I was researching the Columbia River Crossing Project and found a great blog that provided a lot of insite for officials and newspapers.
I have pasted it below for convenience.
Newsflash: Read this story from the Oregonian about the CRC controversy.
Gentle reader, take off your kid gloves and take out your bull horn. Be not gentle any longer: It is time to get up, step out, roll on, and beat some sense back into the CRC.
For those of you who don’t live in the Portland area, the CRC, or Columbia River Crossing, is a long-gestating public works project to replace the Interstate Bridge (I-5) between Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA. It would replace the existing six lanes of draw bridges (right) with fixed span bridges carrying twelve lanes of traffic, a bike lane, pedestrian walkways, and either light rail or dedicated rapid bus lanes (below). The CRC would also replace unsafe interchanges (mostly by extending merge lanes to allow for safer merging) for a few miles on both sides of the bridge.
The project, which is estimated to cost up to $4,200,000,000, would be tolled both to support its cost and to reduce traffic congestion. While there is no fixed design for the new bridge, everyone expects it to be butt ugly. The goals of the CRC are (slightly abridged) to “a) improve travel safety and traffic operations on the Interstate 5 crossing’s bridges and associated interchanges; b) improve connectivity, reliability, travel times and operations of public transportation; c) address interstate travel and commerce needs; and d) improve the Interstate 5 river crossing’s structural integrity [read: make it earthquake proof].”
The question is, for $4.2 billion, will it accomplish these goals (especially congestion reduction), will we get our money’s worth (remember, this project is going to suck federal and state money away from other local and regional projects for years to come), how much additional traffic will it dump onto Portland’s already overtaxed infrastructure, and will it undermine Portland’s ambitious environmental sustainability goals.
Recently, there have been tremors of discontent about the project. Local economist Joe Cortwright claimed to show that building a new bridge will increase vehicle trips over the bridge and therefore will not alleviate congestion. (A local bike blog has been providing biased coverage of this issue, and wrote at length about Cortwright’s studies.) In response, the CRC released a rebuttal questioning Cortwright’s data and claiming that the combination of adding mass transit and tolls would actually reduce daily trips over the bridge.
But the best coverage of the bridge has come from Amy J. Ruiz of the Portland Mercury, who wrote a feature titled “Bridge to Disaster: A Proposed New 12-Lane Bridge over the Columbia River Will Cost $4.2 Billion, Increase Traffic, and Do Little to Alleviate Climate Change. What the Hell Are We Thinking?“ I wrote the entire long titled and made it a big, big link so you couldn’t miss it. Read. This. Article. (It’s short.)
Amy J. basically says, if tolls and transit will reduce car trips, why even build a new bridge in the first place? The CRC’s goals are good ones, but the debate seems to have become confused: the goal of the project is not to build a new bridge for its own sake, but to reduce traffic and make the bridge crossing safer. Building a new bridge may be one way to do that, but not the only way. Would expanding mass transit, rebuilding the interchanges, seismically retrofitting the extant bridge, and charging tolls to reduce traffic and pay for the project be less expensive and greener than the new-bridge plan? We don’t know. As Ruiz points out, the only study done to keep the current bridge assumed no improvements, but that is not the only option.
I don’t have any new facts for this debate, but I do really want an answer to this question, which is why I wrote the CRC, a plethora of elected officials and candidates (who I hope will push the debate as they run for office), and newspaper editors. I’m asking you to do the same. I have sample letters below, basically the letters I sent, and contact info for all these people. Please take a few minutes to write as many of them as you can and spread the word to other people who might care.
The CRC is a big project, years in the making, with a lot of steam behind it. It is a juggernaut. The option Ruiz suggested and I endorse above runs counter to a century of American transportation planning practices and everything America holds dear. So if our elected officials are going to say “we won’t spend money on a new bridge until we know there’s no better way to reduce congestion and improve safety,” they’re going to need a lot of cover from noisy, contrarian citizens.
Please be that noise, especially this election year.
NB: I have already received replies from a lot of the officials I’ve emailed about this. I’m posting their replies as comments below. Not bad timing, because many candidates for City Council had already prepared extended explanations of their position viz. the CRC for the Portland Mercury’s blog. You can read those replies on the blog, or below, where I’ve put them for your convenience. But we don’t only care what they think. It matters that they know what you think. DON’T FORGET TO WRITE THE CANDIDATES YOURSELF.
