AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Northwest => Topic started by: Sub-Urbanite on May 11, 2017, 12:53:47 PM

Title: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on May 11, 2017, 12:53:47 PM
The Oregon Legislature released its transportation plan earlier this week. Highlights:


Those are the big-ticket items. There's a bunch of other basic maintenance funding included as well. Overall, the plan raises $6.7 billion — 50% goes to ODOT, 30% to counties divvied up by vehicle registrations, and 20% to cities divvied up by population.

Funding sources include a phased-in gas tax increase statewide, an additional phased-in increase in the tri-county area, and a 1% sales tax on new cars. It also includes a 5% sales tax on new bikes!

It also includes a 0.1% payroll tax for transit operations, which according to the Oregonian was more of a rural issue: "Requests came from Medford, Hermiston, the coast and Bend, where increasing housing costs have pushed residents farther out from the city's center and their jobs."
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: Bickendan on May 11, 2017, 02:28:48 PM
OR 217 in Tigard, interesting. That leaves the OR 8 to OR 210 segment then.
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: kkt on May 11, 2017, 03:58:37 PM
Adding a 5% sales tax on new bikes would go over better if there was something on the list that would benefit bicyclists.
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on May 11, 2017, 04:40:09 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 11, 2017, 03:58:37 PM
Adding a 5% sales tax on new bikes would go over better if there was something on the list that would benefit bicyclists.

Well, Oregon law says that 1% of any transportation project's budget has to be for bike/ped. The package includes $11 million for statewide bikes and trails funding and $10 million a year for Safe Routes to Schools. That's more than the $2 million a year the bike tax is expected to raise.
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: Bickendan on May 11, 2017, 04:52:25 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 11, 2017, 03:58:37 PM
Adding a 5% sales tax on new bikes would go over better if there was something on the list that would benefit bicyclists.

Hopefully official adoption of USBRS routes will be part of this.
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: sparker on May 11, 2017, 05:53:38 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 11, 2017, 12:53:47 PM
The Oregon Legislature released its transportation plan earlier this week. Highlights:


  • $450 million to rebuild I-5 at the Rose Quarter
  • $202 million to strengthen and widen the Abernethy Bridge on I-205
  • $250 million to widen I-205 from the Abernethy to Stafford Road
  • $98 million to widen Highway 217 in Tigard
  • $33 million to start-up congestion pricing
  • $15.5 million to add aux lanes on I-205 from Stark to I-84

Those are the big-ticket items.

Looks like PDX Metro dominates the big-bucks project list; not surprising given the locus of political power in the state.  Guess Eugene, Salem, and Bend didn't press for much in the way of specific projects in their vicinity; they're just going to divvy up the "block grant" supplied to city/county jurisdictions -- and are thus unlikely to undertake significant projects on their own that would likely consume much of their share.  It's a recipe for ensuring that major road projects don't originate locally but instead must trickle down at the discretion of ODOT and their political handlers. 
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: Bickendan on May 11, 2017, 07:01:32 PM
Any major projects in Eugene, Salem, Bend, and Medford are either (recently) completed or are still in the planning and assessment phases (new Willamette crossing in Salem, South Salem Hills I-5 widening, OR 62 expressway). But, I wouldn't be surprised if these are still back-burnered in favor of the Tri Counties
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on May 11, 2017, 07:43:59 PM
Well, I think a big chunk of the Portland focus is that Portland is kicking in a supplemental gas tax - about $500 million over the first 10 years. That's about half of the total cost of the big fixes they're talking about up there.s.

Also seeing it proposes transferring Powell Boulevard to the City of Portland (ugh), Cornelius Pass Road to ODOT (yay), and Delta Highway in Eugene to ODOT.

It also lists "Possible secondary future projects:"

Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: nexus73 on May 11, 2017, 07:57:39 PM
Eugene has three new I-5 bridges with a capacity of 6 lanes.  The tiny stretch of 6-lane I-5 connects to none of them.  The distance to cover is short and the terrain is quite favorable but ODOT has told me "Nothing until 2030 or so...maybe" for expanding a busy I-5 in Oregon's 2nd largest metro area. 

Title fees will zoom to a bit below $120. Yikes!  I remember when title transfers were $2 and we built our section of I-5 faster than WA or CA, with the year it was finished being 1965.  Time to go back to however we governed affairs at ODOT before asking the rest of us to pony up more dinero.

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: sparker on May 11, 2017, 08:18:48 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 11, 2017, 07:43:59 PM
Also seeing it proposes transferring Powell Boulevard to the City of Portland (ugh), Cornelius Pass Road to ODOT (yay), and Delta Highway in Eugene to ODOT.

This raises a question: will Powell still be signed (but locally maintained, I suppose) as US 26, or will that route be realigned elsewhere -- over to Division, superseding OR 212, or even "joisted off" north to I-84?  Just hope ODOT doesn't pull a "Caltrans" and just leave it hanging in Gresham!  Also, will Cornelius Pass be considered an extension of OR 217 or will it get a new designation? 

The last time I registered a vehicle in Oregon (my old Mitsubishi pickup) the fees were, IIRC, about $47 for two years (ca. 1993).  I know they're a lot less than in CA ($104/yr  for my '97 Camry) -- but I'm wondering if the fee gap is closer than it was two dozen years ago!   
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: Bickendan on May 12, 2017, 01:40:37 AM
US 26 is still signed in Gresham (not really with reassurance shields, but at crosstreets -- 182nd, Eastman, Burnside), so it's still way better than CalTrans.
Considering MLK/Grand (OR 99E) is in Portland's hands, as is 82nd (OR 213) and they're still fairly well signed, ODOT's not going to take the signs down. And with Portland mucking with Division east of 82nd (dropping the speed limit from 40 to 35 way back when and 35 to 30 just a month ago), I'd be really surprised to see US 26 get rerouted. Even if it is technically a better facility than outer Powell.

Cornelius Pass will likely be an entirely new designation. Will the Highway and Route numbers match, is my question...
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: compdude787 on May 12, 2017, 01:59:57 AM
I really like the fact that OR can keep a route marked as a state (or US) highway, but not have to maintain it. Now it would just be nice if CA did likewise!!
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: sparker on May 12, 2017, 05:12:57 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on May 12, 2017, 01:59:57 AM
I really like the fact that OR can keep a route marked as a state (or US) highway, but not have to maintain it. Now it would just be nice if CA did likewise!!

These days it appears that once Caltrans decommissions a state highway segment, they simply lose interest in it -- and the concept of continuity has correspondingly suffered; it's as if no one, state or local, seems to give a shit!  At least Oregon is keeping their shields posted (whether they'll be maintained well enough to last is yet TBD).
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on May 12, 2017, 12:24:49 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on May 12, 2017, 01:40:37 AM
US 26 is still signed in Gresham (not really with reassurance shields, but at crosstreets -- 182nd, Eastman, Burnside), so it's still way better than CalTrans.
Considering MLK/Grand (OR 99E) is in Portland's hands, as is 82nd (OR 213) and they're still fairly well signed...

To be fair — 82nd is most definitely not a PBOT street. ODOT has full control and any capital improvements or maintenance for that comes from Salem.
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: dvferyance on May 13, 2017, 09:27:18 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on May 12, 2017, 01:59:57 AM
I really like the fact that OR can keep a route marked as a state (or US) highway, but not have to maintain it. Now it would just be nice if CA did likewise!!
And Indiana their split routes are ridiculous.
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: sp_redelectric on May 13, 2017, 09:44:24 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 12, 2017, 05:12:57 AM
These days it appears that once Caltrans decommissions a state highway segment, they simply lose interest in it -- and the concept of continuity has correspondingly suffered; it's as if no one, state or local, seems to give a shit!  At least Oregon is keeping their shields posted

That's debatable; as there are virtually no reassurance signs on the county-maintained segments of OR 8 (Gales Creek Road) west of Forest Grove, or OR 210 (Scholls Ferry Road) along its entire length.  Oregon 10 seems to fare better for some reason with plenty of reassurance signs west of Beaverton, then not much east of Beaverton; yet there are still remaining signs along Barbur Boulevard for Oregon 10 (but haphazardly).

Oregon's problem is its use of unsigned routes; despite the recent push to start signing them, that seems to have stopped and no new routes have been signed in the last few years.
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: sp_redelectric on May 13, 2017, 09:47:28 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 11, 2017, 08:18:48 PM
This raises a question: will Powell still be signed (but locally maintained, I suppose) as US 26, or will that route be realigned elsewhere -- over to Division, superseding OR 212, or even "joisted off" north to I-84?  Just hope ODOT doesn't pull a "Caltrans" and just leave it hanging in Gresham!

I almost could see a split here - using Oregon 212 west to I-205, then 217 (but then what happens to U.S. 26 east of 217?), AND a new routing via Hogan Drive and N.E. 238th Drive to I-84, and then co-sign U.S. 26 west on I-84 along with U.S. 30.  But then...what is the exact routing of U.S. 26 between I-84 and the existing U.S. 26/Sunset Highway?
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: Bickendan on May 13, 2017, 11:28:14 PM
I believe AASHTO still has US 26 on Market/Clay and Naito, while ODOT and PBOT have it on I-405, Broadway/5th-Sheridan, 3rd, and Arthur. 
As far as OR 8 goes, I don't think Gales Creek Rd was ever state maintained, so any OR 8 signage is purely a bonus. I'll have to look into OR 210, but I suspect modern shields weren't replacing the eagle shields as those were being phased out while OR 10 replaced OR 208.
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: sparker on May 14, 2017, 02:16:51 AM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on May 13, 2017, 09:47:28 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 11, 2017, 08:18:48 PM
This raises a question: will Powell still be signed (but locally maintained, I suppose) as US 26, or will that route be realigned elsewhere -- over to Division, superseding OR 212, or even "joisted off" north to I-84?  Just hope ODOT doesn't pull a "Caltrans" and just leave it hanging in Gresham!

I almost could see a split here - using Oregon 212 west to I-205, then 217 (but then what happens to U.S. 26 east of 217?), AND a new routing via Hogan Drive and N.E. 238th Drive to I-84, and then co-sign U.S. 26 west on I-84 along with U.S. 30.  But then...what is the exact routing of U.S. 26 between I-84 and the existing U.S. 26/Sunset Highway?

I don't think a split US 26 will occur; it'll likely either be rerouted over OR 212 or north from Gresham to I-84.  But if the former happens, there will still be a spur of US 26 west of the present OR 212 exit (home of the notorious "Boring Oregon City" BGS); that might become a new route that extends north to 84, designation TBD.  Also, if the 212 alignment is used, IMO there's a 50-50 chance it will either (a) simply jog north on I-205 back to the present Powell Blvd. interchange and then resume its former routing over that street west into downtown, or (b) use OR 224 and OR 99E back to the east end of the Ross Island bridge.  I can't fault ODOT for wanting to rid itself of the eastern Powell alignment; it's not only totally inadequate as a through-traffic server but also not one of the more attractive rides in greater PDX! 
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: nexus73 on May 14, 2017, 10:17:34 AM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on May 13, 2017, 09:44:24 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 12, 2017, 05:12:57 AM
These days it appears that once Caltrans decommissions a state highway segment, they simply lose interest in it -- and the concept of continuity has correspondingly suffered; it's as if no one, state or local, seems to give a shit!  At least Oregon is keeping their shields posted

That's debatable; as there are virtually no reassurance signs on the county-maintained segments of OR 8 (Gales Creek Road) west of Forest Grove, or OR 210 (Scholls Ferry Road) along its entire length.  Oregon 10 seems to fare better for some reason with plenty of reassurance signs west of Beaverton, then not much east of Beaverton; yet there are still remaining signs along Barbur Boulevard for Oregon 10 (but haphazardly).

Oregon's problem is its use of unsigned routes; despite the recent push to start signing them, that seems to have stopped and no new routes have been signed in the last few years.

Coos County got lucky for ODOT state route signage.  540 (Cape Arago Highway) and 241 (Coos River Highway) are now both marked, with 540 being done 2 years ago as I recall and 241 this year. 

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: sparker on May 15, 2017, 10:04:22 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on May 14, 2017, 10:17:34 AM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on May 13, 2017, 09:44:24 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 12, 2017, 05:12:57 AM
These days it appears that once Caltrans decommissions a state highway segment, they simply lose interest in it -- and the concept of continuity has correspondingly suffered; it's as if no one, state or local, seems to give a shit!  At least Oregon is keeping their shields posted

That's debatable; as there are virtually no reassurance signs on the county-maintained segments of OR 8 (Gales Creek Road) west of Forest Grove, or OR 210 (Scholls Ferry Road) along its entire length.  Oregon 10 seems to fare better for some reason with plenty of reassurance signs west of Beaverton, then not much east of Beaverton; yet there are still remaining signs along Barbur Boulevard for Oregon 10 (but haphazardly).

Oregon's problem is its use of unsigned routes; despite the recent push to start signing them, that seems to have stopped and no new routes have been signed in the last few years.

Coos County got lucky for ODOT state route signage.  540 (Cape Arago Highway) and 241 (Coos River Highway) are now both marked, with 540 being done 2 years ago as I recall and 241 this year. 

Rick

When Caltrans was simply the Division of Highways, for a while (1966-73) they engaged in signing pretty much every inch of highway on their books.  Once absorbed into the omnibus transportation agency Caltrans, interest seemed to be lost (although some districts were more apt to sign their properties than others).  With ODOT it's likely just recurring priorities -- they signed a lot of previously unsigned routes for a while, then they didn't -- likely due to attention being directed elsewhere within the agency.  Perhaps the cycle of signage will return at some time, particularly if localized pressure to do so is brought to bear on the agency; such probably won't originate in PDX or environs -- more likely the more rural areas that would benefit from secondary or connecting route signage.
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: sp_redelectric on May 16, 2017, 01:09:22 AM
Quote from: sparker on May 14, 2017, 02:16:51 AM
I don't think a split US 26 will occur; it'll likely either be rerouted over OR 212 or north from Gresham to I-84.  But if the former happens, there will still be a spur of US 26 west of the present OR 212 exit (home of the notorious "Boring Oregon City" BGS); that might become a new route that extends north to 84, designation TBD.  Also, if the 212 alignment is used, IMO there's a 50-50 chance it will either (a) simply jog north on I-205 back to the present Powell Blvd. interchange and then resume its former routing over that street west into downtown, or (b) use OR 224 and OR 99E back to the east end of the Ross Island bridge

I wonder what the value is of directing U.S. 26 traffic through downtown Portland, instead of around it - especially since it involves city streets downtown, and Portland would love to have control of Powell Boulevard in its entirety.  Using 224 to 99E makes a little more sense than I-205, but still has the downtown Portland problem.

QuoteI can't fault ODOT for wanting to rid itself of the eastern Powell alignment; it's not only totally inadequate as a through-traffic server but also not one of the more attractive rides in greater PDX! 

At least the segment of Powell in Gresham is now under city, not ODOT, control.  And at I-205 signs have made it strongly suggested to take Division east instead of Powell (in fact for many years the sign even said U.S. 26 East was on Division, when in fact it wasn't.)
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: sparker on May 16, 2017, 03:43:54 AM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on May 16, 2017, 01:09:22 AM
And at I-205 signs have made it strongly suggested to take Division east instead of Powell (in fact for many years the sign even said U.S. 26 East was on Division, when in fact it wasn't.)

Those signs have been there since I was living in Portland in the early-mid '90's; I always found the misdirection a bit disingenuous.  IIRC, there was never any reassurance signage on Division east of I-205, but there were trailblazers at 122nd that directed US 26 traffic back south to Powell, which had US 26 crossing signage there.  It's like ODOT was a bit torn between keeping the traffic on the (then) state-maintained route and shunting it over to a more appropriate through facility.  Always wondered if they were ever going to make up their collective minds -- but now it looks like "none of the above" may well be the solution!
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: Thunderbyrd316 on May 16, 2017, 04:57:40 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 16, 2017, 03:43:54 AM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on May 16, 2017, 01:09:22 AM
And at I-205 signs have made it strongly suggested to take Division east instead of Powell (in fact for many years the sign even said U.S. 26 East was on Division, when in fact it wasn't.)

Those signs have been there since I was living in Portland in the early-mid '90's; I always found the misdirection a bit disingenuous.  IIRC, there was never any reassurance signage on Division east of I-205, but there were trailblazers at 122nd that directed US 26 traffic back south to Powell, which had US 26 crossing signage there.  It's like ODOT was a bit torn between keeping the traffic on the (then) state-maintained route and shunting it over to a more appropriate through facility.  Always wondered if they were ever going to make up their collective minds -- but now it looks like "none of the above" may well be the solution!

