City Strategy At Odds With ODOT Plans

Last week there was an Oregon Transportation Committee meeting at Eagle Crest, with it's main focus on the Hwy 97 realignment. The city gave a long presentation of traffic studies and other data supporting its desire for a Cooley/97 interchange to allow further development at Juniper Ridge in the very near future.

To my surprise, the OTC has already, back in March, decided that they did not want any direct connection to Hwy 97 from Cooley Road. Their guidance document from March, 2008 states:

IV. Cooley Road - Preference is to include an overpass at Cooley Road and US 97, with no direct access to US 97.

This came as a complete and utter surprise to me. After all, we went through a several months-long process last year going over various scenarios for improving traffic flow at the Cooley/97 intersection. An idea that has been shelved, it seems.

In reality, the city's plans for Juniper Ridge are seen as a detriment to traffic flow on 97, and the OTC and ODOT have continued to press for surface solutions for Juniper Ridge and other local traffic in the area. Local roads for local traffic.

Simply put, the OTC and ODOT do not want Bend's proclivity for allowing development to exceed traffic flow capabilities, such as with the ProTerra development on the Mt. Bachelor bus parking lot, to cause their main north-south conduit east of the Cascades to fail.

I contacted the OTC to clarify this stance, and received this email from "ODOT Bob":

Bruce - I was asked to respond to your request. I've attached the slide from the presentation last week that references guidance that we received from the Transportation Commission during a presentation in February 2007. We have developed the alternatives for the US 97: North Corridor project consistent with this guidance, and we did not hear anything from the discussion last week that would cause us to change direction.

In fact, the traffic analysis accomplished as part of the project bears out the merits of the guidance at least as it pertains to the connection at Cooley Road. Any direct connection from US 97 at Cooley Road that would serve future development in Juniper Ridge causes the Parkway through Bend to fail. The traffic model shows that trips from throughout the community would use the Parkway as opposed to alternative local routes if their destination is Juniper Ridge. This additional local traffic volume would exceed the capacity.

Bob Bryant
Region Manager
ODOT Region 4

The emphasis is mine.

To my simple mind, it seems that the city is pushing ahead with plans that are at loggerheads with those who actually control the state's highways. And that is a no-win situation.

The Chair of the OTC stated that she supported funding of local arterials to take the pressure off of state highways. The idea being that state highways need free and clear flow, and local traffic is local traffic. Perhaps our city staff and council should explore this idea. Explore how to build a local traffic system that intersects with the state system on their terms. One that supports the local businesses and provides alternatives to the parkway.

One that might actually win support and funding from the state.

It might be an even better idea to try to really work with those who control highways 97 and 20, rather than continuing to push a homegrown solution against ever more fierce resistance.

City Charging Ahead, Another $37-40M for Cooley/97 Interchange For JR Access

Picture this--your company sales are down 30%, you are going to lose $10M this year, your reserves are starting to look a bit low, and your major market has seen its sales drop by 2/3's, and all signs point to sales getting far worse before they get better. And your second major line is starting to see inventory pile up rather heavily as well.

You've been planning a great new addition to your product lines, but have run into problems here and there and now it's late. Plus the regulators told you just recently that you have to fix some "issues" they are concerned about before you can take your new product to market. And it's going to be a very expensive fix, like a $37 to $40 million dollar fix if all goes as planned.

And throw into the mix that your first big sale in this new product line, to a high-profile buyer who managed to force through a sweetheart deal on faith, still hasn't followed through and that buyers' promise expires in less than two weeks.

What would you do?

Personally, I would batten down the hatches, keep the product development percolating at a low-level, cut back expenses as far as I possible could, especially any expenses directly related to the promise my "buyer" made and plan to cut them even more if the sale falls through, and live to win another day. Wait it out. Let the cycle come back around, in my favor. Realize that I had a hell of a run and I better tighten everything up fast before I let it all get away on me and end up worse off than ever.

Taking my time and making sure I'm ready when the cycle inevitably goes up again. It could be two or seven years, who knows. But I would run lean at all costs, ferociously preserving my reserves, and eking out value from every penny going out while maximizing every dwindling penny coming it. Making my existing customers damned happy. I would want to make sure I'm still here, I survived, and I'm ready for the next big ride.

But is that what our fine City Council and it's ever-the-optimist Special Projects Manager R. Garzini are planning to do?

Hell, no. They are forging ahead as if it's 2004, and the bubble called Bend Real Estate is just hitting the booster rockets.

Build it and they will come. It works great, in a movie. In the real world, if the time is right, the price is right, and the place looks nice, they might come with a little persuasion.

One out of three ain't bad, if you're an optimist.

I just wish the Council saw the realism that close to two hundred of our local residents are seeing as their homes are getting foreclosed on in this beautiful Christmas season.