After attending today's meeting of the Salem River Crossing Oversight Team, I'm pretty much convinced that its members have jumped the gun on Oregon's upcoming legalization of recreational marijuana. And maybe dived into psychedelics as well.
Nothing wrong with that.
I'm just saying that while it's great to be high and enjoy an altered state of consciousness, it isn't a good idea to be off in your dream world while you're playing around with decisions that could cost Salem-area residents a billion dollars or so while buying them nothing, zilch, nada.
A week ago I blogged about Salem's Third Bridge scam.
We've been told this was going to be a two lane local river crossing without elevated ramps that wouldn't displace any existing homes and businesses.
Now the Third Bridge has morphed into a freeway'ish monstrousity of a regional bridge whose main purpose is to speed traffic betweeen Highway 22 and I-5. Yet Salem-area residents are still expected to pay for most of it. And accept the demolition of homes and businesses.
Hence, its a scam. The promised benefits won't go to people in Salem, though they'll be asked to pay the bulk of the billion dollars.
After observing the first part of a meeting devoted to deciding on how to pay for this boondoggle, I've now reached the conclusion that not only is the whole Salem River Crossing/Third Bridge thing a scam, it is an absurd scam.
Again, there's nothing wrong with absurdity. Life would be a lot more boring without it.
I just don't think people struggling to make ends meet should be forced to endure a billion dollars worth of absurdity by public officials who should be dedicating themselves to making life better for folks, rather than forcing citizens to watch a drama unfold that's better suited for an existentialist play about the meaninglessness of life.
Here's some of what went on in the Wacky World of Salem River Crossing planning today.
We want to hear you, but not really.
The Oversight Team had a public comment item on its agenda. I got there early. Was the first to sign up. By the time the meeting started, 13 other people had joined me on the list. At two minutes each, the Oversight Team could have listened to everybody in 28 minutes.
But, no, they only wanted to devote ten minutes to hearing from concerned citizens. The nine people who weren't allowed to speak were told they had to wait several hours until the end of the meeting to express their opinion about Third Bridge funding.
When I got up to speak my piece, I told Salem City Councilor Dan Clem, Marion County Commissioner Sam Brentano, and the other "can't be bothered" officials that it was crazy to invite citizens to comment on their work, and then make them wait until the meeting was over to speak -- when all the decisions had been made.
When you talk, we won't listen.
Councilor Dan Clem, who represents both the Salem City Council and his constituency of West Salem, was both the most outspoken member of the Oversight Team and the most annoying. He likes to hear himself talk, but doesn't do a good job of listening.
The Oregon Department of Transportation moderator started off by reporting on the Third Bridge funding workshop for members of the public that I attended.
He did a good job explaining when went on: most people at the workshop didn't want a new bridge to built at all; instead, they wanted the two current bridges improved (seismic strengthening, better traffic flow); so discussions centered on how to pay for $40 to $100 million worth of improvements to the existing bridges, not on funding a $430 million Third Bridge that isn't needed or wanted.
But after hearing this, several times Clem said "So people at the workshop decided not to participate." No, clueless Councilor Clem, I and the other 49 people who took two hours out of our evening to come to the workshop did a lot of participating.
Most of us just rejected the Oversight Team's absurd premise that a billion dollars worth of funding should be sought for an unneeded, unwanted, and unpaid-for Third Bridge. Since Clem refused to hear this message, I guess citizens just need to speak louder.
There's no money, but no problem.
ln "real" life (meaning, outside political/bureaucratic fantasy realms), not being able to pay for something would make people reconsider the wisdom of trying to get it. Lower cost options would be examined. Or doing without that thing.
Not in the fantastical world of the Salem River Crossing Oversight Team, though. State transportation staff told the members that maybe $50 million in state and federal funding could be available for the $430 million project. Optimistically.
That's 12%. The other 88% would have to come from local funds.
