It appears that the Pinot-Casino Highway (sometimes known as the Newberg-Dundee Bypass, which broke ground last week, although construction does not start until next year) has attracted legal opposition opposing the construction–albeit from an unusual place.
Phase 1 of the project (which will likely be signed as an extension of OR18) runs from an intersection with OR219 south of of Newberg, near Springbok and Wilsonville Roads, to an intersection with OR99W just west of Dundee (you can see a map of phase 1 here). The “full” project calls for a four-lane freewayexpressway (ODOT doesn’t like to call their divided limited-access highways “freeways”, for some reason) from the bottom of Rex Hill (northeast of Newberg) to the present intersection of OR18 and OR99W just north of Dayton; but there’s not enough money to build that, so a “Phase 1” project, with the truncated alignment, was approved as part of the 2009 Jobs and Transportation (JTA) Act, in which various highway-projects were goosed with stimulus money.
The plaintiff in the lawsuit, a local builder named Mart Storm, suggests that the truncated alignment is useless, and that a longer alignment is necessary to relieve congestion in the Newberg/Dundee corridor. Such “independent utility” arguments have been successfully used before to kill off projects with stunted first phases (the West Eugene Parkway is a recent local example)–if a project is broken into phases, federal law requires that the first phase have “independent utility”–in other words, be useful as a standalone project. The purpose of this is to prevent back-loading of the useful parts of a project into subsequent phases, essentially forcing them to be built. (If phase 2 turns out to be useless or not cost-effective, it can simply not be built).
Typically, “independently utility” arguments are often deployed by environmentalists or others looking to kill a project outright.
Looking at Phase 1 of this project–it appears that Mr. Storm has a point–except he’s arging at the wrong end of the project. Storm owns property near Fulquartz Landing Road that would be condemned in order to build the full project (producing a windfall for him), but which is not necessary for the first phase–he is claiming that the failure to run to Fulquartz Landing (a half-mile further south) is “unacceptable”. Storm insists that he is only looking out for the good motorists and residents of the Newberg-Dundee area, and not his own pocketbook. While I’m not a civil engineer, the difference between the Fulquartz Landing terminus and the planned terminus at Niederberger Road is (as far as I can tell) not much. He might have a better argument were the other alternative a full extension to McDougal Junction (the current eastern end of OR18), where ODOT ultimately plans to build a full interchange keeping OR18 and OR99W traffic flows separate.
Mr Storm’s concerns notwithstanding the real problem with Phase 1 is at the other end. The planned eastern terminus of the bypass at OR219, without any connection back to OR99W, will force tons of traffic onto Springbok Road, a local street in Newberg. Either that, or onto Wilsonville Road (and thence to I-5 in Wilsonville), which ought to annoy Clackamas County greatly. As Phase 1 includes no intersections or interchanges other than the termini, for Portland traffic to use the bypass at all, they will have to find some way to get between the eastern terminus and 99W. The project does include some improvements to Springbok Road (which is currently a narrow two-lane collector), but nothing that will enable it to handle high volumes of freight traffic, not to mention the throng of Portlanders looking to go wine-tasting, gambling, or beachcombing, that makes traffic on OR99W so miserable in the first place.
This is the sort of situation that the independent utility requirement is designed to avoid–a partially completed project making things worse rather than not better, and creating a situation where completion of Phase 2 becomes a necessity rather than an option for the future.
20 responses to “Appeal to be filed against Pinot-Casino Highway”
A duplicate of this article was momentarily posted, apologies if anyone tried to respond to it. (Memo to self: Never hit “back” button in browser after clicking “publish”…)
Scotty – though I’m sure any South African readers this blog might have appreciate it, the name of the road in Newberg is “Springbrook” rather than “Springbok”!
Thanks, for some reason I was thinking of the jigsaw-puzzle company…. :(
I had not heard that this project had been revived, but I would have to agree that this phase does not meet the independent utility test. Can we save the money somewhere until we have enough for the full project, or does it have to be spent?
If they don’t use it for this, they will probably try to use it on the CRC.
Maybe we can cancel the CRC and divert the funds to the bypass. ;)
If they don’t use it for this, they will probably try to use it on the CRC.
To spend on more “studies”, no doubt.
I agree this first phase is a recipe for disaster (in stark contrast to the planned first phase of the Sunset Corridor).
dan,
Do you mean the Sunrise Corridor? I would agree that the planned first phase of the Sunrise Corridor (a two-lane extension of the Milwaukie Expressway, bypassing Clackamas and the traffic mess that is currently OR212/224 in the vicinity of I-205), is a useful project.
I’d go further and note that it’s probably all that’s necessary. If Damascus is unwilling to densify, there’s no reason at all to build a six-lane freeway out to Rock Creek Junction.
D’oh…. I did mean Sunrise. And yep, here’s hoping the originally planned six-lane behemoth will be unnecessary.
[Moderator: Comment meant for open thread–ES]
The whole project makes no sense – especially given 99W through Newberg was recently widened/improved, and that is not where the bottleneck occurs.
