OREGON ECONOMIC &

BRIDGE OPTIONS STUDYThe problem is not just

the bridges, or the freight system,

It is about Oregon’s economy and quality of life.

FHWA Freight SeminarsTara Weidner, PB ConsultMay 19, 2004

TACKLING OREGON’S BRIDGE PROBLEM

• Cost to fix over 500 cracking bridges: $4.7B

• Reasons for cracking: design, age, loads

• Used ODOT’s Statewide Land Use-Transport Model to evaluate alternatives:– State & regional economy– Communities & livability– Environment

• Investment strategy based on: – Bridge costs– Economic costs– Community & regional Impacts

Local Bridges

*Medium and high crack density

State Bridges

Ford’s Bridge

Cole’s Bridge

Sauvie Island Bridge

McKenzie/Willamette River Bridges

RESTRICTED/CRACKED* BRIDGES-TODAYWeight Limited Bridge

Cracked Bridge

OREGON FREIGHT SYSTEM

OREGON FREIGHT TRANSPORTby Weight

Rail 17%

Air <1%

Water 15%

Trucks under80,0000 lb.

48%

Trucks 80,000--105,500 lb. 19%

Trucks over 105,500 lb. <1%

.

OREGON ECONOMY2000 Production of Goods & Services

• By Industry:– One third service-based– 15% Agriculture/wood, low growth– Hi-tech, concentrated high growth

• By Area of the State::– Half of state production in Portland Metro– One quarter in larger Willamette Valley– Portland end market/access to external markets

ECONOMIC DIVERSITYECONOMIC DIVERSITY

* Heavy Goods = Farm, Forest, Chemical, Machinery, Paper, Sand and Gravel

Goods typically in trucks over 80,000 lbs.(farm, forest, chemical, machinery, paper, sand & gravel)

Heavy Goods*

Regular Goods

0% - 2%

2.1% - 5%5.1% - 10%10.1% - 15%> 15%

Share of State Production Share of Local Production

MODELING BRIDGE RESTRICTIONS

Flows: Heavy Trucks detoured

or

Heavy Trucks lighten loads to avoid restrictionsCosts: Increased Shipping and Production costs

Location: Industry relocates to reduce costs (in/out of state)Supporting service industries follow

LocationModel

TransportModel

20052000 2010

LocationModel

costs costs costsflows flows flows

LocationModel

TransportModel

TransportModel

EconomicModel

costs costsfinaldemand

finaldemand

finaldemand

EconomicModel

EconomicModel

LocationModel

TransportModel

20052000 2010

LocationModel

costs costs costsflows flows flows

LocationModel

TransportModel

TransportModel

EconomicModel

EconomicModel

costs costsfinaldemand

finaldemand

finaldemand

EconomicModel

EconomicModel

EconomicModel

EconomicModel

Input:SetupDefine industry production of Heavy Goods

Load Limit bridges (transportnetwork links)

Response

TRUCK WEIGHT CATEGORIES

• Non-divisible Loads >98K lbs. – Single Trip Permit• Divisible Loads 80-105.5K lbs. – Annual Permit• 80K lbs. or Less – Legal loads, no permit required• Up to 64K lbs. – Significant break in truck weights

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Other

Farm/Food products

Forest/Lumber/Furniture

Chemicals/Fuel/Ores

Pulp/Paper

Metals

Machinery/Instruments/Equipment

Sand/Stone

Waste

Textiles/Leather/Rubber

Share of State Tonnage

up to 64,000 lbs (15%)

64,000-80,000 lbs (53%)

80,000-105,500 lbs (31%)

over 105,500 lbs (1%)

Sources: ODOT Special Weighings Truck data, 1997 Oregon Commodity FlowSurvey.

T R U C K O P ER A T I N G C O S T SI n d u s t r y F l o w s ( $ $ )

G o o d s ( t o n s )

T r u c k P a r a m e t e r

H e a v y ( 0 v e r 8 0 , 0 0 0

l b s . )

M e d i u m ( 6 4 , 0 0 0 l b s -

8 0 , 0 0 0 l b s . )

A l t e r n a t e( 6 4 , 0 0 0 l b s .

o r l e s s )

S m a l l ( 6 4 , 0 0 0 l b s .

o r l e s s )

P a y l o a d C a p a c i t y 2 8 . 4 T o n s 2 1 . 3 T o n s 1 4 . 4 T o n s 6 . 4 T o n s

% T r u c k s R e t u r n e d L o a d e d 8 3 . 2 % 8 3 . 2 % 8 3 . 2 % 8 3 . 2 %

M i n . F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n 0 . 1 8 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 7 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 6 5 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 6 5 g a l / m i .