——————————————————————————-
——————————————————————————-
——————————————————————————-
People to Write & Sample Letters:
(It’s as easy as copying, pasting, and signing your name.)
Columbia River Crossing Task Force
Portland Elected Officials (City Council/City Auditor)
Select Candidates for Portland City Government (Mayor/Council)
Metro Regional Government
Local Papers (Mercury/Other)
——————————————————————————-
• Columbia River Crossing Task Force: feedback@columbiarivercrossing.org
Recent news coverage has raised my concerns about the proposed improvements to the I-5 Columbia River Crossing. Thank you for posting a detailed response on your website. However, that itself raised more questions.
The bridge replacement options generally include the following elements: a new, high-capacity bridge; improved interchanges on both sides of the bridge; mass-transit; and tolls. According to your own analysis, the combination of mass-transit and tolling the I-5 bridge will reduce cross-river trips by 15%.
The purpose of the CRC project is not to build a new bridge, but rather to make the river crossing safer and more efficient by reducing congestion and mitigating dangerous features such as short merge lanes.
It seems like one logical alternative would be to build a new span to host mass transit and bike/pedestrian facilities while simultaneously reconstructing the intersections and tolling the existing spans as called for under the replacement plans. This would be significantly less expensive than the current replacement proposals and could meet all the CRC objectives. Additionally, this could answer aesthetic objections of people who want the bridge to be a “gateway to the NW” but see no way to achieve that given the airport/shipping constraints. Building a new light/rail bridge to match the existing I-5 spans would mean three identical spans next to each other, a unique, distinctive, and, I think, visually appealing sight.
Such a scenario is far from “doing nothing,” which I know was considered as a base. But without careful study, we will never know how it compares in terms of cost and meeting CRC objectives to replacing the existing bridge.
Please let me know if there is still time to consider a proposal such as this or, if not, why it was not considered as one of the original proposals for study.
I look forward to your response.
Portland Elected Officials:
• Mayor Tom Potter: http://www.portlandonline.com/mayor/index.cfm?c=41652
• Commissioner Sam Adams: commissionersam@ci.portland.or.us
• Commissioner Randy Leonard: rleonard@ci.portland.or.us
• Commissioner Dan Saltzman: dan@ci.portland.or.us
• Commissioner Erik Sten: erik@ci.portland.or.us
Recent news coverage has raised my concerns about the proposed improvements to the I-5 Columbia River Crossing and its potential impact on Portland. I have two concerns, first, how will additional traffic generated by a new bridge impact Portland’s already-crowded streets, and second, how will the cost of the bridge impact Portland’s future transportation funding.
Economist Joe Cortwright released an analysis of the proposal for a new bridge that found that building a new 12-lane bridge will actually increase traffic and will not relieve congestion. I find this especially concerning because so many trips across the bridge are commuters traveling from Clark County to Portland. Once they cross they bridge, they must travel on city streets that are already near capacity. Can we absorb an additional six lanes worth of traffic? No.
The CRC responded to Cortwright with figures showing that the combination of extending MAX across the river and tolling the bridge would actually decrease traffic by 15 per cent. If this is the case, I question why we need to spend $4.2 billion on the project. If traffic will actually decrease, can we achieve all our objectives with a smaller, simpler, less expensive, and greener bridge? This is especially important considering our ongoing need for transportation funding. It is a reasonable assumption that this $4.2 billion project will eat away at state and federal funding for regional transportation projects for a decade or more. Can we afford to put off other necessary projects? No.
It is my understanding that the Portland City Council has the ability to veto the bridge project. I urge you to use this power as a very real bargaining chip to insist that the CRC task force study whether such a large new bridge is needed or if, with tolling and a MAX extension, we can upgrade and continue to use our existing facilities or, if not, whether a less expensive, smaller bridge will adequately meet our transportation needs. Reusing our existing bridge or building a smaller new one will not only cement our reputation as a green leader, but also save money, allowing us to complete other necessary infrastructure projects, and reduce traffic on our city streets.
Please ask these tough questions on this important issue and demand satisfactory answers before committing any additional city resources to this monstrous project.