Sounds about right. The replacement Sellwood Bridge in Portland was 77% locally funded, and government money is tighter now. The top priority of Oregon transportation planners is "Fix It First," not building new roads, bridges, and such.
However, Councilor Clem and some other members of the Oversight Team ignored that reality. Clem said that half of the $430 million could come from state and federal funds (which balloons to nearly a billion dollars with financing costs).
Nobody had a clue about where that much money would come from, or how it could be raised locally. Tolls are the preferred funding option. Not just on the new bridge; on the already-paid-for current bridges also. But even a toll each way of $1.50 to $3.00 likely wouldn't be enough to pay off 20 year bonds.
And how do you think a toll for a Third Bridge would go over with Salem residents? Especially people living in West Salem. Councilor Clem and his City Council replacement, Jim Lewis, should talk more with their constituents about how popular a two buck, or whatever, price tag for crossing the Willamette River on a new bridge is.
Won't be good for West Salem property values. Or West Salem businesses. But, hey, no problem. Nothing is a problem for the flying-high "All is Good" Oversight Team. They've never met a reality they couldn't ignore.
No bridge is the solution to the Third Bridge problem.
The flip side to what I just said is the Oversight Team's inability to recognize that if they just take one more seemingly absurd step, they will have circumnavigated the crazy planet of their current planning and arrived at a sane place that is oh-so-close to where they have always been.
Namely, nowhere.
The chance of the Third Bridge being built is exceedingly slim. However, the problems that this Bridge That's Going Nowhere are intended to solve are easily fixed -- by giving up on the notion of a Third Bridge, while preserving one of its attributes.
Tolling.
Salem's Breakfast on Bikes blog ably described this snake-eating-itself approach in today's "Third Bridge is Self-Negating."
Based on their own, internal formulas and projections, there is no need for any measure on the bridges other than tolling!
More than this, the best way to fund a bridge removes the conditions that supposedly make it necessary.
A $1.00 toll reduces congestion so much that traffic counts won't reach projected untolled 2015 levels until 2030!
A $2.00 toll basically halves the traffic.
...Another way of looking at it is that the Third Bridge is fundamentally self-negating, based on incoherent and contradictory assumptions.
The fairest way to raise funding is through a user fee. This also scales up and generates the right scale of funds. (It's much more difficult to generate the right amount of funding through property taxes, gas taxes, or licensing fees.)
But as soon as you do that, congestion is reduced so much there's no need to build additional capacity.
I really like this idea. Toll the two current bridges.
Probably not permanently. But long enough to change driving habits (could I walk, take the bus, or bike to/from downtown and West Salem?) and pay for much-needed seismic strengthening of the bridges, along with funding traffic flow improvements.
Congestion pricing could ease the toll burden on those who can least afford it. Meaning, reduce or eliminate tolling at non-peak times.
Tolling, as a draft ECONorthwest memo explains, will lead to fewer vehicle trips across the current bridges while funding improvements to them. So it solves the two main problems the Third Bridge was intended to solve -- congestion and earthquake readiness -- at a hugely lower cost.
Download SRC Funding Memo
And with no disruption to the dozens of homes and businesses that would be demolished by the planned Third Bridge.
Yes, we've reached an ultimate absurdity. The best way to get the benefits of a new bridge is to not build one. Sanely crazy.
One must adjust to changing circumstances. The offer of "maybe $50 million in state and federal funding" suggests that there may now be an unavoidable recognition that the proposed span actually is intended to serve the State and might become a relevant piece of the federal highway system. It also suggests that these dollars are, in fact, extractable. Even more informative, one can now see that the locals have simply been able to convince the others that they need some backup. Believe me, Brian - they are not high (a little drunk with power maybe). We need to take a lesson from the Courthouse Square building semi-fiasco. When certain individuals proposed that the building be razed and replaced, cooler heads stepped in and developed and instituted a plan for fixing what was wrong in an affordable way. This was a success. The current bridges need to be seismically updated and the launch pads and connecting streets need to be updated. If those who are dangling the $50 million dollar carrot really cared about the welfare of the locals (while keeping in mind the needs of the state and the federal government), then they would see to it that those funds would be appropriated and properly utilized.