A much shorter 3.5 mile Dundee Bypass would be easily constructed, bypass the bottleneck, and connect to 99W at an at-grade (not grade-separated) intersection at its south end and a grade-separated interchange at the north end. Later phases could see 99W and 18 widened to five lanes all the way to McMinnville including a fully grade-separated interchange at McDougall’s Corner and at Lafayette Highway (both of which should have been built 40 years ago), and continuing on 18 from McMinnville to the Polk County line – those would be easily constructed using land already purchased by the state.
I grew up in this area and know this notorious bottleneck quite well! I still don’t understand why they cannot just widen 99W through Dundee and relocate their “unique” shanty-town main street toward the hill a few blocks. Instead they’re building a highway 26-esque freeway with overpasses and such? Also, what happens to the bottlenecks in Tigard and McMinnville? I am so sick of seeing how the Californians have utterly ruined our beautiful countryside with wineries! It used to be so pretty to have tree-covered hillsides and now they are all shaved down and have rows and rows of wineries. Move the casino to the convention center or downtown Portland
I still don’t understand why they cannot just widen 99W through Dundee and relocate their “unique” shanty-town main street toward the hill a few blocks.
Um, because residents of Dundee don’t WANT to?
That’s just like the argument heard 40 years ago about why residents of SE Portland should just accept the Mount Hood Freeway ripping apart the neighborhood. While I’m skeptical about the PCH (particularly the freeway version), it’s probably preferable to turning Dundee’s main street into an expressway.
Also, what happens to the bottlenecks in Tigard and McMinnville?
Can’t say much about McMinnville, other than that OR18 already serves as a suitable bypass. ODOT already owns much of the ROW to widen it to four lanes, if necessary. As far as Tigard goes, that is the problem that the I-5/99W connector is intended to solve–though a political stalemate between Washington and Clackamas Counties has basically put that project on ice.
I am so sick of seeing how the Californians have utterly ruined our beautiful countryside with wineries! It used to be so pretty to have tree-covered hillsides and now they are all shaved down and have rows and rows of wineries.
Not sure how much Californians are to blame for the wine industry–that said, there are far more obnoxious land uses than vineyards, and many Oregon wineries are well-known for sustainable practices.
Move the casino to the convention center or downtown Portland.
Under current law, casinos in Oregon may only be operated by recognized Native American tribes on tribal land; none of which is located in the City of Portland. (Actually, Oregon law prohibits them altogether; but tribal sovereignty means that state law doesn’t apply within tribal lands). Ballot Measures 82 and 83 deal with the subject of casino gambling; a yes vote on both would legalize a (non-tribal) casino at the former Multnomah Kennel Club site out in Wood Village. (Portland Transport takes no position on either measure).
I guess I’m just bitter after the whole “we know better than you how to develop your land” attitude during the 37/49 debate. It’s somehow ok for the countryside to serve the pleasure of city dwellers to traipse around on their weekend outings to go sip wine but it’s blasphemy to build a second home on family property that’s been owned for 100 years.
The “we” in that case would be the voters of the State of Oregon, most of them native-born Oregonians.
The “go sip” wineries, by and large, being developed by private property owners, many of whom I’d wager are also native-born Oregonians.
The point being that “nativism” (especially given the history of this state of the past 200 years) is a highly problematic lens to use the analyze land use and transportation policy.
Regarding Scotty’s comment about siting of Native American casinos (hey, there’s that word again), I seem to recall that the Chinook Winds casino in Lincoln City was constructed as part of some kind of land-swap deal, to make the parcel where the casino now sits “tribal”, but I could be wrong about this. Anyone have the details?
“It’s somehow ok for the countryside to serve the pleasure of city dwellers to traipse around on their weekend outings to go sip wine”
Rural communities love tourist dollars but hate tourists. It is funny…
How did wineries get there? Did they just pop up from some random seeds blown in the wind?
“it’s blasphemy to build a second home on family property that’s been owned for 100 years.”
I bet we can count the number of properties that have been in the family for 100 years without even needing to take off our shoes.
How many of those 100 year family property owners were happy to take the money when they sold their property to wineries?
If the property owners didn’t want the city tourists coming to the wineries, why did they build wineries or sell to people who will build wineries?
I am sick of this argument. People complain about Californians coming in and raising the price of real-estate but I don’t see them complaining when they cash the checks from selling the property to the Californians…
For the record, I am not from California. I just see the hypocracy when people complain about something but happily profit from it…
Also – drop the “native Oregonian” bit please. Oregon itself as we know it today didn’t even exist until one demographic stole it from another demographic. White people complaining about people coming in their neighborhood and changing it really crack me up… Where did these 100 year property owners get their land from? Oh I don’t know, maybe land grants and other BS like that…
(Also – “old” property in the west cracks me up… I love when people whose ancestors were GIVEN the land by the US Government complain about not being able to make a zillion dollars profit from the land)
/Rant
[Moderator: Incoherent rantings removed. Try to present your arguments logically and with civility. – Bob R.]
[Moderator: Repeated call to wipe out the main drag in Dundee removed. You’ve already dropped that inflammatory troll bait recently and several other times over the years. Drop it. – Bob R.]