I look forward to hearing your response.
• City Auditor Gary Blackmer: Andrew.Carlstrom@ci.portland.or.us
Recent news coverage has raised my concerns about the proposed improvements to the I-5 Columbia River Crossing and its potential impact on Portland. I have two concerns, first, how will additional traffic generated by a new bridge impact Portland’s already-crowded streets, and second, how will the cost of the bridge impact Portland’s future transportation funding. As City Auditor, you are in a unique position to make sure the Council has sufficient and accurate information before devoting any city resources to this project.
Economist Joe Cortwright released an analysis of the proposal for a new bridge that found that building a new 12-lane bridge will actually increase traffic and will not relieve congestion. I find this especially concerning because so many trips across the bridge are commuters traveling from Clark County to Portland. Once they cross they bridge, they must travel on city streets that are already near capacity.
The CRC responded to Cortwright with figures showing that the combination of extending MAX across the river and tolling the bridge would actually decrease traffic by 15 per cent. If this is the case, I question why we need to spend $4.2 billion on the project. If traffic will actually decrease, can we achieve all our objectives with a smaller, simpler, less expensive, and greener bridge? This is especially important considering our ongoing need for transportation funding. It is a reasonable assumption that this $4.2 billion project will eat away at state and federal funding for regional transportation projects for a decade or more.
There may be less expensive options that further encourage traffic reduction and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Please use your office as auditor to as tough questions, making sure that the comissioners and mayor Please ask these tough questions on this important issue and demand satisfactory answers before committing any additional city resources to this monstrous project.
I look forward to hearing your response,
Portland City Gov’t Candidates (make them talk about this issue!):
Leading Mayoral Candidates:
• Sho Dozono: shoinfo@shoformayor.com
• Sam Adams: jennifer@samforpdx.com
Recent news coverage has raised my concerns about the proposed improvements to the I-5 Columbia River Crossing and its potential impact on Portland. I have two concerns, first, how will additional traffic generated by a new bridge impact Portland’s already-crowded streets, and second, how will the cost of the bridge impact Portland’s future transportation funding. As a candidate for mayor, you are in a unique position to stimulate a discussion on this very important issue.
Economist Joe Cortwright released an analysis of the proposal for a new bridge that found that building a new 12-lane bridge will actually increase traffic and will not relieve congestion. I find this especially concerning because so many trips across the bridge are commuters traveling from Clark County to Portland. Once they cross they bridge, they must travel on city streets that are already near capacity. Can we absorb an additional six lanes worth of traffic? No.
The CRC responded to Cortwright with figures showing that the combination of extending MAX across the river and tolling the bridge would actually decrease traffic by 15 per cent. If this is the case, I question why we need to spend $4.2 billion on the project. If traffic will actually decrease, can we achieve all our objectives with a smaller, simpler, less expensive, and greener bridge? This is especially important considering our ongoing need for transportation funding. It is a reasonable assumption that this $4.2 billion project will eat away at state and federal funding for regional transportation projects for a decade or more. Can we afford to put off other necessary projects? No.
As mayor, will you lead the city to accept whatever proposal the CRC puts forth or will you demand a new study that includes less expensive, greener alternatives such as tolling the existing bridge and building a MAX extension? If a new bridge is needed, can it be smaller and less expensive? Actions such as these might reduce congestion on the bridge and in Portland’s streets while also saving taxpayer money. They will also cement our city’s reputation as a national leader in green infrastructure planning.As a mayoral candidate and as mayor, please use your position of leadership to ask tough questions on this important issue and demand satisfactory answers before committing any additional city resources to this monstrous project.
I look forward to hearing your response and to seeing you address this issue in the campaign.
Leading Council Candidates:
• John Branam: http://www.john4pdx.org/get_involved/contact_us/
• Amanda Fritz: info@AmandaFritzforCityCouncil.com
• Jeff Bissonnette: http://www.portlandersforjeff.com/index.php?option=com_contact&Itemid=3
• Chris Smith: http://www.citizensmith.us/node/57
• Jim Middaugh: jim@jimforportland.com
• Charles Lewis: info@charleslewis.com
• Nick Fish: info@nickfish2008.com
Recent news coverage has raised my concerns about the proposed improvements to the I-5 Columbia River Crossing and its potential impact on Portland. I have two concerns, first, how will additional traffic generated by a new bridge impact Portland’s already-crowded streets, and second, how will the cost of the bridge impact Portland’s future transportation funding. As a candidate for city council, you are in a unique position to stimulate a discussion on this very important issue.
