CRITICAL CONCERNS ! TAXPAYER RISK TRAVEL DEMAND SAFETY ALTERNATIVES ECONOMIC IMPACT & FREIGHT MOVEMENT & SEISMIC READINESS OPTIONS TO MEET OUR TAXPAYER BURDEN CONGESTION & COLLISIONS REGION’S NEEDS CRC FACTS I. Executive Overview In 2005 Oregon and Washington began a process to identify the key needs for re-designing five ! miles of freeway and interchanges including the Interstate 5 Bridge, which was built in two phases in 1917 and 1958. In 2013 the Oregon legislature voted to support a bi-state proposal in Why should Oregon which the costs, risk, and management experience were shared with Washington state. Later in go it alone on the 2013, the Washington legislature failed to support the project. most expensive Losing this partner raises many questions for the future of the project. public project in The 2014 legislative assembly will be asked to support a new $2.8 billion plan in which Oregon recent history? alone would shoulder full financial, legal, planning, management, and execution responsibilities for the project. Many Oregon leaders saw the original proposal to build a multi-state project as a CRC FACTS: Presented by 1000 Friends of Oregon Document Structure significant risk. For these leaders and scores of new concerned leaders, this proposal to “go it alone” represents the same initial risks, with increased This report includes an overview of the critical interests behind the last several years of financial risk and no new or additional benefits for the state of Oregon. planning and project development for the CRC. Going forward, Oregon taxpayers would take on at least $1.6 billion in additional loan and bond obligations for the new “Oregon Only” plan. This I. Executive Summary: number would increase if costs run over, if toll revenues fall short, or if • Taxpayer Risk Federal grants and loans are not fully funded. • Travel Demand After concluding this review of the available data, we urge • Safety: Collisions & Seismic Readiness legislators to vote against the current “Oregon Only” option. It does not meet many of the most important interests of Oregon voters, and it • Alternative Plans exposes Oregon taxpayers to avoidable financial risk. Alternative proposals II. Taxpayer Risk and concepts offer meaningful advantages over the current CRC proposal, III. Business Impact yet they have not been fully explored by the legislature. IV. Workforce Impact Voting against the “Oregon Only” option does not close the door on a new V. Land Use and Local Impact bridge, or on addressing concerns of safety, freight and commuter mobility, VI. Environmental Impact transit options, mixed-use development, and prudent fiscal planning. VII. Statewide Transit Impact VIII. Interests & Options Critical Interests ! 1. HIGH TAXPAYER RISK SOURCES AND DATA We believe that starting with clear data and The new “Oregon Only” proposal introduces new costs and new risks to shared interests is the key to a successful Oregon tax payers. It is not clear from the CRC’s financial plan that the toll regional transportation and public transit plan. revenue for the project will be sufficient and timely to pay both the amortization of the bond debt for the bridge and also the high costs of One of the most significant obstacles to providing a non-biased review of any part for operating the bridge tolling system. this project is that much of the proposal is not based on measured facts, but on projections: The CRC’s financial plan relies on assumptions about three things: (1) ability Guesses, models, and assumptions about to contain costs during construction, (2) federal support, and (3) revenue future human behavior. from tolling. The most recent financial statements from ODOT show a plan to spend $2.79 billion on the project, and a plan to raise $2.71 billion, In general, information for this report was showing an $86 million dollar shortfall. The back-up plan, if costs are higher drawn from the CRC’s commissioned research and data, from ODOT, or from than anticipated, or if Federal grants, loans, or tolling (or all three) are lower regional news outlets. than anticipated, is to increase tolls, reduce or eliminate other transportation projects in the state, and to raise taxes. 2. TRAVEL DEMAND LOWER THAN PROJECTED ! Estimates of travel demand for both commercial and non-commercial vehicles have changed since the original case was made for this project. ! Original estimates of travel demand were based on a ten-year period, from ! 1995-2005, of increasing daily traffic averages on the bridge. Original projections showed average daily traffic increasing to 184,000 vehicles in ! 2036. That projected level of growth raised concerns about increased ! congestion, wait times and collisions on and around the I-5 bridge. However, as has been recently revealed in the state-commissioned Investment Grade Analysis, those traffic projections were incorrect. Travel Voting against “Oregon Only” demand has declined in Oregon and around the nation since 2005, even does not close the door on a excluding the effects of the recession. This multi-year national trend is new bridge, or other alternatives. unlikely to reverse. The original incorrect projections were the basis for the design, financial plan, and environmental impact assessment for the CRC. These new data invalidate the core transportation argument for the project. !2 CRC FACTS: Presented by 1000 Friends of Oregon New Data Reveals Lower Demand ! [Source: CRC Tolling Studies & RTC Traffic Studies] ! 190000 ! 162500 Travel demand has declined in Oregon and around the nation 135000 since 2005. 107500 Period of Original Traffic Study 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Original Projections New Data & Projections Original Travel Estimates Current Estimates Based on a 2005 current traffic Since 2005, traffic decreased instead of analysis, traffic was estimated to increasing. Planners are no longer sure that increase steadily to more than the original estimates are a good basis for 178,000 in 2030. predicting travel demand through the corridor. The CRC originally projected Based on investment grade analysis from marginal reduction in traffic due to CRC’s consulting firm, CDM Smith, tolling will tolling on the I-5 bridge. reduce travel on the I-5 bridge by as much as 76,000 vehicles per day in 2022. Original estimates projected no Based on CDM Smith’s report, travel reduced significant travel diversion to the on the I-5 bridge will increase travel on I-205 I-205 corridor. by as much at 39,500 vehicles per day. 3. SAFETY COLLISIONS TIED TO CONGESTION The CRC project has identified two levels of concern for traffic: (1) Current issues with collisions due to congestion and outdated highway design, and accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists, and (2) The potential increased rate of collisions due to projections of increased traffic congestion. SEISMIC READINESS AND STRUCTURAL SOUNDNESS The CRC questions the I-5 bridge’s ability to withstand a major earthquake. ! Nationwide, one in nine bridges is structurally deficient, according to the Transportation for America, a DC-based advocacy group that urges government Other bridges – and other critical leaders to invest in infrastructure projects. According to this group, the I-5 bridge is infrastructure – require seismic not structurally deficient and not a top priority for investment. readiness before the I-5 bridge. ODOT’s own Bridge Condition Report concurs with this assessment. They give It should not be the regional both the northbound bridge, built in 1916, and the southbound bridge, built in 1958, a structural rating of “Fair”, or equivalent to a 3 on a 5 point scale. They are priority. not listed as structurally deficient. !3 CRC FACTS: Presented by 1000 Friends of Oregon A regional seismic and disaster readiness plan should account for Original Safety Current Information Concerns many considerations, including: number of people harmed if infrastructure fails; the use of the asset in facilitating response and Current Issue: One car The I-5 Bridge is not the most recovery after the event; and, interdependency with other vital crash each day in the five dangerous in the region. assets after the event. mile CRC project area, including the bridge and - Fremont: 1.53 crashes/ million vehicle miles An agency-by-agency approach to identifying which bridges, interstate into Washington and Oregon. 25% of - Marquam: 0.90 crashes / schools, hospitals, and emergency response facilities most need these accidents occur on million vehicle miles investment is insufficient for state or regional decision-making. the bridge itself. - I-5: 0.88 crashes /million However, in this case, ODOT’s own seismic report identified other vehicle miles bridges that need seismic readiness investment before the I-5 bridge, and also many other projects where investment would be Current Issue: Pathways Bike and pedestrian more valuable for the region and state. and sidewalks expose advocates have raised cyclists and pedestrians concerns that the proposed to traffic noise, dust, design is dark and 4. ALTERNATIVE PLANS debris and fumes, and are unwelcoming, and that the Voting against the “Oregon Only” plan now is not a vote too narrow for multiple multi-block spiral “on ramp” against finding a solution to the I-5 bridge concerns. users. Areas leading to will be difficult for many the bridge lack bike lanes riders. Instead, it gives decision-makers time to examine the alternatives or sidewalks, possibly in light of current information. Federal funding does not require a endangering cyclists and quick decision for a project of this magnitude. pedestrians. There is no easy fix for a complex regional problem such as this. Future Issue: The CRC This is based on the Alternatives to the CRC that better meet our shared interests will has claimed that “without assumption that travel over key improvements in the the bridge will increase require due diligence, engineering, environmental assessment, and project area, the number significantly over the coming community engagement.