One of the reasons that US 26 traffic was originally directed down Division east of I-205 (and still is for I-205 southbound) is because the ramp from southbound I-205 has never allowed left turns onto Powell east bound. (Making an assumption here but I suspect that the reason they directed northbound traffic to Division was just for consistency, or perhaps when they made the original signs, when the sign makers saw that 26 traffic east from 205 south was directed onto Division, they just assumed that Division WAS US 26.)
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: Thunderbyrd316 on May 16, 2017, 05:11:07 PM
Sadly, this proposal does not begin to address the many projects that would be necessary to restore free flowing traffic to NON-peak travel times. And the costs are FAR too high for the meager benefit they provide.

I am currently working on a proposal that would actually result in meaningful improvements and a funding scheme that is both workable and fair, though I seriously doubt that anybody in Salem has the vision to actually implement it.

Here is a basic overview with a number of specific details still to be worked out, as posted to my Oregonians for Speed Limit Reform Facebook group.

   Oregonians for Speed Limit Reform is currently putting together a proposal for a detailed highway bill that would make meaningful progress in bringing Oregon's badly outdated highways into the 21st century, greatly reducing congestion and improving safety and livability.

   A key feature of our plan would be to implement a motor fuel tax increase that would go toward specific highway improvement and expansion projects as follows:

   Step 1: Increase motor fuel tax state wide by 5 cents per gallon per year for 5 years. Implement this increase each year on January 1.

   The first 5 cents goes exclusively to Project Number 1 on the list of projects. Construction begins or continues as the money comes in. (If money comes in quickly, a lot gets built quickly. If money comes in slowly, only the portions of the specific project that the money to construct has already been collected may begin or continue. Some projects may have to be divided up into specific elements that get constructed as funds become available, i.e. a new over crossing may be constructed considerably before funds to widen the highway beneath it become available, etc.)

   The second 5 cents goes to Project Number 2 on the list. Money can NOT be shifted between projects UNTIL a specific project has been FULLY completed. The third 5 cents goes to Project Number 3 and so forth.

   When Project Number 1 is FULLY completed, then the money from the FIRST 5 cents per gallon goes exclusively to Project Number 6 on the list. When Project 2 is FULLY complete that 5 cents then shifts to Project Number 7 and so forth until all 15 projects on the list are FULLY complete. At that point the gas tax money may be used for maintenance or appropriate projects that actually improve capacity or safety for DRIVERS.

   Among the projects that will be addressed in Step 1 are improving Oregon 18 from Otis Junction to McMinnville in stages toward a multi-lane expressway with grade separated interchanges at important junctions and US 97 from Madras To Bend to a full Interstate grade freeway.

   Step 2: Increase the motor fuel tax an ADDITIONAL 5 cents per gallon per year in the counties of Clackamas, Columbia, Marion, Multnomah, Washington and Yamhill.

   Moneys would be distributed in the same manner as with step 1 except that the list of specific projects will be smaller (10 instead of 15) and much more expensive and time consuming as they will be specifically intended to deal with the greater Portland metro area.

   By far, the most expensive of these projects will be the construction of a new 8 lane (4 per direction) Interstate Bridge and the complete reworking of the complex maze of ramps that make up the East Bank Freeway. (Note that the original 6 lane alignment of I-5 would remain in place for use by local traffic between I-405 and SR 500.)

   Step 3: Begin construction of 5 new TEMPORARILY tolled freeways in outlying areas. Tolls will be required to go away once the bonds are paid off. These will include the 6 lane, 80 m.p.h. I-605 Cesar Chavez Parkway connecting I-5 near Woodburn with US 26 near Hillsboro. (The 8 lane segment between Oregon 8 and US 26 will be free.) Other potential toll projects may be a US 101 Bypass between Newport and Otis Junction and the 70 m.p.h. US 26 Sunset Parkway between Seaside and Oregon 6.

   Some specific details are still being worked out on this proposal but here is a sample of what Project Number 1, Oregon 18 from Otis Junction to McMinnville might look like:

   Upgrade Oregon 18 from Junction U.S. 101 (Otis Junction) to Junction Oregon 99W @ McMinnville to 4 lane divided expressway (65 m.p.h. minimum design speed) with grade separated interchanges at Junction U.S. 101, Otis (Old Scenic Highway 101), Bear Creek Road, Grand Ronde Road, Spirit Mountain Casino, Junction Oregon 22 (Grand Ronde), Fort Hill Road (Complete), Junction Oregon 18 Business (Willamina), South Bridge Street (Sheridan) (Mostly Complete), Junction Oregon 18 Business (Sheridan), Muddy Valley Road (Bellevue), Riverbend Landfill, Junction Oregon 99W. All other access will be RIRO or Frontage Road access only. (NO cross traffic or left turns.)

   Other projects on the list would have similar standards.

   I welcome and encourage any questions or comments. Thank you for taking the time to review this brief overview of my proposal that is still a work in progress.

   Sincerely, D. Richard Jones, Clackamas, Oregon, Founder and Executive Director, Oregonians for Speed Limit Reform.
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: nexus73 on May 16, 2017, 06:45:33 PM
T-bird, you hit the nail on those valley to coast projects right on the head!  The Newport to Otis Junction 101 needs to be dealt with. Add in Cannon Beach to Astoria.  There are some smallish south coast projects I would like to see done but the ones you mentioned are the highest volume corridors at this time, so they do need priority.

I personally prefer more gas tax to tolls as I do not want to add another government agency full of PERS suckers and I do want every dime collected going toward construction.  If EV's are getting up to being a Big Deal, then tack on a small fee to the power bills so some funds come from those vehicles for road projects.  None of the projects benefit me directly in my daily drive but I do recognize the need to have a properly functioning network of highways so the goods can flow along with the tourists, which means a better state economy for all of us.  I'll gladly pay the extra gas tax.  If $4 a gallon gas did not stop me from going where I needed to go, the current price of around $2.75 can stand some addition if it benefits us all.

Anyways, nice discussion points and I hope you write your state rep and senator as I do.

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on May 17, 2017, 02:15:37 PM
I totally agree that we need to at least have expressway connections from the I-5 corridor to key outlying areas — Portland to Astoria, Tualatin to Lincoln City, Clackamas to Madras.

But given how badly ODOT screwed up Eddyville, it's going to take a long time before anyone trusts ODOT with a substantial capital project through complex terrain. Basically, I think the only way you actually fund & build those rural connections is a successful statewide ballot initiative.
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: compdude787 on May 17, 2017, 04:24:54 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 17, 2017, 02:15:37 PM
But given how badly ODOT screwed up Eddyville, it's going to take a long time before anyone trusts ODOT with a substantial capital project through complex terrain.

In what way did they screw up Eddyville?
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on May 17, 2017, 06:55:18 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on May 17, 2017, 04:24:54 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 17, 2017, 02:15:37 PM
But given how badly ODOT screwed up Eddyville, it's going to take a long time before anyone trusts ODOT with a substantial capital project through complex terrain.

In what way did they screw up Eddyville?

Generously - ODOT didn't really understand the concept of "cost management" when they got into the project. Nor did they understand that there are such things as slow-moving landslides.

That's the generous assessment.

The non-generous version is that ODOT spent $61 million per mile on the core of the Eddyville project. It took ODOT 11 years — 11 years!!!! — to build 5 miles of road.

ODOT's contractor built $17 million worth of bridges — and then ODOT blew them up because they were built on a slow-moving landslide that nobody detected in pre-engineering.

ODOT initially budgeted $162 million for Eddyville. It spent $365 million. Based on its initial budget, widening OR 18 from Spirit Mountain to the Coast would cost roughly $670 million. Based on what it actually spent, widening OR 18 from Spirit Mountain to the Coast would cost $1.5 billion.

This is a pattern. The Woodburn Interchange was initially forecast to cost $25 million. It cost $70 million. And people are still raw about spending $200 million to plan the new Interstate Bridge — even though politics ultimately killed it.

So I guess there's two points here — one, there just isn't a lot of faith that ODOT can deliver these projects in a cost-effective manner. And two, even if they can — a 4-lane expressway to the Coast is still going to be expensive.

The Newberg-Dundee bypass costs about $26 million a mile.
Eddyville, as mentioned above, cost $61 million a mile.

An Otis to Dundee expressway would be about 50 miles.
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: sp_redelectric on May 18, 2017, 12:37:11 AM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on May 16, 2017, 05:11:07 PM
Among the projects that will be addressed in Step 1 are improving Oregon 18 from Otis Junction to McMinnville in stages toward a multi-lane expressway with grade separated interchanges at important junctions

I absolutely, whole-heartedly disagree with this project.

101 to 5 or BUST!!!!!!!!

All joking aside, if I were King of Salem I would start by taking Ehlen/Yergen/McKay Roads and turning them into a state highway which would become Highway 18.  Brand new interchange at I-5 (cloverleaf?).  Push that highway west of 219 to line up roughly with Riverwood Road on the west side of the Willamette River, and connect it with existing Highway 18.

Then turn Highway 18 from I-5 west to Steel Bridge Road (near Willamina) into a full-out freeway.  No grade intersections, no driveways.  Divided highway, 70 MPH speed limit, full intersections.

Once that's done, then work west to U.S. 101.

The sad part is that ODOT already owns a significant amount of the right-of-way near Sheridan and between the McMinnville Airport and McDougall's Junction (99W/18) to make it happen without having to buy up real estate.  All it needs to do is get bulldozers on the ground to clear the land and pour concrete.  (And build a second bridge over the Yamhill River.)  Even the Fletcher Road overpass in Dayton is already long enough to accommodate two more lanes of Highway 18 without reconstruction.
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on July 11, 2017, 12:04:31 PM
Well, that ended... interesting.

The final package put a bunch of money into increased bus service, gave ODOT some desperately-needed maintenance money, and increased the gas tax statewide. It put in place a bike tax. It gave ODOT and Portland the authority to try congestion pricing on the freeways, and possibly beyond.

But it didn't include much in the way of "enhance" — no money for new projects, as far as I could tell, just the promise that some of that toll money could be used for the needed expansion projects in the Portland metro.
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: Bickendan on July 11, 2017, 04:50:34 PM
Throw us a link please.
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: Hurricane Rex on December 05, 2017, 12:32:48 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on July 11, 2017, 04:50:34 PM
Throw us a link please.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/articles.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/07/big_win_for_legislative_leader.amp

The final package cut the I-205 widening project. Also adds rush hour tolls. More on that on my next post (Out of time and I need to do more research)

Quote from: https://www.google.com/amp/s/articles.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/07/big_win_for_legislative_leader.amp
This is the piece of legislation that the 2017 session will be known for, 20, 30, 40, 50 years from now," said Sen. Ron Monroe , D-Portland, "That's how important it is. That's how big it is."

Ironic considering it doesn't do a lot to fix our congestion. I'm also not confident it will help public transit the way things are being planned.
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: Hurricane Rex on December 14, 2017, 02:37:36 AM
From the No more freeways PDX thread but I feel like it would be useful here as well.

https://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/380765-268232-odot-looks-at-seven-toll-scenarios

The tolling options for Portland.

Suggestion to these planners: build a Westside Bypass, then toll that. It would improve traffic and reduce truck traffic by a lot.
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on December 14, 2017, 04:55:41 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 14, 2017, 02:37:36 AM
Suggestion to these planners: build a Westside Bypass, then toll that. It would improve traffic and reduce truck traffic by a lot.

Sure, right. Let's spend $10 billion on a freeway that has to go under a mountain range, over at least one (and maybe two, depending on where you put it) rivers and doesn't address congestion within the metro area, just people passing through it...
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: Hurricane Rex on December 14, 2017, 05:28:47 PM
Maybe not significant traffic improvments but at least trucks can get out of the Portland freeways. Those in the Silicon Forest wanting to go North would take this instead of 26-I'll and I-5. I'm not denying it to be expensive, that's why its tolled. If you haven't seen the Oregonians for Speed Limit Reform's transportation package, I suggest you look at it as there are more projects like this but with a higher gas tax.
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on December 14, 2017, 07:08:57 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 14, 2017, 05:28:47 PM
Maybe not significant traffic improvments but at least trucks can get out of the Portland freeways. Those in the Silicon Forest wanting to go North would take this instead of 26-I'll and I-5. I'm not denying it to be expensive, that's why its tolled. If you haven't seen the Oregonians for Speed Limit Reform's transportation package, I suggest you look at it as there are more projects like this but with a higher gas tax.