M a x . F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n 0 . 2 0 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 9 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 8 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 8 3 g a l / m i .

F u e l C o s t $ 1 . 1 8 / g a l $ 1 . 1 8 / g a l $ 1 . 1 8 / g a l $ 1 . 1 8 / g a l

T i m e C o s t $ 1 9 / h r $ 1 9 / h r $ 1 9 / h r $ 1 9 / h r

M i l e a g e C o s t * $ 1 . 6 7 / m i $ 1 . 6 3 / m i $ 1 . 5 6 / m i $ 1 . 5 6 / m i

L o a d / R e l o a d C o s t $ 4 0 / t r i p $ 4 0 / t r i p $ 4 0 / t r i p $ 4 0 / t r i p

T r u c k P a r a m e t e r

H e a v y ( 0 v e r 8 0 , 0 0 0

l b s . )

M e d i u m ( 6 4 , 0 0 0 l b s . -

8 0 , 0 0 0 l b s . )

A l t e r n a t e( 6 4 , 0 0 0 l b s .

o r l e s s )

S m a l l ( 6 4 , 0 0 0 l b s .

o r l e s s )

P a y l o a d C a p a c i t y 2 8 . 4 T o n s 2 1 . 3 T o n s 1 4 . 4 T o n s 6 . 4 T o n s

% T r u c k s R e t u r n e d L o a d e d 8 3 . 2 % 8 3 . 2 % 8 3 . 2 % 8 3 . 2 %

M i n . F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n 0 . 1 8 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 7 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 6 5 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 6 5 g a l / m i .

M a x . F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n 0 . 2 0 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 9 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 8 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 8 3 g a l / m i .

F u e l C o s t $ 1 . 1 8 / g a l $ 1 . 1 8 / g a l $ 1 . 1 8 / g a l $ 1 . 1 8 / g a l

T i m e C o s t $ 1 9 / h r $ 1 9 / h r $ 1 9 / h r $ 1 9 / h r

M i l e a g e C o s t * $ 1 . 6 7 / m i $ 1 . 6 3 / m i $ 1 . 5 6 / m i $ 1 . 5 6 / m i

L o a d / R e l o a d C o s t $ 4 0 / t r i p $ 4 0 / t r i p $ 4 0 / t r i p $ 4 0 / t r i p

T r u c k P a r a m e t e r

H e a v y ( 0 v e r 8 0 , 0 0 0

l b s . )

M e d i u m ( 6 4 , 0 0 0 l b s -

8 0 , 0 0 0 l b s . )

A l t e r n a t e( 6 4 , 0 0 0 l b s .

o r l e s s )

S m a l l ( 6 4 , 0 0 0 l b s .

o r l e s s )

P a y l o a d C a p a c i t y 2 8 . 4 T o n s 2 1 . 3 T o n s 1 4 . 4 T o n s 6 . 4 T o n s

% T r u c k s R e t u r n e d L o a d e d 8 3 . 2 % 8 3 . 2 % 8 3 . 2 % 8 3 . 2 %

M i n . F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n 0 . 1 8 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 7 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 6 5 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 6 5 g a l / m i .

M a x . F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n 0 . 2 0 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 9 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 8 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 8 3 g a l / m i .

T r u c k P a r a m e t e r

H e a v y ( 0 v e r 8 0 , 0 0 0

l b s . )

M e d i u m ( 6 4 , 0 0 0 l b s -

8 0 , 0 0 0 l b s . )

A l t e r n a t e( 6 4 , 0 0 0 l b s .

o r l e s s )

S m a l l ( 6 4 , 0 0 0 l b s .

o r l e s s )

P a y l o a d C a p a c i t y 2 8 . 4 T o n s 2 1 . 3 T o n s 1 4 . 4 T o n s 6 . 4 T o n s

% T r u c k s R e t u r n e d L o a d e d 8 3 . 2 % 8 3 . 2 % 8 3 . 2 % 8 3 . 2 %

M i n . F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n 0 . 1 8 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 7 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 6 5 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 6 5 g a l / m i .

