the problem isn’t just the bridges, or the freight system, it’s about oregon’s economy and...
TRANSCRIPT
The problem isn’t just the bridges,
or the freight system,
it’s about Oregon’s economy
and quality of life.
Oregon Modeling Steering CommitteeOREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONDecember 11, 2002
OREGON ECONOMIC & BRIDGE OPTIONS
Restricted/Cracked* Bridges - Today
* Medium and high crack density
Local Bridges
State Bridges
Ford’s Bridge
Cole’s Bridge
Sauvie Island Bridge
Bridge Deterioration would initially Restrict Trucks
over 80,000 lbs
1997 Oregon Commodity Flow Truck Survey
MODELING STATEWIDE ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Input: Load Limit bridge links in Transport Network
Define industry production of “Heavy Goods”
Modeled Impacts:Flows: Heavy Trucks detoured - OR-
Heavy Trucks lighten loads to avoid restrictions
Costs: Increased Shipping costs
Increased Production costs
Location: Change industry location to reduce costs (in/out of state)
Loss of supporting service industries
Initial Model Runs
Maximum weight:80,000 lbs.Restricted
Maximum weight:105,500 lbs.10-year repair
Limited
Good for Weight Table 5
Not Restricted• Driven by Bridge Task Force
• No US97 alternative• Functional classification-based• Little link to bridge costs
Level ofRestrictions
Route
100%
Post AllBridges
30%
Allow Deterioration
25% 20% 10% 5%
Today’sLevel of
Restriction
0%
NoRestrictions
I-5 andI-84
Restrict Restrict NotRestricted
NotRestricted
NotRestricted
FreightRoutes
Restrict Restrict Limited NotRestricted
NotRestricted
Key State& Local
Restrict Restrict Limited Limited NotRestricted
Reg, Dist,& Local
Restrict Restrict Restrict Restrict Restrict
Investment Options
BridgeInvestment
50-Yr NPF
$0 $0 $2.3B $2.9B $3.7B $4.6B $4.7B
$2.2B $3.1B $3.9B $4.1B $4.5B $4.8B $4.9B
Model ResultsStatewide Impacts• Lighter trucks avoid restrictions, increase truck trips• Economic impact of up to $3B in 2025, $17B over 25-years• Potential employment loss of 17,000 by 2025Regional Impacts• High shipping costs benefit locations near borders & urban areas• Impacts those with highest shipping costs already (heavy goods industry, remote areas) • Low shipping costs decentralizes activity• Any investment improves state economy• Investment location has regional consequences• Portland/Willamette Valley - 75% of state productionLivability Impacts• Detours increased truck miles on unsuitable roads• All options increase trucks in habitat/AQ areas
Regional Production Relative to Current Mobility Option
2025 Production Relative to Option 6
0-0.80.8-0.950.95-0.990.99-1.011.01-1.051.05-1.21.2-10
TOTAL AGFF WOOD TECH SERV
All
owD
eter
iora
tion
Fix
In
ters
tate
s+
Fre
ight
R
oute
s+
Key
L
ocal
Rou
tes
Production - All Options0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Metro
Mid-Willamette Valley
Lane
Cascades West
Rogue Valley
South West
Central
North East
North West
South East
South Central
Low er John Day
2000-2025 Growth in Production
Flat Funding/Buy TimeFlat FundingFix InterstatesFix Interstates/FreightFix Key RoutesCurrent MobilityFix All
Iterative Model AcceptanceBOT Economic SubTeam (October)
– Skepticism about unknown model results Bury Model Results in Appendix
Director’s Office (Early November)
– Economic/Community impacts are paramount– Use absolute not relative model results– Limit investment options 3 Futures/Courses of Action up-front
• Flat Funding• Flat Funding/Buy Time (proactive posting)• Invest Now/Fix All
Regional Production0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Metro
Mid-Willamette Valley
Lane
Cascades West
Rogue Valley
South West
Central
North East
North West