So, let's conservatively say, $2 billion for a new freeway from Wilsonville to Hillsboro to Vancouver. Plus, another $3 billion for a tunnel under the West Hills (based on the $3 billion for the Seattle tunnel — and again, I'm being conservative), $500 million for a Willamette River bridge and $1 billion for a Columbia River bridge. That, again conservatively, gets you $6.5 billion.

On a 20 year bond, you'd need roughly $36 million a month — $1.2 million a day — in toll collections to make your bond payments. I-5 at Boones Ferry has 15,600 trucks per day. At Ainsworth, 16,400. So, let's generously say 17,000 trucks a day would use a tolled Western Bypass.

You'd have to toll them $70 each to pay for the thing.

Even if you had 100,000 vehicles a day — Sunset Highway numbers — you'd have to collect $12 in tolls from each of them to make it work.

Unless road construction gets significantly cheaper, there will never be a Westside Bypass.
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: kkt on December 15, 2017, 12:13:19 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on December 14, 2017, 07:08:57 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 14, 2017, 05:28:47 PM
Maybe not significant traffic improvments but at least trucks can get out of the Portland freeways. Those in the Silicon Forest wanting to go North would take this instead of 26-I'll and I-5. I'm not denying it to be expensive, that's why its tolled. If you haven't seen the Oregonians for Speed Limit Reform's transportation package, I suggest you look at it as there are more projects like this but with a higher gas tax.

So, let's conservatively say, $2 billion for a new freeway from Wilsonville to Hillsboro to Vancouver. Plus, another $3 billion for a tunnel under the West Hills (based on the $3 billion for the Seattle tunnel — and again, I'm being conservative), $500 million for a Willamette River bridge and $1 billion for a Columbia River bridge. That, again conservatively, gets you $6.5 billion.

On a 20 year bond, you'd need roughly $36 million a month — $1.2 million a day — in toll collections to make your bond payments. I-5 at Boones Ferry has 15,600 trucks per day. At Ainsworth, 16,400. So, let's generously say 17,000 trucks a day would use a tolled Western Bypass.

You'd have to toll them $70 each to pay for the thing.

Even if you had 100,000 vehicles a day — Sunset Highway numbers — you'd have to collect $12 in tolls from each of them to make it work.

Unless road construction gets significantly cheaper, there will never be a Westside Bypass.

Or if some of the funding comes from other sources - part of the gas tax? Feds interested in construction funding again? Local congresscritter becomes chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee?
Title: Re: Oregon transportation package released
Post by: Hurricane Rex on December 15, 2017, 01:24:14 AM
Quote from: kkt on December 15, 2017, 12:13:19 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on December 14, 2017, 07:08:57 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 14, 2017, 05:28:47 PM
Maybe not significant traffic improvments but at least trucks can get out of the Portland freeways. Those in the Silicon Forest wanting to go North would take this instead of 26-I'll and I-5. I'm not denying it to be expensive, that's why its tolled. If you haven't seen the Oregonians for Speed Limit Reform's transportation package, I suggest you look at it as there are more projects like this but with a higher gas tax.

So, let's conservatively say, $2 billion for a new freeway from Wilsonville to Hillsboro to Vancouver. Plus, another $3 billion for a tunnel under the West Hills (based on the $3 billion for the Seattle tunnel — and again, I'm being conservative), $500 million for a Willamette River bridge and $1 billion for a Columbia River bridge. That, again conservatively, gets you $6.5 billion.

On a 20 year bond, you'd need roughly $36 million a month — $1.2 million a day — in toll collections to make your bond payments. I-5 at Boones Ferry has 15,600 trucks per day. At Ainsworth, 16,400. So, let's generously say 17,000 trucks a day would use a tolled Western Bypass.

You'd have to toll them $70 each to pay for the thing.

Even if you had 100,000 vehicles a day — Sunset Highway numbers — you'd have to collect $12 in tolls from each of them to make it work.

Unless road construction gets significantly cheaper, there will never be a Westside Bypass.

Or if some of the funding comes from other sources - part of the gas tax? Feds interested in construction funding again? Local congresscritter becomes chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee?

Maybe if Trump puts it in his trillion dollar infrastructure plan he said he'd do during the campaign. Just maybe.