M a x . F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n 0 . 2 0 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 9 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 8 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 8 3 g a l / m i .

F u e l C o s t $ 1 . 1 8 / g a l $ 1 . 1 8 / g a l $ 1 . 1 8 / g a l $ 1 . 1 8 / g a l

T i m e C o s t $ 1 9 / h r $ 1 9 / h r $ 1 9 / h r $ 1 9 / h r

M i l e a g e C o s t * $ 1 . 6 7 / m i $ 1 . 6 3 / m i $ 1 . 5 6 / m i $ 1 . 5 6 / m i

L o a d / R e l o a d C o s t $ 4 0 / t r i p $ 4 0 / t r i p $ 4 0 / t r i p $ 4 0 / t r i p

T r u c k P a r a m e t e r

H e a v y ( 0 v e r 8 0 , 0 0 0

l b s . )

M e d i u m ( 6 4 , 0 0 0 l b s . -

8 0 , 0 0 0 l b s . )

A l t e r n a t e( 6 4 , 0 0 0 l b s .

o r l e s s )

S m a l l ( 6 4 , 0 0 0 l b s .

o r l e s s )

P a y l o a d C a p a c i t y 2 8 . 4 T o n s 2 1 . 3 T o n s 1 4 . 4 T o n s 6 . 4 T o n s

% T r u c k s R e t u r n e d L o a d e d 8 3 . 2 % 8 3 . 2 % 8 3 . 2 % 8 3 . 2 %

M i n . F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n 0 . 1 8 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 7 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 6 5 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 6 5 g a l / m i .

M a x . F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n 0 . 2 0 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 9 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 8 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 8 3 g a l / m i .

F u e l C o s t $ 1 . 1 8 / g a l $ 1 . 1 8 / g a l $ 1 . 1 8 / g a l $ 1 . 1 8 / g a l

T i m e C o s t $ 1 9 / h r $ 1 9 / h r $ 1 9 / h r $ 1 9 / h r

P a y l o a d C a p a c i t y 2 8 . 4 T o n s 2 1 . 3 T o n s 1 4 . 4 T o n s 6 . 4 T o n s

% T r u c k s R e t u r n e d L o a d e d 8 3 . 2 % 8 3 . 2 % 8 3 . 2 % 8 3 . 2 %

M i n . F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n 0 . 1 8 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 7 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 6 5 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 6 5 g a l / m i .

M a x . F u e l C o n s u m p t i o n 0 . 2 0 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 9 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 8 3 g a l / m i . 0 . 1 8 3 g a l / m i .

F u e l C o s t $ 1 . 1 8 / g a l $ 1 . 1 8 / g a l $ 1 . 1 8 / g a l $ 1 . 1 8 / g a l

T i m e C o s t $ 1 9 / h r $ 1 9 / h r $ 1 9 / h r $ 1 9 / h r

M i l e a g e C o s t * $ 1 . 6 7 / m i $ 1 . 6 3 / m i $ 1 . 5 6 / m i $ 1 . 5 6 / m i

L o a d / R e l o a d C o s t $ 4 0 / t r i p $ 4 0 / t r i p $ 4 0 / t r i p $ 4 0 / t r i p

ECONOMY2000-2025 Growth in Production of Goods & Services

LOCAL IMPACTS

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Cities less than 50,000 pop

Cities over 50,000 pop

Downtown STAs

Urban Congested Areas

Rural Contested Areas

Local Roads

Restrictive Curves

Restrictive Road Width

RockFall Areas

Limited Passing

Scenio Byways

Restricted for Modular Homes

Restricted for Long Loads

Restricted for Wide Load

Sensitive Habitat

Air Quality Areas

Truck Energy Consumption*

2000-2025 Growth in Truck DVMT

Flat Funding/64,000 lbs.

