Can Oregon afford to pay back $450M for CRC?
SALEM, Ore. (AP) — A bill approving a new Interstate 5 bridge over the Columbia River would authorize $450 million in bonds to pay for Oregon's share, but it doesn't say how the state would pay off the debt over the coming decades.
State lawmakers heard public testimony on the topic Monday.
Paying down the bridge debt would cost roughly $30 million per year.
In the short term, the Oregon Department of Transportation can use unanticipated federal transportation dollars to cover the debt, lawmakers said. But after that money runs out in two to three years, the state would have to approve a new revenue source — such as a gas tax or vehicle fees — or reduce the amount of money available for other road projects.
"This is money that Oregon is going to need to repay," said Mara Gross, interim director of the Coalition for a Livable Future, a group that promotes healthy and sustainable communities. "Without a funding mechanism, tens of millions per year will be cut from ODOT's project, and that's funding from other roads and bridges and priority that could evaporate for decades."
House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, said last week that she'd like to include a dedicated funding source for the bridge as part of a comprehensive transportation plan that would other road projects around the state, perhaps in the 2015 legislative session.
The entire project, anticipated to cost more than $3 billion, would include a new bridge and freeway interchanges on both sides and a light-rail link across the bridge. Oregon and Washington would have to each contribute $450 million, with the rest of the funding coming from the federal government and the tolls paid by bridge users.
The existing bridge is a chokepoint for traffic on I-5 and is vulnerable to collapse in a major earthquake. The proposed replacement has been a political hot potato for years on both sides of the Columbia.
Supporters include business groups that want to speed to flow of goods to and from ports in Portland and the Puget Sound. Labor groups are eager for thousands of construction jobs. Transit advocates want a light-rail link to Vancouver, Wash.
"If our manufacturers can't get their products to the ports or out to their marketplace in an efficient, predictable and cost-effective manner, we will lose those great jobs and our families will suffer," said Sandra McDonough, president and chief executive of the Portland Business Alliance, the chamber of commerce for metro Portland.
Critics are equally as varied. Neighborhood groups in Northeast Portland fear the project would increase congestion and pollution around other chokepoints farther south near downtown Portland. Anti-tax advocates think it's an expensive, mismanaged boondoggle. Light-rail opponents think it's a waste of money. Some environmentalists fear it encourages single-occupancy vehicles and would increase greenhouse-gas emissions.
The light-rail component is critical to securing federal funding, because federal officials prioritize projects that include multiple modes of transportation.
"Our streets are jammed with commuters avoiding the existing congestion," David Sweet of the Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods told lawmakers Monday. "This project would do nothing but make that congestion worse by funneling increasing amounts of traffic into our neighborhoods."
Even if Oregon approves its share, the project would still require approval from the U.S. Coast Guard, approval of funding from the Washington Legislature and from the federal government.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.
Legalize and tax pot. It would solve all the money woes but nobody listens.
No Oregon can't afford it. Neither can Washington state: Consider this:Â
1) On the day this came out it was revealed that more than 1/3rd of the streets in Portland are in extremely poor condition approaching failure status from inadequate maintenance funding;
2) The state of Oregon is today still looking for funding to complete highway projects in construction for several years now; same with WDOT.
3) Cost over-runs: most ODOT projects in the last 15-years have averaged cost understatement of 1/3rd to 1/2 half of the project cost. So no matter what they say the cost is today it is guaranteed to be much worse. And a respected accounting analyst has testified that even by the CRC documents the stated cost is already understated by $2Billion dollars, so start adding the cost over-runs and see how you really like it. Same story across the river with WDOT.
4) The bridge as currently designed still has the same 3-lanes of vehicular traffic lanes it has today - no more.
5) Traffic diversion studies show the CRC's revenue estimates from tolling to be ridiculously over-stated, as people will either find another route (205) or just stop going to avoid the yearly drain from their pockets ($2400 - $3300 per year). All recent bridges built in Washington with imposed tolling show this to be true.
