annual Form 40/40S) is to support the two Amtrak trains that run between Portland and Eugene, and continue north to Seattle.
So, the only “subsidized” transportation spending, the spending that comes from revenue that is not specifically derived from the use of the mode of transportation, is local – city and county streets and roads; and TriMet’s use of the payroll tax that forces every area worker/employer to pay for transit services, even if they never set foot near a bus stop.
“The vast majority of bicyclists own cars and buy gas. Why shouldn’t their gas tax dollars pay for the sidewalks they walk on and the bike lanes & paths they ride on, as well as the roads they drive on? Similarly, most transit riders own cars that they use for most (but not all) of their trips.”
The old and tired argument that many bicyclists own cars and buy gas doesn’t hold any merit. It is the same as saying if a person owns two or more cars, that person should only buy one license for all of them and only pay gas taxes when using only one of the cars. The taxes and fees drivers pay on their cars, including those who own bicycles, are to pay for road use and motorist infrastructure when their car is being driven, not exclusive bicycle infrastructure such as bike lanes. A car parked while the owner is riding a bicycle is not contributing his or her fare share of taxes for the use of the road while riding the bicycle. The bicyclists own cars argument also suggests that bicyclists are willing to stipulate that motorists completely pay their own way through license fees and fuel taxes, and there is a big extra surplus of transportation funds leftover. If such a surplus existed, there would be no discussion or even a consideration of toll roads. There is no such surplus. Bicyclists should be directly taxed for their use of the roads, period.
The argument that because transit riders own cars, transit fares should continue to be subsidized is even more absurd. Whether or not a person owns any motor vehicles does not change the cost or cost per ride of transit service. Fares only cover 20% of the costs of operation. Taxpayers (not just motor vehicle owners) are subsidizing everybody who uses Tri-Met services. Therefore, the fares charged should closer reflect the true costs of providing the service.
Terry, look at it this way…you are paying us bikeheads and transit nuts to NOT drive, and you should be glad we aren’t. We’d run you off the road in a minute, figuratively speaking of course.
“Terry, look at it this way…you are paying us bikeheads and transit nuts to NOT drive, and you should be glad we aren’t. We’d run you off the road in a minute, figuratively speaking of course.”
So are you saying it is the bicyclists and transit users that when driving are the ones that continually ignore traffic laws by speeding and blowing through red lights and stop signs? The real problem is that taxpayers should not be paying anybody not to drive and take away jobs from the economy.
Jeez, are we having the same conversation again?
The need to correct known problems with inadequate road and highway infrastructure has once again come front and center.
The very liberal editorial department of the Oregonian just reports facts in this case that many people do not want to hear.
We cannot socially engineer ourselves out of this problem of not having reasonable and capacity available with roads and highways. Building a commuter train track and capabilities along this corridor will not eliminate this problem. Extending Light Rail along this corridor does not solve this problem. Building new walking and bike paths along this corridor does not solve this problem. Putting a toll on the new proposed bypass route and then putting a toll on the existing roads and highways does not solve this problem. Most all other possible solutions to the problem would take centuries to go from a vision to a possible solution and that is just too long.
In Clackamas County they have almost the exact same problem but their effects critically needed family wage jobs. The 212/224 corridor coming off of I-205 including that intersection is a nighmare.
My god, we have been lucky that the leaders of Clackamas County have recognized problem and have thrown most all of their resourses at trying to stay ahead of the congestion problem that effects everyone in our region. Clackamas County has done most anything and everything that they can do out of their own pocket, but they know that they have build their own bypass or these 1000 and 1000 of family wage jobs will leave this very highly congested corridor.
They have at the same level of completion as a process the Sunrise Corridor and it needs to be funded. It also solves the problem of how Metro shoved out the UGB in this area that includes the new City of Damascus. The solution is to place a toll on this new bypass road but in doing it most all of the people would continue to use the highly congested current 212/224 corridor thereby providing little or No relief where it is needed.
Some see an almost identical solution an that is to toll both corridors.