Economist Joe Cortwright released an analysis of the proposal for a new bridge that found that building a new 12-lane bridge will actually increase traffic and will not relieve congestion. I find this especially concerning because so many trips across the bridge are commuters traveling from Clark County to Portland. Once they cross they bridge, they must travel on city streets that are already near capacity. Can we absorb an additional six lanes worth of traffic? No.
The CRC responded to Cortwright with figures showing that the combination of extending MAX across the river and tolling the bridge would actually decrease traffic by 15 per cent. If this is the case, I question why we need to spend $4.2 billion on the project. If traffic will actually decrease, can we achieve all our objectives with a smaller, simpler, less expensive, and greener bridge? This is especially important considering our ongoing need for transportation funding. It is a reasonable assumption that this $4.2 billion project will eat away at state and federal funding for regional transportation projects for a decade or more. Can we afford to put off other necessary projects? No.
As a city commissioner, you will be in a position to cast a vote accepting or vetoing the CRC proposal. Will you lead the city to accept whatever proposal the CRC puts forth or will you demand a new study that includes less expensive, greener alternatives such as tolling the existing bridge and building a MAX extension? If a new bridge is needed, can it be smaller and less expensive? Actions such as these might reduce congestion on the bridge and in Portland’s streets while also saving taxpayer money. They will also cement our city’s reputation as a national leader in green infrastructure planning. As a candidate and a commissioner, please use your position of leadership to ask tough questions on this important issue and demand satisfactory answers before committing any additional city resources to this monstrous project.
I look forward to hearing your response and to seeing you address this issue in the campaign.
Metro Regional Government:
• Email Metro President David Bragdon: bragdond@metro.dst.or.us
• Find out who is your Metro representative and/or email the entire Metro Council: metrocouncil@metro-region.org (If your are represented by Robert Liberty of District 6, see below)
Recent news coverage has raised my concerns about the proposed improvements to the I-5 Columbia River Crossing and its potential impact on the Metro Region. I have two concerns, first, how will additional traffic generated by a new bridge impact Portland’s already-crowded streets, and second, how will the cost of the bridge impact the Metro Region’s future transportation funding.
Economist Joe Cortwright released an analysis of the proposal for a new bridge that found that building a new 12-lane bridge will actually increase traffic and will not relieve congestion. I find this especially concerning because so many trips across the bridge are commuters traveling from Clark County to Portland. Once they cross they bridge, they must travel on city and regional streets that are already near capacity. Can we absorb an additional six lanes worth of traffic? No.
The CRC responded to Cortwright with figures showing that the combination of extending MAX across the river and tolling the bridge would actually decrease traffic by 15 per cent. If this is the case, I question why we need to spend $4.2 billion on the project. If traffic will actually decrease, can we achieve all our objectives with a smaller, simpler, less expensive, and greener bridge? This is especially important considering our ongoing need for transportation funding. It is a reasonable assumption that this $4.2 billion project will eat away at state and federal funding for regional transportation projects for a decade or more. Can we afford to put off other necessary projects? No.
It is my understanding that the Metro Council has the ability to veto the bridge project. I urge you to use this power as a very real bargaining chip to insist that the CRC task force study whether such a large new bridge is needed or if, with tolling and a MAX extension, we can upgrade and continue to use our existing facilities or, if not, whether a less expensive, smaller bridge will adequately meet our transportation needs. Reusing our existing bridge or building a smaller new one will not only cement our reputation as a green leader, but also save money, allowing us to complete other necessary infrastructure projects, and reduce traffic on our streets.
Please ask these tough questions on this important issue and demand satisfactory answers before committing any additional city resources to this monstrous project.
I look forward to hearing your response.