How much money is Oregon losing in tax revenue and business income every year? Â According to the Department of Commerce, truck delays alone are costing $34 million a year, and that's not even counting the hundreds of thousands of hours of aggregated traffic congestion experienced along the corridor, and there are several other industries that rely upon free-flowing traffic across that bridge. Â Seems to me, Oregon can't afford NOT to build a new bridge.
'Can Oregon afford to pay back $450M for CRC?'Â Â
Let's think about that for a moment shall we? Nope!
Oh and here's what they won't tell you:
"The CRC office claims federal funding for the new bridge hinges on including light rail; however, what proponents don't tell you is that a redesign with bus rapid-transit lanes instead would also keep the project eligible for that money."
NO LIGHT RAIL! We voted it down! Why push it?
Lets just build a big tunnel under the river. That way we don't have to worry about fights over how high the bridge will be. Lol.
Oregon can't even pay for the infrastructure maintenance that we need so desperately, how can new things actually be considered seriously? What are these spenders thinking about when they come up with these grandiose plans? Perhaps they could use some of those Platinum coins the Feds proposed a couple of weeks ago? I want a new car also, but does that mean I go out immediately and buy one? No! Not till I can afford one in my budget! Â
@jpkÂ
"The Feds" @jpk. Â And comparing the budget of a government to your household finances is an incredibly simplistic and unhelpful analogy. Â These two things? Â Not even remotely similar.
Really? Of the people, by the people and for the people, means nothing to you. I'm sure you can locate which Chinese bank will loan me money for a new car? Give me a break, we ALL have to live within our means, even state governments!Â
Whatever you say, D! I still don't want to spend money I don't have, and you can take your macrame where the sun don't shine!
@jpkÂ
Confusing rhetoric from the Gettysburg Address with economics is also not particularly bright. Â If you don't understand macroeconomics, it's best not to comment on the subject. Â Oh, and free tip, the Chinese only own about 10% of our debt. Â Most of our public debt is held by pension funds and the Social Security Trust Fund. The whole "the Chinese are coming to get us!" meme is nothing but a way to tell the serious people from the ignorant ones.
Legalize Marijuana and direct half of the tax revenue to pay off this bond. I think the other half should go to pre-12 and higher education.
"Â The existing bridge is a chokepoint for traffic on I-5"
No it's not - the choke point is south of the bridge in Oregon. Why doesn't Oregon widen their roads to 3 lanes all the way down from the Interstate bridge? Now that will help with the congestion.
"If our manufacturers can't get their products to the ports or out to their marketplace in an efficient, predictable and cost-effective manner, we will lose those great jobs and our families will suffer,"
Yet, the proposed bridge design will cut off access to existing companies due to the fact that it won't be tall enough for the current river traffic to pass. I say tell BHO to keep the funds, and OR and WA need to scrap this overpriced boondoggle of a project.
No taxpayers can afford this bloated peacock of a bridge.
"If our manufacturers can't get their products to the ports or out to their marketplace in an efficient, predictable and cost-effective manner, we will lose those great jobs and our families will suffer," said Sandra McDonough, president and chief executive of the Portland Business Alliance, the chamber of commerce for metro Portland.
Hmmmmm....Has anyone heard of a local manufacturer going out of business because we have 2 bridges???
Anyone else think our current bridge meets our transportation needs for the next 5-10 years?
Well if they Do build it most of the people posting here will have a place to stay...
Do trolls still live under bridges??Â
" A bill approving a new Interstate 5 bridge over the Columbia River would authorize $450 million in bonds to pay for Oregon's share, but it doesn't say how the state would pay off the debt over the coming decades."Â
Since when the goverment worry about spending?Â
I have a better idea, guys. Let's build a space station. You can launch from Portland Meadows, fly all the way around the world, land in Seattle, and take the Amtrak to Vancouver.
Who cares how much it costs... we'll figure that all out later.Â
as tax payers we don't get to chose, so this question is irrellevent, government is going to do it regardless
Here's some ideas on how to pay for this bridge.