South East
South Central
Low er John Day
2000-2025 Growth in Production
Flat Funding
Flat Funding/Buy Time
Increase Investment
Local Impacts0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Cities less than 50,000 pop Truck VMT
Cities over 50,000 pop Truck VMT
Downtown STAs
Urban Congested Areas
Rural Contested Areas
Local Roads Truck VMT
Restrictive Curves
Restrictive Road Width
Limited Passing
RockFall Areas
Scenio Byways
Restricted Modular Homes
Restricted Load Length
Restricted Load Width
Sensitive Habitat Truck VMT
Air Quality Areas Truck VMT
Truck Energy Consumption
2000-2025 Growth
Flat Funding
Flat Funding/Buy Time
Invest Now/Fix All
Cities
Unsuitable Road Segments
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Cities less than 50,000 pop Truck VMT
Cities over 50,000 pop Truck VMT
Downtown STAs
Urban Congested Areas
Rural Contested Areas
Local Roads Truck VMT
Restrictive Curves
Restrictive Road Width
Limited Passing
RockFall Areas
Scenio Byways
Restricted Modular Homes
Restricted Load Length
Restricted Load Width
Sensitive Habitat Truck VMT
Air Quality Areas Truck VMT
Truck Energy Consumption
Environment
Iterative Model AcceptanceMet with Trucking Industry Representatives (November)
– Concerned with I-5 construction impacts/delays– Backbone Freight Route for all trucks (quick/low cost)
BOT Team (Late November)
– No recommendation?– No US97 alternative?– Add real-world stories
Create Recommendation with US97 staging for I-5 workModel one of many tools that led to recommendation
0 50 100 150 200
I5
I5,US97,SR58
I5,US97,SR58,SR99W
US97
I84
US30,US26,SR18,US20,SR126,SR38
Economic Hardship
Safety
Rough Number of Bridges
N-S Route
E-W Route
Coastal Connection
Locals (2/3 posted)
Draft Recommendation• Staged Bridge Investment
– Open E-W, N-S Heavy Truck Routes ASAP(Replace on I-84, US97, S22)
– Incrementally address I-5(Replace to S58 and link to US97, etc.)
– Routes with high cost/benefit– Fix Bridges with unacceptable detours
• Maintain other key routes, restrict as needed
• Selected restrictions to extend bridge life
Use of Model• Identify the range of impacts
– Fix All Bridges (Maximum investment)– Allow Deterioration– Proactively Restrict All Bridges– TBD -- restrict below 64,000 lbs.
• Statewide Economic Impacts– Damping of State Economy– Employment/Population – Importance of Portland/Willamette Valley connections
• Sub-State economic trends - industries and regions
• Temper “sky is falling” approach Local and impending statewide “crisis”
Lessons Learned• New Tool takes time to be accepted/used
• Model should generate investment options, rather than support a priori expectations
• Model validation/credibility is critical
• Need to model “crisis”
• Model is one of many inputs to process
• Need time to digest/understand model findings
• Relative measures difficult to understand
Role of OMSCOMSC • Credibility/validation of model structure• Past efforts using model
OMSC Bridge Sub-Committee• Review/assist with model inputs/assumptions• Interagency review/comment on model output• Recommendations
– Importance of Net Present Value and lifecycle analysis
– Model output is an incomplete cost-benefit analysis
– Suggest/prioritize additional model runs
OVERALL TIMELINE
ODOT: Inspect bridges bi-annually or more often.
2001- cracks identified
OTC, Governor, Legislature: Select a strategy to address problem.
2003
2003-2010
Bridge Task Force: Validate Problem, Emphasize Corridors June 2002
ODOT: Economic and Bridge Options Report
Draft: Nov 02 Final: Jan 03
ODOT: Develop implementation strategy. Implement. Track deterioration & priorities.
Dec 02
Jan 03 OTC
Extra Graphics
Initial Model Runs