This failed logic can also be extended to the proposal of using tolls to fund the replacement of the Interstate Bridges. They have been told that they cannot just put a toll on a new Interstate Bridge, that they would also have to put a toll on the Glenn Jackson Bridge on I-205.
If they did not do that most everyone would be trying to use the free of toll I-205 corridor.
Some problems that need to be thought out and fully discussed/debated with this last proposal are:
Maybe just putting a toll on the I-5 Interstate Bridge would work in getting people out of this corridor. It could result in reducing the level of traffic and resulting congestion that has been reported to having made this the 3rd worst air quality corridor in nation.
Only placing a toll on this Bridge and corridor would eliminate a significant amount of new traffic that will be generated with a new wide bridge making air polution and freight mobility in this area even worse.
Placing a toll on only a new Interstate Bridge will help local businesses in Oregon by reducing traffic in the corridor for all local LTL and just-in-time deliveries and that is good.
Placing a toll on only the new Interstate Bridge tells everyone that you are the problem and that if you still care to use the corridor you and only you have to pay the toll.
Placing a toll on only the new Interstate Bridge is and would be the “Best (TDM) Transportation Demand Management method and way to eliminate congestion in a broken I-5 corridor.
Placing a toll on only the new Interstate Bridge is and would be the best way to prevent most Oregonians from picking up any of this tab of this bridge replacement project.
Placing a toll on only the new Interstate Bridge would make (LRT) Light Rail Transit and getting it extended into Clark County Washington look good to those people that would be forced to pay a regressive toll which is like tax.
On the otherside most Washingtonians are moving eastern part of Clark County and they want to get away from core downtown Vancouver and I-5 corridor.
Putting the screws into Washingtonians to pickup this tab is not knew and can be part of our good neighbor policies that have been practiced. The Delta Park 2-lane congestion problem has not been solved or was there an effort to try to solve the problem until Washington lead the way in getting funding and priority to try to solve the problem.
Even now the CRC Task Force is trying to link the solving of this known Delata Park problem to the build or NO Build agenda in getting authorization for this Interstate Bridge replacement project.
Just a note to fact that a lot of Oregonians do not know is that Washington residents that work in Oregon collectively pay in Oregon Income Tax what would be the 3rd highest dollar amount of tax paid from any county in the State of Oregon.
Only Multnomah and Washington County residents pay more Oregon Income Tax then people living in Clark County Washington.
They ask what they are getting for this tax that they pay and should. So just think, all of you Oregonians would they be sensitive to a new toll/tax on top of what they pay now and I think the answer is YES!
They (the people of Clark County Washington) are NO different then the people in Yamhill County, they do not want to be screwed.
With the exception of the the I-205 Bridge, all bridges across the Columbia have been financed with tolls. Why change that?
Swan Island has 10K family wage jobs and only one road. Better than 1 in five employees use transit, bike, carpool or vanpool, and those numbers are going up.
Moving freight is not an issue on Swan Island because business understands that with limited resources, you prioritize. Our roads are first for moving freight, secondarily for employee’s commutes. More and more of the latter are shifting to alternatives to driving alone.
The relatively low cost investment in transit, bike and rideshare alternatives has reduced the need for any high cost investment in more road capacity.
2 SOVs = 1 Semi. Its a no brainer.
(sorry i posted this in wrong place)
September 8, 2006 04:50 PM
rex Burkholder Says:
The truest comment is on the lines of “if tolls won’t pay for a bypass, maybe it’s not needed.”
I am surprised the Oregonian is so ignorant of the financial realities of this state, including ODOT.
1) There is very little money available for capital improvements: ODOT figures a $500 Million annual shortfall. Maybe because there’s been no gas tax increase since 1993.
2) It is a zero sum game. Building a $500 million bypass will take the next 20 years of available funding for the whole state. Is the Oregonian advocating doing nothing everywhere else in the state to deal with a minor roadway’s problems?
3) The OTIA projects are being built mostly with borrowed money financed by mortgaging the next 20 years of federal and state gas tax revenues.
Shameful for the big O to fall for the “free lunch” false solution. Tolling is a good measure of whether there really is a market for a transportation product. There doesn’t seem to one in this case. So, why do we want to build a bypass?
Squabbling over the application and equity of funds aside, I agree with Rex that our system is drastically under funded. We cannot fund the maintenance of our system — how can we justify putting all of future funds to building new walls (a new freeway) while the roof (existing system) crumbles on us? BTW, the national highway fund is all but empty and OTIA purchased bonds on future dollars!
I very concerned about the privatization of freeways, especially as we look at tolling for the first time in a long time. It will be about profit (even though to some degree I appreciate Macquarie’s desire to be self-sufficient.) Let’s have our state, regional, and local decision makers step off the ledge and bring the debate of tolls to the people.
Rex, is this possible? Why do we have to punt to an oversees corporation?
They (the people of Clark County Washington) are NO different then the people in Yamhill County, they do not want to be screwed.
The people are no different, but the constraints on development are substantially different. The idea of commuter rail or other transit to serve communities in Yamhill county is not impossible. There is no realistic transit system that can serve the new development in rural Clark County that will be super-charged by a new bridge. And all the projections show new housing being built far faster than jobs are getting created off into the distant future. The only place for those folks to find work is across the river in Portland.
The truest comment is on the lines of “if tolls won’t pay for a bypass, maybe it’s not needed.”
I think this ignores the impact of 99W on the communities it goes through. Newberg and Dundee need the bypass or some other way to save their cities from the traffic generated in Portland and points west. If the only issue here was how long it takes someone to commute from McMinnville to Tigard I would agree, but that isn’t the only issue.
Rex is not telling everyone that the project getting pushed through to replace the Interstate Bridge has the potential to obligate the next 20-years of all Federal Highway dollars coming from Washington DC for our region. Is that the best use of those dollars, is that the highest priority?
If we scrap this boon-doggle project to replace the Interstate Bridges we will have more then enough money for projects like these two by-passes.
I have had legislators tell me that to increase the gas/road tax and not have the dollars go to building more road and highway capacity has to all effect killed this gas tax increase option.
There is such a high degree of distrust coming from legislators outside of Metro with the Metro Transportation prioritization and agenda advanced by Rex our problems are not going to go away.
If Rex and other key transportation leaders would support and sign off on a gas/road tax increase where all dollars will go to adding new capacity to our roads and highways, it would be a start in finding our way out of the hole that we are in.
It takes a leadership and a majority in the legislature or at the ballot box to increase the gas/road tax in this state.
I am in favor of an increase in gas/road tax but only if there are assurances that the money will not get filtered off to all of the multi-mod special interests.
We need improvements to our roads and highways and it is up to Rex to display leadership and not talk about what is happening as shameful.
There are many in the Metro area who think that under Rex’s leadership what has happened to our roads and highways is SHAMEFUL, it goes both ways, Rex.
Ross Williams wrote:
The people are no different, but the constraints on development are substantially different. The idea of commuter rail or other transit to serve communities in Yamhill county is not impossible. There is no realistic transit system that can serve the new development in rural Clark County that will be super-charged by a new bridge.
Actually building ANY type of rail infrastructure to East Vancouver is much, much easier than building from Portland to Yamhill County.
From Portland to Vancouver is an existing, double-track, 79 MPH top speed rail line currently used by seven daily Amtrak trains and numerous other freight trains.
From Vancouver northeast through the suburbs and towards Battle Ground is a branchline that is owned by Clark County, and from what I have been able to determine, has no engineering issues that would prevent it from being rebuilt as a route suitable for passenger trains.
Between McMinnville and Portland is a host of problems:
Newberg-Sherwood: Rex Hill. Even if rebuilt over the hill, the top speed for trains would be approximately 30 MPH. There are numerous trestles that would need to be rebuilt. The alternative is a multi-hundred-million dollar tunnel.
Lake Oswego-Portland: Another major bridge that needs rehabiliation. The Red Electrics used to stay on the west side of the river; now there are multi-million dollar homes and the South Waterfront that have ripped up the tracks. On the eastside is a single-track, heavily congested freight railroad.
Newberg and Dundee need the bypass
Newberg has a six-lane highway running through downtown, courtesy of ODOT a few years ago. Not too many traffic problems in Newberg anymore.
Dundee’s traffic is about 25,000 ADT. The problem is poor intersection design and access management. Widening the road to five lanes would facilitate queuing at a select, fewer, intersections. Which could be done for a couple million dollars and offer substantial benefit to the city.
Instead, we are holding out for the megabucks solution, when we just purchased the lottery ticket and are crossing our fingers in hopes that we win. Crazy…
Actually building ANY type of rail infrastructure to East Vancouver is much, much easier than building from Portland to Yamhill County.
The problem is hardly “east vancouver” because that isn’t where the bulk of the new housing development is happening. Its happening in rural areas of Clark County around Vancouver, Battelground and Camas etc at densities that aren’t going to support quality transit of any kind.
Newberg has a six-lane highway running through downtown, courtesy of ODOT a few years ago. Not too many traffic problems in Newberg anymore.
Right. Six lane highways never create traffic problems for communities. This sounds like ODOT, no interest in what happens to the place called Newberg, just the traffic travelling though it.
The problem is poor intersection design and access management.
Again. Limiting access to a town’s main street is not going to make it a great place to live. The point of transportation improvements is to improve access, not reduce it.
Instead, we are holding out for the megabucks solution
With all do respect, there isn’t a million bucks lying around for your solution either. So you have the megabucks solution with potential funding source and a cheaper solution with no source of funding that only serves the people driving through these communities at the expense of the communities themselves.
I actually think the toll road, which encourages local traffic to use Dundee and Newberg, is a better option than a bypass without tolls. The latter would likely just create more trips to King City for groceries instead of going to the local grocery store.
Ross Williams wrote:
Six lane highways never create traffic problems for communities. This sounds like ODOT, no interest in what happens to the place called Newberg, just the traffic travelling though it.
I do not believe there have been any ill societal, developmental, or economic benefits to Newberg as a result of the recent highway improvement and widening. Only one-half city block was required to be acquired, and no businesses relocated/displaced.
On the other hand, Newberg has a major thoroughfare that is much safer both for transients and local residents, with more traffic signals to ensure safe access to the highway (or to cross it), enhanced parking in the downtown area, and a safer roadway surface. Who can complain about that? (Oh, and for you bicyclists out there, Highway 99W now has bike lanes which didn’t exist before. Don’t forget to thank the good people at ODOT on your way out the door.)
Limiting access to a town’s main street is not going to make it a great place to live. The point of transportation improvements is to improve access, not reduce it.
But isn’t it in the residents’ interest to have three or four SAFE intersections, rather than one signallized intersection and a half-dozen difficult intersections, with absolutely no controls? Isn’t it in the residents’ interest to have a highway that is not so congested, that they must wait for minutes before they can gain access to their main street?
there isn’t a million bucks lying around for your solution either. So you have the megabucks solution with potential funding source and a cheaper solution with no source of funding that only serves the people driving through these communities at the expense of the communities themselves.
I actually think the toll road, which encourages local traffic to use Dundee and Newberg, is a better option than a bypass without tolls. The latter would likely just create more trips to King City for groceries instead of going to the local grocery store.
A $10M widening/streetscaping project, or a $300M+ bypass? You tell me. ODOT has numerous $10M and $20M projects on the books. Had the city of Dundee simply accepted the widening project, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, because the project would have been completed years ago – with absolutely no debate over tolls, no debate over Macquarie.
ODOT currently has a street modernization project in Philomath that is estimated at $10.9M. How was that funded? OTIA and internal funds. How did ODOT widen Highway 30 through St. Helens? Highway 99W in South Corvallis? Highway 20/99E in Albany? Highway 101 in North Tillamook?
I don’t know who in Newberg or Dundee drives all the way to King City to do their grocery shopping (considering that two of the three grocery store chains in King City are also in Sherwood; one of them is in Newberg, and Newberg has a Fred Meyer). If I were a Dundee resident and needed to do my grocery shopping, why would I drive past THREE grocery stores just two miles away in Newberg, drive an additional EIGHT miles to Sherwood – and further still pass those two grocery stores and drive another FOUR miles to King City? That argument makes absolutely no sense; how would a widened street in Dundee encourage people to drive a further distance away for basic needs, even though those basic needs can already be met locally? Do McMinnville residents – who currently benefit from both a five-lane highway through town, plus a bypass route, routinely do grocery shopping in Newberg despite having all the same resources (except Fred Meyer)?
As for the “expense of these residents”, what is the expense? That a select group of individuals don’t want the highway. Fine – they can petition ODOT to remove Highway 99W from the state highway system and make it a city street. I’m sure ODOT would have no problems with not having to maintain it, and using those dollars elsewhere. (Farmington Road/Highway 10 in Beaverton is no longer a State Highway; nor is Highway 10 within the City of Portland; nor is Hall Boulevard north of Highway 217; nor is Boones Ferry Road in Tigard; or Highway 99W north of Harbor Drive in Portland; or Highway 99E north of the M.L.K. Viaduct; or U.S. 30 Business (a.k.a. Sandy Blvd.); or parts of U.S. 26 in Gresham.)
Widening 99W through Dundee is probably one of the easiest widening projects – the majority of the land between the existing highway and the railroad is vacant, underused or unused. I estimate that exactly TWO substantial buildings would be affected – a winery (the tasting room, located in a house that has already been relocated once), and the Dundee Fire Department. Of these two buildings, it is possible that the buildings themselves may not be affected, but just the area in front of the buildings. The ARCO gas station at the northeast end of town would lose some of its frontage property, which is either driveway (which can be replaced) or landscaping. A dozen other, smaller buildings (many of which are vacant or underused) would either be removed entirely, or relocated closer to the railroad tracks. No more than five houses would be affected. None of the businesses on the north/west side of the highway would be negatively impacted; in fact they would receive brand new sidewalks, on-street parking, driveways, streetscaping, etc. – at no cost to them.
Compare that impact to the by-pass, where dozens of homes (in a low-income area of Newberg) would be adversely affected – and it’s likely those residents would not be able to purchase comparable housing in the area. At least one school property and one park would be affected. Several businesses and the city’s wastewater plant would be affected. And ODOT has a huge fight to pick with Robert Pamplin Jr.
In the “expense of the communities” argument, Newberg loses hands down. And Dundee has everything to benefit from a better road through town, but little to benefit from a bypass.
I don’t know who in Newberg or Dundee drives all the way to King City to do their grocery shopping
There isn’t a bypass around Newberg and Dundee is there? The sentence compared a tolled bypass to an untolled bypass, not to any other alternatives.
If I were a Dundee resident and needed to do my grocery shopping, why would I drive past THREE grocery stores just two miles away in Newberg, drive an additional EIGHT miles to Sherwood
For the same reasons people drive an extra 10 miles on a freeway to go to Walmart every week instead of shopping at a local store. At 70 mph compared to 25, its going to be almost as fast and if you take into account traffic lights etc maybe even quicker. It doesn’t require much, the brand of milk perhaps, to motivate people to drive a bit further.
While traffic engineers see distance as the fixed number in the equation distance=speed*time, human beings tend to see time as the fixed number. Make it faster and they will increase the distance they are willing to drive for the same services.
I do not believe there have been any ill societal, developmental, or economic benefits to Newberg as a result of the recent highway improvement and widening.
Whatever the net benefits making the highway in Newberg six lanes, it does makes it harder for pedestrians crossing the street. Making a six lane highway a pleasant place to stroll down the street window-shopping is extremely difficult. Making it a great spot to sit and watch the world go by is not very likely to happen. In short, making a six lane highway anything but a soviet-style industrial freeway is pretty tough.
And slapping bike lanes on it doesn’t change that. Its still a crappy, uncomfortable place to ride a bike.
But isn’t it in the residents’ interest to have three or four SAFE intersections, rather than one signallized intersection and a half-dozen difficult intersections, with absolutely no controls?
No. But you don’t mean “absolutely no controls”, do you? You mean no controls on the highway traffic not lack of controls on people crossing the highway.
But you are offering a false choice anyway. If there are a half-dozen difficult intersections, make them all less difficult. You don’t close some and force people to go out of their way, increasing traffic on side streets, to get where they need to go. Or force pedestrians to walk three blocks just to cross the street.
You tell me. ODOT has numerous $10M and $20M projects on the books.
A lot more than they have the money to pay for, thankfully. The only thing saving many small communities from being further destroyed by the traffic engineers is that they don’t have the money to implement their plans.
In the “expense of the communities” argument, Newberg loses hands down. And Dundee has everything to benefit from a better road through town, but little to benefit from a bypass.
But both communities, after a fair amount of discussion, seem to disagree with you. And given your apparent belief in the benign nature of six lane highways, I am not prepared to accept your judgement. My basic point here was that the bypass was an investment in restoring Newberg and Dundee not just speeding commutes and traffic to the coast.
But both communities, after a fair amount of discussion, seem to disagree with you.
Well, the city councils and the mayor disagree with me, that’s for sure. If that’s the case, then we better shut up and listen to President Bush, and demand the immediate shutdown of Amtrak, too, and buy more SUVs, stop riding busses, and support his cronies in the oil industry.
The “community” does not 100% agree with the bypass, either. There is significant opposition to the bypass – either due to its routing, its costs (i.e. tolls), or the price tag that’ll have to be paid one way or another.
Look at the signs along Highway 99W in Dundee. Look at the number of property owners who face 99W, who would rather see the highway widened – and they are the ones most directly impacted because they would have to sell out their property to ODOT under threat of condemnation. They know that an improved highway benefits them.
As for your assertion that Newberg is more dangerous, please back up your statement with facts. There are more traffic signals in Newberg to control traffic and provide residents a safe crosswalk. Through downtown, the six lanes is still divided onto two separate streets (First Street NB/EB and Hancock Street SB/WB). New businesses are flourishing downtown, where ten and twenty years ago there were more vacant buildings than occupied. And businesses are relocating downtown from other locations.
That is a marked difference from Dundee, where there are no pedestrians to be found.
If anything, your commentary about the bike lanes does suggest one thing to me – that we should stop building bike lanes. Apparently no matter how hard the driving population tries, the bicyclists are never happy enough. Taking out both bike lanes could add an additional lane of car traffic.
Well, the city councils and the mayor disagree with me, that’s for sure.
As I recall, the community discussions were quite a bit broader than that.
There is significant opposition to the bypass
Yes, but not really very much at all from the towns of Newberg and Dundee. I don’t entirely disagree with those, including 1000 Friends, who don’t want prime farmland dug up for a freeway. But they aren’t really addressing the question of what makes Newberg or Dundee good communities to live.
As for your assertion that Newberg is more dangerous
I didn’t make that assertion. You asserted it was safer. I asserted that six lane highways make an unpleasant environment for anyone outside an automobile. Couplets do not, as a rule, make great pedestrian and commercial environments either. They tend to encourage traffic speeds that are too high and make local travel more difficult. Especially when access is restricted and intersections are designed to serve the traffic on the couplet rather than make it easier for people to travel within the downtown.
Rex Burkholder said: “Tolling is a good measure of whether there really is a market for a transportation product.”
Such a statement makes very good argument for taxing bicycle usage, be it a bicycle tax or a bicycle toll. Instead giving bicyclists their current free lunch, if there is really a market for more bicycle infrastructure, taxing the user is a good measure to forecast if there is any real need for the product.
Will the failures of U.S. 20 have an effect on the Oregon Innovative Partnerships Program (and “design/build”)? Specifically, will this be another setback for the Newberg-Dundee Bypass? The Bypass seems “dead in the water” at this time. What is next? There isn’t a word about it from any governing body. The expected cost has now escalated to $500 to $600 million for the project. Also, tolling now seems to be off the table.
I can’t believe they wasted so much time and money on merely “planning” the bypass. How much has ODOT squandored PLANNING this stupid project? The project was doomed from the start. They need to just bulldoze Dundee and widen 99W all the way from Newberg, through Lafayette into Mac. Then they need to do the same to 18 from McDougal’s corner to Three Mile Lane in Dayton. Then they need to build a bridge across I-5 at the 18/99W intersection so people can bypass 99W altogether when going to the beach. In addition to that I would propose three ADDITIONAL bridges: one at Wheatland, another one just north of West Salem connecting Pine Street and another one out south commercial connecting to hwy. 22. Then I would widen Wallace Rd (Hwy. 221) to 5 lines from Dayton to West Salem and Lafayette Hwy. from it’s intersection with Wallace Road to Lafayette. With all this anti-growth blather coming from Portland and Salem it’s high time for some of the other counties to welcome the growth.
it’s high time for some of the other counties to welcome the growth.
The problem is not that other parts of Oregon don’t welcome growth, its that the “growth” isn’t interested in them. If you shorten the time it takes to get from McMinnville to Tigard, it will have to be “bulldozed” for all the people who decide to live in Sheridan or further out.
Not to mention the reality that ODOT can’t afford to maintain existing roads and bridges with its revenue from gas taxes. How are they going to build and maintain all those new bridges?
“How are they going to build and maintain all those new bridges?”
They seem to have money when Portland needs a bridge for Light Rail.
Given that we appear to have hit peak oil or a very good substitute for it, why would we be talking about ANY bridges for cars, anywhere in Oregon?
Having money when Portland needs a bridge for light rail is a function of using reasonably informed foresight to set priorities; building highway bridges just as oil prices are set to enter a permanent period of upward-trending volatility seems anything but reasonable or wise.
They seem to have money when Portland needs a bridge for Light Rail.
Well no, they don’t. In fact they are scrounging to find the money. In any case, a lot more people will use a transit bridge across the river in Portland and they are far more likely to be willing to pay for it.
George –
Regarding peak oil. We have people driving cars that get 10 mpg and less. We have the ability to produce cars that get 60 mpg. There are a lot of ways to deal with rising gas prices other than dramatically reducing the amount people drive. Its possible people will conserve by driving less, its also possible they will conserve by driving more efficient vehicles. Its likely they will do a bit of both. But the idea that our traffic problems will disappear as a result is unlikely to be true.
Ross, I invite you to read a short essay about the likely probability our driving future here:
http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary21.html
I don’t disagree that we’re going to see a sharp uptick in overall vehicle mpg soon–primarily because the SUVs are going to stop running with one person. It doesn’t take a hell of a lot of decrease to smooth out traffic flow and make the congestion history–just as it takes very little excess to drive the system into volatility and congestion.
There is absolutely no excuse for new capital projects (and the extraordinary associated costs) to serve gas-powered vehicles anywhere in the US; the end of the auto age is in sight, and the only capital projects that make sense at this point are those that will maintain their value in a post-petroleum world.
It doesn’t take a hell of a lot of decrease to smooth out traffic flow and make the congestion history–just as it takes very little excess to drive the system into volatility and congestion.
It appears that there is already a lot of latent demand from people who choose not to sit in congestion. So when someone stops driving because gas is too expensive, there will be someone else ready to take their place. This is the same reason that adding capacity has almost no impact on congestion.
Higher gas prices are not going to solve the congestion problem any more than higher food prices will solve the problem of obesity.
the end of the auto age is in sight
No, it isn’t. At least not that clearly in sight. Its not even clear that the continuation of the “auto age” will require huge amounts of petroleum. Its not the type of fuel that creates congestion, its the vehicles and when they are driven.
What’s this I hear about a potential westside highway connecting Dundee to Forest Grove? I think this is a great idea!
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/argus/index.ssf?/base/news/1184350838248570.xml&coll=6