Flat Funding/80,000 lbs

Flat Funding/Buy Time

Investment/Fix All Bridges

Investment/Recommended

Cities/Livability

Unsuitable Road Segments

Environment

Motor Carrier Restricted Road Segments

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Cities less than 50,000 pop

Cities over 50,000 pop

Downtown STAs

Urban Congested Areas

Rural Contested Areas

Local Roads

Restrictive Curves

Restrictive Road Width

RockFall Areas

Limited Passing

Scenio Byways

Restricted for Modular Homes

Restricted for Long Loads

Restricted for Wide Load

Sensitive Habitat

Air Quality Areas

Truck Energy Consumption*

2000-2025 Growth in Truck DVMT

Flat Funding/64,000 lbs.

Flat Funding/80,000 lbs

Flat Funding/Buy Time

Investment/Fix All Bridges

Investment/Recommended

Cities/Livability

Unsuitable Road Segments

Environment

Motor Carrier Restricted Road Segments

2000-2025 Growth in Truck DVMT

WITHOUT BRIDGE INVESTMENT

• Industry lightens trucks, makes more trips

• 80,000 lb restriction impacts 30% truck tons• 64,000 lb restriction impacts 90% truck tons

– 8-fold increase in state economic impacts– Economic impact $14B in 2025, $122B over 25 years– Potential employment loss of up to 88,000 by 2025

• Safety & maintenance costs from trucks on local roads

• Increased truck miles on unsuitable roads:– Local roads and city streets– Restrictive roadway geometry– Motor Carrier restrictions for oversize vehicles– Environmentally sensitive areas

REGIONAL FINDINGS• Most impacts to those already paying high

shipping costs

• Low shipping costs decentralizes activity -- longer trips, more truck VMT

• Any investment improves state economy

• Portland is market/link to external state markets

• Investment location has regional consequences:– Large urban areas and borders (southeast, northwest) are

advantaged by restricted transportation system – Rogue Valley/Southwest have bulk of cracked bridges– Fixing interstates alone benefits state economy but ignores

connections to central/coastal Oregon economies

OTHER KEY FINDINGS• No crisis today but immediate action

necessary to avoid a future crisis

• Improve routes parallel to the interstates to accommodate detoured heavy freight loads

• The order in which roads are opened to heavy loads affects regional economy and livability

• One deficient bridge impedes the entire corridor – ODOT shifts from worst-first to corridor approach

ODOT RECOMMENDATION• $2.5B, initial 10-year strategy to $4.7B bridge problem• Addresses detour routes before interstate construction

• Over 90 percent of the statewide economic benefit of repairing all bridges

• Often better livability than repairing all bridges

STAGE 1STAGE 1$92M, 48 bridges$92M, 48 bridges

STAGE STAGE 22

$657M, 161 bridges$657M, 161 bridges

STAGE STAGE 33

$567M, 147 bridges$567M, 147 bridges

STAGE STAGE 44

$234M, 94 bridges$234M, 94 bridges

STAGE STAGE 55

$116M, 46 bridges$116M, 46 bridges

LESSONS LEARNED• Input-Output based model is a great tool for

evaluating long-distance truck flows

• Model is economically driven, so transport cost increases have economic and land use implications

• Model quantifies economic tradeoffs and provides valuable perspective to the decision process

• Integrated analysis is a good process to inform high profile policy discussions

• Non-technical communication and good visualization is critical

FUNDING PACKAGE 2003 legislature approved 10 year $2.5B program

Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA) III

– $1.3 billion for state bridges – $300 million for local bridges – $361 million for local maintenance & preservation – $500 million for state modernization

“The greatest investment in our transportation infrastructure since World War II"

– Governor Kulongoski

PROGRAM STATUS• Environmental & Engineering baseline studies

– Prepared for all OTIA III bridges - targeted completion April 2004

– Environmental regulatory compliance strategies in place

• Stage 1A begun with existing funds– Targeted for construction by 2005– 37 bridges to accommodate heavy/oversize trucks

• Stage 2 construction begins in 2005, using Stage 1A as detour

PROGRAM STATUS• Program Management (PM) firm hired to

manage overall OTIA III program – 91% OTIA III costs to be managed by PM Firm– 9% (42 bridges) managed by ODOT Regions

• OTIA III will coordinate with other programmed projects

• On-going bridge evaluation and corridor staging/prioritization

END

Economic & Bridge Options Report (Dec 2002) http://www.odot.state.or.us/comm/bridge_options/index.htm

Oregon Modeling Improvement Programhttp://www.odot.state.or.us/tddtpau/modeling.html