1. Use the $60 million proposed for bicycle lanes.
2. Quit taking money from highway taxes for other uses.Â
3. Stop construction on the bicycle bridge and divert that money to CRC.
4. Lessen the cost by deleting light rail and bicycle path.
And for an immediate help delete the high occupancy lanes. The solo reason for them to exist is so buses can stay on schedule and buses don't pay anything for highway use, so why should they have any special rights?
@OrThinker Wow...fiscal responsibility? that would be a new one...
@OrThinker You are exactly right. Bicycle lanes are a terrible waste of tax dollars, especially when its gas
taxes that pays for it. Light Rail, most in Vancouver do not want it, it will kill what is left in downtown Vancouver,
unless its another bar. Who wants all the transients hanging around, littering, etc.
@joeind @OrThinker trimet wants the light rail to go across so they can TAX them.
Typical Portland politics.  Implement some grandiose scheme to stroke their egos, slap themselves on the back at the ribbon cutting ceremony and let the next poor sap down the line worry about how to pay for it all.
@UtterReality Well bush did that with two wars and a market crash but he's a republican...
Don't build another bridge until we can afford it. IMO, the bridge is congested mostly be Vancouverites who work in Portland and travel back each day to their comfortable homes. If these commuters want a bridge that bad, have them pay tolls until the bridge is paid off. As for shipping, send cargo out of Portland and not Seattle or Everett. It will create more jobs in Oregon versus Washington. I hardly use the bridge except for times when I go visit family in Seattle and being retired, I go when there is no rush-hour traffic. I don't want to be taxed for something I hardly use.Â
@peckishpete Actually, the bridge is congested because of the choke points between Hayden island and the on-ramp from Columbia Blvd. Try doing the commute sometime and you'll see.
@Luke Cady @peckishpete I have tried it. I know what you mean. But we also don't have the money to fix this either without figuring out how pay back loans. Perhaps if people car pooled or advocated for a light-rail across the Columbia this would be as much of a problem. But no! Most people don't want to give up the sacred privilige of driving their car.
@peckishpete I know that only a few people have this option, but if I have to go more than 150 miles I fly. I don't think I've had to drive across the Columbia for 20 years.
 "After that money runs out in two to three years, the state would have to approve a new revenue source â such as a gas tax or vehicle fees â or reduce the amount of money available for other road projects". Or how about a toll?
Well, I'd scrap the entire plan and demolish the existing bridge. This bridge benefits "da'couv" not Oregon. Let them pay for it.
@trololol  Wow, you are sorely misinformed. The bridge totally benefits Oregon by allowing people to get there, work in your state, and pay mega taxes for no representation. Too bad Oregon sucks up to business to get them to locate or stay there by allowing numerous tax exemptions.
@wondering@trololol "and pay mega taxes for no representation"
This is a very good point.Â
@trololol  how do you figure that the I-5 bridge ,benefits Vancouver?     Â
Like, can't we just print more money? I hear there's a trillion dollar coin out there. All we need is just a piece of it and we got it made, right? Like, that was easy! Why so much worry?
@Scotty9 Ya the Federal Reserve does print it out of thin air. That's why the value of the dollar has gone done and can't keep up with inflation. Our money is becoming more and more worthless. Another reason I buy silver and gold.....
Well I am shocked that money has ever slowed a Two blue states under a blue spender in chief but o expected a meteor shower either?
have a toll, the heaviest users will pay their share and deep six the light rail option unless you want a hell of a fight in clark county
depends, which is more important? gay rights or a new bridge?
@lee986321 I know I'll regret asking this, but how does gay rights factor into a story about a bridge?
@pdxd Because it's, ya know, like building a bridge to people's hearts.... ya know, like, yeah.
"Can Oregon afford to pay back $450M for CRC?"
Since when does government think about being able to afford something. Being able to affording something is a foreign concept to them.
Forget about that BS.