The West Eugene Porkway (WEP) originated from a previous "Roosevelt Freeway" first proposed in 1951. The No Build decision for the WEP was formally selected by the United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration in 2007. This page links to background information about the highway project, micro-dramas of its history, supporters, opponents and the legal and financial obstacles that prevented approval.

During the peak of the WEP debates, this writer (Mark Robinowitz) posted a large volume of background data that was uncensored and unprocessed by ODOT, Federal Highway, BLM (which managed the nature preserve in its path) and local government. Few were interested in all of the details, but those working on the project for the government agencies saw that the legal problems were insurrmountable and after many years of modification, withdrew the WEP to prevent losing in federal court. Since then, ODOT has sold off much of the wrong-of-way bought for the road and the City has allowed various businesses to be built in the former highway reservations.

the WETLANDS slideshow (13 megabyte PDF) is an introduction to the West Eugene Porkway, a virtual tour of the West Eugene Wetlands, and the WETLANDS alternative.

 

The primary "road scholar" for the WETLANDS alternative was Mark Robinowitz. All articles on SustainEugene.org are written by Mark Robinowitz unless indicated.

Additional contributions and input to the WETLANDS alternative were made by Jan Spencer, Majeska Seese-Green, Sarah Charlesworth, Linda Swisher and Jim Ekins. Several officials involved in the West Eugene Parkway project provided feedback on the map and some of the concepts behind the alternative.

Special thanks to Barbara Kelley of Save Our ecoSystems (SOS) for her many years of persistence in working to protect the West Eugene Wetlands, and for her assistance in providing invaluable materials used in the preparation of this report.

The work to develop the WETLANDS alternative was volunteer labor -- neither the primary author nor any of the additional contributors received any funds. About six million dollars was spent to "study” the WEP, money that could have been used to implement much of the WETLANDS alternative.

WETLANDS wishes to thank the Helios Resource Network and Robin Irish for financial support toward the printing of this report, which enabled its distribution to neighborhood organizations, environmental groups, businesses, elected officials and transportation planners.

Whiteaker Community Council was the fiscal sponsor of the WETLANDS project.

 

WETLANDS worked to stop the West Eugene Parkway by monitoring the Environmental Impact Statement process and taking citizens on tours of the West Eugene Wetlands.

The WEP was one of the most illegal highways ever proposed in the US. WETLANDS did detailed work to document legal obstacles to its approval by the Federal Highway Administration (an approval that had been a "year in the future" since 1999).

The WETLANDS alternative was developed by reviewing the history of the WEP (which dates to the 1950s), attending official meetings where critical details were disclosed, extensive field work along the route, input from numerous citizens, groups, and participants in the official process, examining history of successful and unsuccessful highway fights in other communities and federal legal issues on transportation and environmental impacts. Printed publication facilitated review of these suggestions by the broader community.

 

Laws

WETLANDS spent many years working hard to keep the WEP from being approved and prevent the need for a lawsuit.

The most important federal law the WEP would have violated is Section 4(f) of the 1966 Transportation Act, which prevents federally funded transportation projects through parklands. As far as I know, I was the only person who raised this law during the history of the WEP debates. 4(f) has stopped more roads than any other law, yet its existence was unknown to the professional environmentalists who sought credit for opposing the WEP (while offering a much worse option than even ODOT proposed). Unfortunately, instead of incorporating the new information into their advocacy, they excluded myself and others who agreed that this needed focus. Fortunately, ODOT and Federal Highway recognized that I was familiar with 4(f) case law (even though I am not an attorney) and understood they would lose in court.

In 1996, a previous legal challenge by Barbara Kelley and Save Our ecoSystems (SOS) resulted in the original FHWA "record of decision" being withdrawn before being heard in federal court -- but that suit did not focus on 4(f). By the time I moved to Eugene (1998) and learned about WEP (1999), 4(f) had been included in the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement but was not part of the public pseudo debates about the WEP. Instead, most public discussion about illegalities focused on wetlands and endangered species (regarding federal legal concerns) and the fabled State of Oregon land use laws. The Clean Water Act's regulation of wetland destruction permits slowed down the WEP approval, as did the Endangered Species Act -- but 4(f) is a more powerful prohibition than either of those Nixon era environmental laws. Worse, the State land use laws seemed excellent to bystanders, but had no impact at all on slowing down the steamroller of WEP approval. One example of this deficiency: Oregon land use rules supposedly prohibit urbanization sprawl enabling projects like freeway construction outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). This rule had no impact at all on the WEP. I spent countless hours communicating with ODOT and FHWA officials that they would lose a 4(f) suit and after deep consideration of the details came to agree with this conclusion.

 

Stopping WEP: a success and a failure

When the WEP was still under consideration, I wrote this:

"Ultimately, cancellation of the WEP could force a serious, regional discussion of sustainability that involves the entire community -- at the very least, it will require a major revision for long term planning for the region."

WETLANDS succeeded in getting "No Build" from Federal Highway Administration without having to file WETLANDS v. FHWA. This technical success did not lead to fundamental rethinking of energy policies as we enter the age of oil depletion, temporarily given a stay of execution by ultrahazardous fracking.

During my involvement in the WEP campaign (1999 to 2007, when the Federal Highway Administration made its "No Build" decision), neither the Register Guard nor the Eugene Weakly dared mention that the decider for the project was the Federal government, not the City of Eugene. It was no surprise that this key point was ignored by the pro-WEP RG, but it was a little surprising that the Weakly also ignored it. Neither publication ever mentioned the work I did to document the illegalities of the proposal, but both did permit a couple letters and op-eds from this writer, the only times the Federal aspect was mentioned.

Some of the most ardent WEP proponents argued that since the voters of Eugene had supported non-binding referenda in favor of the road (about 80% in favor in 1986, and 51% - 49% in 2001) that opponents, especially at City Hall, were violating the will of the public. The City offered no money toward construction of a project that ballooned from $88 million to at least $169 million. Federal highway funds meant it was a federal decision, a fact not in the public debate (except through my modest efforts). The WEP would have violated every applicable federal transportation law was rarely mentioned. Neither the RG nor EW ever mentioned Section 4(f) of the 1966 Transportation Act, which prohibits federal aid transportation projects through parklands such as the West Eugene Wetlands. Fortunately, the Federal Highway Administration, Oregon Department of Transportation, US Bureau of Land Management (which manages the wetlands park), US Army Corps of Engineers (which would have issued the wetlands destruction permit) all came to understand that 4(f) meant the highway would likely lose in court.

If the media had fully informed the public the aftermath of the WEP might have had less community division. Ego got in the way, unfortunately. WEP supporters did not want to admit they promoted a destructive, expensive project long after they recognized it was unlikely to be built. Some WEP opponents did not want to admit that I, Mark Robinowitz, was focused on core parts of the project -- 4(f) -- that they did not already know about and did not want to cede "credit" for supposedly stopping it.

Stopping the WEP was a success in the sense the road proposal is dead, unlikely to ever be revived. ODOT sold off some of the "wrong of way" bought for the highway. The City allowed a couple buildings to be built in other sections.

The WEP cancellation failed to create policy shifts appropriate for the peak oil and climate change future we are all entering. Other highway expansions through the Eugene Springfield metro area continue unabated, notably widenings of I-5, the Beltline I-5 interchange, and soon, the Beltline widening across the Willamette River. Perhaps worst of all was the blame game by conservative WEP proponents (such as Pat Farr) and the failure to acknowledge why the WEP was stopped by liberal WEP opponents. Lane County is a very polarized place and the WEP reflected this.

 

---

 

WETLANDS Advisory Board

(2003 to 2006, during preparation of WETLANDS v. FHWA lawsuit that did not need to be filed to prevent the porkway)

• Barbara Kelley, Save Our ecoSystems (SOS sued to stop the WEP in 1996)
• Nena Lovinger, Lane County Land Watch
• David Monk, former director, Oregon Toxics Alliance (now Beyond Toxics)
• Majeska Seese-Green, Whiteaker Community Council
• Jan Spencer, SuburbanPermaculture.org
• Linda Swisher, expert botanist and community activist (in memoriam, 1938 - 2019)

affiliations for identification purposes only

published in The Register-Guard newspaper on November 17, 2005

www.registerguard.com/news/2005/11/17/ed.col.robinowitz.1117.p1.php?section=opinion

Let's look at entire picture of West Eugene Parkway
By Mark Robinowitz

The Register-Guard’s coverage of the City Council’s recent removal of support for the proposed West Eugene Parkway (WEP) has omitted important pieces of the story.

