Jonathan Bach

Statesman Journal

Bridge tolling is proving to be a vital part of the ongoing argument over whether the city should move forward with plans for a third traffic bridge connecting Salem's east and west sides.

The third bridge debate will reach a turning point Monday evening as city councilors vote on an agreement with the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development on the Salem River Crossing project.

Under a proposed intergovernmental agreement, the city must "include a congestion pricing analysis" as it develops a funding plan for the project.

Opponents point to tolling as one reason to reject the agreement.

"We do not want to pay hundreds of dollars a year to commute to our jobs and schools," they say in a petition submitted to councilors for Monday's meeting. "We do not want to see West Salem home values decline because people do not want to live there. We do not want regional travelers to avoid our city because of the need to pay tolls. Toll bridges in Salem would be an economic development disaster for Salem."

City staff insist approving the agreement doesn't necessarily sign Salem up for tolling, saying in a report: "The IGA (intergovernmental agreement) requires the city to analyze congestion pricing as part of the funding strategy, but this term in the IGA does not commit the city to use congestion pricing or tolling on the new bridge, nor does the IGA contemplate that either congestion pricing or tolling will be used on the existing bridges."

The intergovernmental agreement stems from the state department's decision to appeal a council move that, among other things, expanded the Salem-Keizer urban growth boundary to accommodate the potential future bridge.

The department later reversed its intent to appeal, with the agreement councilors will vote on Monday coming as a term of the department's reversal.

Opposition to the third bridge is "not just about the possibility of tolling," Jim Scheppke, a member of opposition group No 3rd Bridge, said in an email to councilors in the run-up to Monday's meeting. "There are so many reasons it’s just a bad idea, and we need to stop wasting millions on a plan that will never happen."

Council membership has changed since last year's land-use decision, too. For example, new councilor Chris Hoy, who was sworn in earlier this month, said before his election to the council that he opposed the third bridge.

Hoy said while his position on the bridge hasn't changed, "I don't believe the fate of the bridge will hinge on this vote."

Also on the agenda Monday is a public hearing for city code changes to accommodate transportation network companies such as Uber and Lyft. Councilors will vote on whether to push an ordinance bill for the changes to a second reading.

Send questions, comments or news tips to jbach @statesmanjournal.com or 503-399-6714. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanMBach.