Testimony before the Oregon Transportation Commission
Regarding the List of Projects Being
Considered As A Supplement To The
State Transportation Improvement Program

January 13, 2000
Robert Liberty, Executive Director

Chair Hewitt and Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you once again on the proposed supplement to the State Transportation Improvement Program. Prior commitments prevented our Transportation Policy Advocate, Lynn Peterson, from being here today.

I know that you are interested in our views about the Supplemental STIP projects. However, I do not want to leave the Commission with the impression that 1000 Friends of Oregon is concerned only about problems with particular projects. We have a much broader policy position, and it is that position which leads us to criticize particular projects.

As you know from prior testimony, 1000 Friends of Oregon believes that additional money is needed first and foremost to maintain and improve the condition of existing roads and highways. We believe the overall theme for all state investments, not just in transportation, should be to give investments and reinvestments in existing communities a higher priority than investing in new roads or new development.

We believe the current restriction in the state constitution on the use of fuel and other automobile related taxes and fees imposes a "one size fits all" solution for the varied transportation needs of Oregon’s diverse communities and citizens.

However, we also recognize a need for improvements to existing roads, including adding new lanes and new roads in some places. But these new facilities need to be understood, conceived and designed within the broader context of developing livable communities.

For these reasons we opposed the gas tax package, HB 2082, during the last Legislative session. I want to be very clear about this point. Our reservations about the package were and are not limited to the Supplemental STIP projects, but apply to the entire funding package.
That package does not give first priority to fixing the roads we have. That package does not address fundamental requirements for good transportation investments, i.e. mandating the consideration of land use alternatives, transportation demand management and off-system improvements as part of the analyses of whether projects should be built and how. And of necessity under the current Constitution, the package is dedicated to roads and highways only.

Those are our concerns about the package as a whole. Those are the concerns about the package our Board will be considering at its meeting later this month.

Now I will discuss the concerns we have about the Supplemental STIP. A particular fear we had about Legislative ear-marking of particular projects was that many projects would be built before solid analyses of their impacts to community livability and long term transportation system management were completed. In fact, our fears were justified. Most of the projects were not ready to be included on a normal supplemental STIP modernization list. Most of them have not had anything like the kind of review that would be prudent before spending $600 million in taxpayers’ money.

Specific and general concerns have been forwarded to you by our organization on 17 projects of special concern. This review required much research. The concerns ranged from process issues to development issues to community concerns. The Community Solutions Teams also discussed and documented the projects and found 20 that they felt warranted further study.

Please understand that our limited resources obliged us to focus on a particular set of projects. It would be a mistake to assume that we endorse or accept the projects we did not have time to review. It would also be a mistake to assume that we are opposed to all of the projects.

The result of this effort was that your Department has presented to you a list of issues and added them to the project list table that is before you today. General categories of conditions and comments include access management, land use controls, and local street connectivity. We want to highlight, again, the importance of these conditions for the Department’s development and project selection criteria for all future projects.

However, we believe the decision to adopt this project list in its present form may violate the Oregon Highway Plan, including the fundamental priorities of Policy 1G (Major Improvements). Because the Oregon Highway Plan was adopted in part to implement Goal 12, we believe the decision could also violate that Goal.

Some projects from the draft list dated December 16, 1999, provide examples of why we believe the projects might violate the Oregon Highway Plan, and Goal 12: (Other legal issues are raised by the more detailed review of the projects already submitted to your agency.)

•Newberg-Dundee Bypass (No. 2.2). We believe changes to the existing highway and transportation demand management must be addressed before a bypass is considered as an alternative.
•Clackamas Industrial Connector (No. 1.4) – There should be an analysis of the merits of an alternative consisting of minor improvements to the existing interchange and highway segment before proceeding with this project. What about other improvements that would facilitate freight movement without simply inducing more distant growth and more per capita driving? And is this project in conformity with Clean Air Act requirements?

Incidentally, I want us to be on record as recognizing and supporting the objective of trying to provide more balance in the distribution of jobs in the Portland metro region. Clackamas County is job poor and Washington County is job rich. A better balance would save money on infrastructure and help balance the burdens and benefits of growth in the region.

•Rickreall Interchange (No. 2.7) An analysis is needed that tests whether the proposed grade separated project is the most cost-effective and is necessary to solve the unsafe turning movement condition.
•Hwy 62 Solutions, Phase II (No. 3.3) A full range of alternatives, not just a bypass, need to be considered.
Adopting this project list may also violate local comprehensive plans because it would approve new transportation facilities and major roadway improvements that are not included in those plans. As a result, we believe this decision may violate the agency’s planning and coordination responsibilities under ORS 197.180, Goal 2 and ODOT’s State Agency Coordination Program.

Here are some projects from the draft list that illustrate the conflict with local land use plans:

•Astoria Truck Route (No.2.3) Although the Astoria comprehensive plan refers to this proposed project, the transportation element of the Clatsop County comprehensive plan contains language that ODOT believes a bypass is not the best long-term solution for the area. Moreover, Clatsop County does not have an acknowledged Transportation System Plan.

Again, we understand the desire of some residents to move truck traffic off downtown streets. But the proposed bypass would not be limited to trucks; it would carry substantial automobile traffic as well. Perhaps there should be some thought given to truck toll road. Furthermore, given the need to reinvest in roads in downtown Astoria, we can’t help wondering whether this repair work should be given a higher priority than a new bypass.

•Hwy 62 Solutions (No. 3.3). We were unable to find a description or plan map that contained this project in the transportation element of the Medford comprehensive plan. The Medford Transportation System Plan has not been adopted yet.
• Pacific Hwy. (I-5)-Woodburn Interchange (No. 2.5). We understand legal negotiations are underway regarding Woodburn’s land use decisions that impose costs or compromise the function of a state highway. We question whether the state should fund a project where the land uses permitted in the local comprehensive land use plan conflict with the state’s transportation policies.

This is not intended or offered as a comprehensive listing of potential violations of federal, state, and local laws, administrative rules, policies, goals, plans or regulations. It is simply indicative of the kinds of potential conflicts with existing, good, federal, state and local requirements.

We understand that the process does not end today with your decision to adopt this project list. However, we believe that critical legal issues will be raised by this decision that cannot be addressed in later decisions. I will be asking our Board of Directors to consider whether or not to appeal the decision to determine its conformity with existing federal, state and local laws, rules, policies, goals, plans and regulations.

This is not the kind of outcome either the Commission or 1000 Friends of Oregon sought. It was forced upon us by the impatience of some members of the Legislature who care nothing about careful planning and rethinking of old ideas about transportation. They just wanted roads and they wanted them fast. They gave you very little choice and that gives us very little choice too.

I end my remarks on a more positive note, by recognizing the progress that has been made. The Commission has taken some useful first steps to implement the Governor’s directive to be a partner in managing growth throughout the state. By opening up this process, creating project selection criteria, and establishing conditions for project development, progress has been made.

Because this progress gives us cause for hope, 1000 Friends of Oregon wants to continue to be a constructive participant in your discussions about what transportation policies and investments will be most effective in providing a range of transportation choices, protecting quality of life, sustaining a vibrant economy and assuring the best return on the taxpayers’ investments.
Thank you for your attention and for all your hard work on behalf of Oregon.