The WEP would be a federal-aid highway, not a City of Eugene project. Ultimately, the decision to build or cancel it will be made by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The FHWA is in charge of the federal funds and approval process, and the BLM controls the parklands threatened by the WEP.

The West Eugene Parkway proposal came from the 1950s plan for a Roosevelt Freeway, which was canceled in 1972 because of intense neighborhood objections. Afterwards, the road was scaled back and renamed a "Parkway.”

In 1996, FHWA was sued in Federal court by citizens for violating federal laws regarding "segmentation” of highway approvals, and the agency withdrew its 1990 approval of the WEP. FHWA officials declined the opportunity to argue their case in court, tacitly admitting the project was illegal.

In June 2001, after it became clear the WEP was an unworkable project, an intergovernmental meeting called "West Eugene Charette” brought together the City of Eugene, Lane County, State and Federal agencies to examine the issues. They reached a consensus to select "No Build” and finish Beltline Highway instead. On July 25, 2001, City Councilor Pat Farr stated the parkway would probably not be built, and that routing some traffic up Highway 99, across Roosevelt and then down Beltline would be part of the solution, and would require work at key intersections.

The November 2001 advisory vote about the Parkway did not require federal agencies to approve it, and it did not allocate any money toward construction. Parkway enthusiasts who spent $120,000 on a media blitz to promote passage of this referendum claimed "The Money is There" and the State would maintain the highway.

After the vote, local governments quietly admitted that the $88 million price tag in 2001 omitted key parts of the project (an expensive interchange with Beltline). Their most recent official estimate is $169 million, double the cost used to sell the road. The City of Eugene also agreed to assume responsibility for maintaining half of the highway, an enormous "unfunded mandate" that was not part of the electoral promises.

Since 2001, the Oregon Department of Transpoirtation has spent more millions to study the WEP, but has not been able to find an option that is affordable or legal. In early October, ODOT unveiled its latest parkway version, a revival of the "Couplet Alternative” rejected by ODOT in 1985 as unworkable and unpopular. This design would route Beltline traffic onto Fifth and Seventh Avenues between Seneca and Highway 99, and would add sharp curves and extra traffic lights. (The map in the Register-Guard did not show ODOT's newest proposal.)

The $1.7 million awarded by ODOT over the past year to finish the Environmental Impact Statement is about the same amount of money that would be needed to fix intersections along West 11th Avenue. If the charette’s "No Build" consensus had been implemented in 2001, West 11th could have already been fixed, and ODOT could have used the $17 million appropriated for WEP to finish Beltline Road (a project approved in 1995). Now that ODOT has essentially admitted defeat with its revival of the failed "Couplet" design and the City has withdrawn its endorsement, sensible solutions to west Eugene traffic flow can be implemented.

The WEP is not designed for current congestion snarls, but for traffic problems in the year 2025. The Lane Council of Governments, which crafted the traffic models, predicted last fall that gasoline prices would rise to $2.50 per gallon by 2025. This mistake was rooted in their refusal to look at "Peak Oil" -- the rise and fall of global petroleum production.

Whether Peak Oil is here now, or is still a couple years in the future, the end of cheap oil will force major changes to transportation planning long before 2025. We will need to ensure existing roads and bridges can be maintained and work at their optimum efficiency, land use must be better coordinated with transportation, and public transit needs substantial improvement.

The most important issues are what economy our region, our country and our planet will have in 2025 when the petroleum supplies will be in decline. Eugene could thrive by focusing on renewable energy, local food production, and other industries that will still be able to generate jobs after we pass Peak Oil.

Mark Robinowitz is the "road scholar" for WETLANDS: West Eugene Transportation, Land and Neighborhood Design Solutions.

www.eugeneweekly.com/20140213/guest-viewpoint/grading-curve

Grading on a Curve

Enviro ‘champs’ ignoring the biggest issues

ARTICLE | FEBRUARY 13, 2014 - 12:00AM | BY MARK ROBINOWITZ

On Nov. 27, EW’s Slant profiled the “Environmental Scorecard” of the Oregon League of Conservation Voters. EW drew attention to “the relatively high scores racked up by state reps and senators in our part of the valley.” Unfortunately, OLCV was grading on a curve to make Democrats in Salem look better than they are.

One of the most important votes of the 2013 session, not included in OLCV’s scorecard, was to appropriate $450 million toward the Columbia River Crossing (CRC), a $3 billion to $4 billion dollar boondoggle that would widen I-5 to 16 lanes north of the bridge. The Oregon House voted 45-11 in favor and the Senate voted 18-11 in favor. Only two Democrats in the House and one in the Senate voted “no.”

EW highlighted Rep. John Lively’s 94 percent OLCV rating, but did not mention his vote for the CRC nor his previous promotion of bigger roads while working for ODOT.

OLCV’s website cites 10 state reps as environmental champions, but only one of those 10 voted against the CRC. Designating highway expansion supporters as “environmental leaders” suggests political partisanship has become more important than environmental protection.

The only legislator representing Lane County who was against CRC was Rep. Bruce Hanna of Roseburg, a Republican. Some Republicans expressed dislike of the token transit component. Republicans were freer than Democrats to oppose Gov. Kitzhaber’s campaign for CRC.

CRC is now bogged down in financial chaos since Washington state legislators did not appropriate anything for it. However, the project is legally approved and an Obama administration priority.

 

In November 2008, Gov. Kulongoski’s Transportation Vision Committee released a report that called for $18 billion in new and expanded state highways, including over $1 billion in Eugene and Springfield. 1000 Friends of Oregon, Oregon Environmental Council and Environment Oregon were part of this committee, but they were window dressing to show that all points of view were supposedly considered. If these groups had a minority report to dissent from the highway promotion, they kept it very quiet.

In 2013, ODOT started building two new highways: the Newberg Dundee Bypass (through farmland) and the Sunrise Freeway in Clackamas County. Both projects only have part of their funding, so ODOT is building segments and hoping for the rest of the money in the future. I attended public hearings for both of these bypasses and did not see any environmental groups at either event.

Also in 2013, ODOT approved a new freeway in Medford, the Route 62 bypass. I didn’t attend the hearing. The only environmental group that sent comments was Rogue Valley Audubon Society, which complained construction would harm birds.

Federal aid highways such as CRC have to plan for traffic two decades in the future, not current congestion. Our transportation plans ignore the fact that traffic levels peaked in Oregon in 2003 and Oregon’s main fuel source, the Alaska Pipeline, peaked in 1988 and has dropped three quarters since then. It’s anyone’s guess how much energy will be available for traffic in the 2030s, but it will be much less than the current flow, especially if the Alaska Pipeline closes due to “low flow.” Current levels are just above the minimum threshold needed for the pipeline to operate in the Arctic winter.

Here in Eugene from 1999 through 2007, I was the “road scholar” for a proposed lawsuit that prevented the West Eugene Porkway, a bypass of West 11th through the West Eugene Wetlands. WETLANDS vs. Federal Highway Administration was not filed because the feds withdrew the project and selected “no build.” Details are at SustainEugene.org.

The lawsuit focused on legal precedents, including Section 4(f), which prohibits federal aid highways through parks. But it also would have tried to have set a new precedent combining the facts of peak oil and peak traffic as reasons the 20-year planning rule no longer justifies highway expansions.

Since then, I have looked for other freeway fights around the country that could use this legal strategy to create a precedent. A state-by-state list of plans for $1 trillion of highway expansions across the country is at PeakTraffic.org.

The most energetic environmental efforts against new roads are often in places where liberal Democrats are surrounded by conservative Republicans (Bloomington, Ind., and Louisville, Ky., are examples). The professional environmentalists in these places know the state government is not their ally (nor their funder).

While trains and transit could play important roles for post-peak transportation, recognizing we’re passing the limits to growth and relocalizing food production are probably the most important responses to peaked traffic and peaked energy.

About the Author
Mark Robinowitz of Eugene is author of “Peak Traffic and Transportation Triage: a Legal Strategy to Cancel Trillion Dollar Highway Plans and Prepare for Post Peak Travel,” at PeakTraffic.org.

• 1 Comment

peakchoicedotorg • 17 minutes ago

Sent to me from "a long time environmental activist and former OLCV board member" - I sent him this op-ed and this was his reply:

I hope they print it.

OLCV continues to disappoint me. I wrote them after the special session in which local control over genetic engineering was thrown under the bus and told them they should target on a Democrat architect of that compromise for defeat in the primary, just to show that environmentalists mean business. I received no reply. That they left off the CRC from their list of counted votes doesn't surprise me in the slightest. They are an arm of the Democratic party and deathly afraid of organized labor.