Posted by: Kurt | December 12, 2014 at 01:22 AM
Kurt, I believe my understanding of the $50 million is correct, but I might be wrong in some details. The federal $45 million wouldn't be new money. It would come from fed transportation funding already being allocated each year to the multi-county region Salem is a part of.
The Oversight Team member describing this possibility said agreements would have to be worked out with the other counties/cities in a "we scratched your back, not you scratch ours" sort of way in a multi-year funding deal.
Meaning, Salem-area officials supported your desire for a transportation project; now you support ours. So the $50 million in federal funds would come out of a pot of money that wouldn't be available for other needs/projects. It isn't new money.
However, Dan Clem's big dream is that the Oregon legislature will appropriate $150 million for the Third Bridge project. This seems wildly unlikely, given how many other pressing needs the state has.
Funding an unneeded Third Bridge should be way down the list of state transportation priorities. Stopping vital current bridges from being destroyed in the Big One earthquake should be a much higher priority.
Posted by: Brian Hines | December 12, 2014 at 08:56 AM
I think a third bridge is needed. All you have to do is observe the horrendous traffic build-up on both the Center St and Marion St bridges during commute times.
I drive both bridges on a daily basis. On the way to work in Dallas, I see traffic backed up on Wallace Road NW, trying to get onto the Center St. bridge. At night the traffic on Marion St bridge is stacked up.
The non-bridge people aren't taking into consideration future growth in Salem. There is no way to widen either of the two exisiting bridges going into and out of downtown. The new bridge does not need to be fancy, just functional and planned to accomodate future traffic. Look at Kuebler Road SE! When it was built with only one lane each way. Look how quickly it became necessary to add additional lanes. It could have been built for the future the first time, not expensively afterwards. Some one is always going to be affected when it comes to new road, bridge or freeway building. THat's life. Get over it.
We need another bridge. Actually one North and one South to accomodate Salem's growth. This wrangling over a new bridge has been going on far longer than it should. Build the damn thing and be done with it.
Posted by: Bruce In Salem | December 15, 2014 at 11:04 AM
Bruce, here's a few things for you to consider.
(1) I asked a CH2M-Hill staff person (his firm is in charge of bridge design) if the eight lanes on the current bridges were enough to handle the traffic across them. Yes, he told me. So, I said, the problem is with the approaches/bridgeheads, right? Yes, he said. And the approaches could be improved for tens of millions of dollars, rather than the hundreds of millions a new bridge would cost, right?
That's when he stopped speaking. The truth is evident. Yes, there are a few hours of congestion a day on the current bridges. This could be resolved in various much less expensive ways. There is no need for a billion dollar (counting financing costs) Third Bridge.
(2) Regarding future growth: traffic counts are steady on the current bridges. People are driving less. Younger people, especially, are attracted to urban mixed used areas where a car is minimally needed, if at all. Suburbs are going out of style. The Third Bridge is a 1950s solution that won't work in today's world.
(3) Having followed this issue pretty closely, it is evident that alleviating congestion between West Salem and downtown isn't much of a goal for the Third Bridge planners. This is mostly intended to be a regional bridge that speeds traffic through Salem between I-5 and Hwy 22.
But people in the Salem area are going to be expected to pay for most of the bridge, even if they don't benefit from it. If only those driving across the new bridge paid for it, this would cost them $20 each way. Repeat: twenty dollars! Would you be willing to pay $20 to use the new bridge to get to or from downtown? Each way?
That would be the fair toll price. Why should taxes be raised on everybody in Salem to pay for an unneeded Third Bridge that will only benefit a few? I haven't heard a good answer to that question. I doubt I ever will.
Posted by: Brian Hines | December 15, 2014 at 11:20 AM