"Project consultants also have found that tolls of more than 50 cents would result in a decline in revenues because people would likely use the existing bridges instead."
(Gee, I thought there was no additional capacity on the existing bridges or that the sky would fall if people had to wait one more minute to cross the river. If the people the bridge is supposed to serve don't think a faster crossing is worth more than fifty cents, why should anyone else?)
A very important article and sidebar summary in today's Statesman-Journal.
First, it's worth noting that Saturday is by far the day of the lowest newspaper readership (which is why government media folks universally use Friday as "Take out the trash day" -- the day you release the news for the Saturday news cycle, so that the fewest people will see it).
Certainly one thing they want hidden is the time and place of the Wednesday funding workshop for "officials and community leaders" -- key facts from Journalism 101 curiously omitted from the story. Clearly, the last thing ODOT and Salem want is a lot of residents thinking about the staggering cost of this bridge before it's too late to head it off. This story may also appear today to set up an editorial on funding in the paper on Sunday or early next week.
But, either way, this piece merits attention now because it reveals that -- even aside from the consequences of promoting more greenhouse gas emissions and sprawl -- there is no case for the bridge, because even the prospective users don't think a faster river crossing is worth more than four bits.
Local, regional sources include gas tax, bond, toll
Eunice Kim, Statesman Journal
March 1, 2008
They have determined where it could go, what it could look like and how it could affect neighborhoods.
Now, planners need to figure out how to pay for Salem's third bridge across the Willamette River.
"There's no money now," said Dan Fricke, a senior transportation planner with Oregon Department of Transportation.
Unable to rely on state or federal money, officials say local or regional funding sources must largely pay for the construction of a new bridge or expansion of the existing ones.
State and local officials are considering several options: a fuel tax, vehicle registration surcharge, property taxes and tolls.
"The days of getting large projects funded by the federal government are over," Fricke said. "There has to be a significant local contribution to make things happen."
Officials working on the Salem River Crossing Project have estimated that a new bridge will cost $667 million to $680 million. The other "low-build" option, which only would expand the existing Marion and Center street bridges, is expected to cost about $270 million.
Officials said they must determine how the project is going to be funded to get federal approval to build it. The funding strategy can include a mix of options.
Julie Warncke, Salem's transportation planning manager, said officials don't know how much money they can expect the federal government to pitch in. The largest federal earmarks for Oregon transportation projects have been in the $20 million to $30 million range.
"When you compare that to the total cost, it's not very much," Warncke said.
To help narrow possible funding options, officials and community leaders from across the region plan to participate in a finance workshop Wednesday. They will run through an exercise that will allow them to see how much money each option or any combination could raise.
"The goal is to get feedback on different funding sources to see which ones people in the local and regional area want to pursue," Warncke said. "It's not to choose the funding sources."
To build a $500 million bridge, those sources would have to raise about $30.7 million per year to repay 30-year bonds, said Samuel Seskin, a transportation planning director with the engineering and consulting company CH2M Hill.
A toll of 50 cents per crossing on the new bridge would generate about $5 million per year in revenue, officials said. The problem, though, is that it would cost about that much to collect the tolls. Project consultants also have found that tolls of more than 50 cents would result in a decline in revenues because people would likely use the existing bridges instead.
Tolling the new and existing bridges 50 cents per crossing could bring in $15 million per year in net revenue, officials said.
"It seems to me we have to toll both bridges to (pay for a new bridge)," said Lloyd Chapman, a member of the oversight team of officials working on the project. "The question is how much do we want to put the burden on users versus others?"
If officials went with a local fuel tax, it would be assessed at the pump. Such taxes in Oregon range from 1 cent to 5 cents per gallon.
A 1-cent tax would raise an estimated $515,400 per year in Salem and $59,000 in Keizer, officials said. That same tax would raise an estimated $1.06 million in Marion County, and $111,600 in Polk County.
The other options -- a vehicle registration surcharge paid every two years or a property tax levy -- also would bring in varying amounts of money depending on who was charged. For example, officials estimate that a $20 vehicle surcharge would raise $3.3 million per year in Marion County where there are about 309,642 registered vehicles, but only $800,000 in Polk County where there are about 71,377 vehicles.
There also could be variations to some of the funding options, like charging higher tolls during peak hours.
"The basic question is what funding package are (people) willing to vote for," said Dan Clem, an oversight team member and Salem city councilor.
The funding discussion is part of a step-by-step study that the city of Salem and ODOT are conducting as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It will result in an environmental impact statement that identifies the preferred alternative, which officials expect to select by the end of the year. If funding can be secured, a new bridge could be built in seven to 10 years.
Bridge corridors under consideration include a crossing from Salem Parkway and Pine Street NE to Wallace Road and Hope Avenue NW, or from Hood and Shipping Streets NE to Wallace and Orchard Heights Road NW. The other option would not include a new bridge but instead would expand the existing bridges by two to three lanes each.
Interesting (intentional?) error--one of the "other options" is to do nothing at all with the existing bridges, recognizing that the thousands of people who drive across them alone Monday through Friday are saying that they don't think the delays are a problem--at least not enough of a problem to cause them to do something that would save them both time and money (riding the bus, carpooling, telecommuting, adjusting their work hours).
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment