OREGON ECONOMIC & BRIDGE OPTIONS STUDY The problem is not just the bridges, or the freight system, It is about Oregon’s economy and quality of life. FHWA Freight Seminars Tara Weidner, PB Consult
Jan 12, 2016
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