• Send Metro Deputy President/Region 6 Councilor Robert Liberty an email of support for being the first (and only consistent) elected representative to question the CRC: libertyr@metro.dst.or.us
I applaud you for your cautious skepticism with regard to the Columbia River Crossing Project. This juggernaut is building up too much momentum, and we need courageous representatives like yourself to slow it down until all options have been studied so that we can make a decision in the best interest of the Metro Region.
Recent news coverage has raised my concerns about the proposed improvements to the I-5 Columbia River Crossing and its potential impact on the Metro Region. I have two concerns, first, how will additional traffic generated by a new bridge impact Portland’s already-crowded streets, and second, how will the cost of the bridge impact the Metro Region’s future transportation funding.
Economist Joe Cortwright released an analysis of the proposal for a new bridge that found that building a new 12-lane bridge will actually increase traffic and will not relieve congestion. I find this especially concerning because so many trips across the bridge are commuters traveling from Clark County to Portland. Once they cross they bridge, they must travel on city and regional streets that are already near capacity. Can we absorb an additional six lanes worth of traffic? No.
The CRC responded to Cortwright with figures showing that the combination of extending MAX across the river and tolling the bridge would actually decrease traffic by 15 per cent. If this is the case, I question why we need to spend $4.2 billion on the project. If traffic will actually decrease, can we achieve all our objectives with a smaller, simpler, less expensive, and greener bridge? This is especially important considering our ongoing need for transportation funding. It is a reasonable assumption that this $4.2 billion project will eat away at state and federal funding for regional transportation projects for a decade or more. Can we afford to put off other necessary projects? No.
It is my understanding that the Metro Council has the ability to veto the bridge project. I urge you to use this power as a very real bargaining chip to insist that the CRC task force study whether such a large new bridge is needed or if, with tolling and a MAX extension, we can seismically upgrade and continue to use our existing facilities. If a new bridge truly is needed, the we need to consider whether a less expensive, smaller bridge will adequately meet our transportation needs. Reusing our existing bridge or building a smaller new one will not only cement our reputation as a green leader, and preserve this attractive gateway to the Columbia River, but also save money, allowing us to complete other necessary infrastructure projects, and reduce traffic on our streets.
Please ask these tough questions on this important issue and demand satisfactory answers before committing any additional city resources to this monstrous project.
I look forward to hearing your response.
Write letters to local papers:
• Mercury: mercuryeditorial@portlandmercury.com
Thank you for publishing Amy J. Ruiz’s article questioning the math behind the Columbia River Crossing Project. The purpose of the CRC project is to make the river crossing safer and more efficient. Building a bridge is not the goal of the project, but a way of realizing those objectives. Ruiz points out that the CRC task force did not study other options for meeting our needs that might be less expensive and better for Portland.
Spending $4.2 billion will deplete our local and regional transportation budget for years to come, making it difficult to complete other necessary projects. And let’s not forget that many of the cars that cross the bridge end up on our already-crowded streets. Will the bridge make city traffic worse? If, as the task force insists, traffic will be reduced, why do we need to double the number of lanes on the bridge?
We need the CRC task force and local and regional governments to make sure we get our money’s worth on this project. Please, call city, county, and Metro elected officials and insist they get the straight story on all the options before this bridge is built.
• WW: mzusman@wweek.com
• The Big O: letters@news.oregonian.com
• The Trib: http://www.portlandtribune.com/forms/letters_form.php
Local governments are contemplating investing billions of dollars on the Columbia River Crossing bridge project without a clear idea of the consequences. Will the bridge, as economist Joe Cortwright predicts, encourage more cars to flood across the river and onto Portland’s inadequate streets? Does the CRC task force have it right, that traffic will decrease? And in either case, does the bridge project make any sense?
Spending $4.2 billion will deplete our local and regional transportation budget for years to come, making it difficult to meet other transportation needs. The purpose of the CRC project is to make the river crossing safer and more efficient. Building a bridge is not the goal of the project, but a way of realizing those objectives.
It is beginning to look like the CRC task force is hiding the true cost of the project and sweeping less expensive alternatives, such as tolling the current bridge and extending MAX, or building a reasonably-sized new bridge, under the rug.
Taxpayers depend not only on their elected officials, but also on the news media to lift up that rug and bring the truth to light. I urge you to investigate the CRC task force’s and critics’ claims so we can make an informed decision on this issue of regional importance.
1.
jleiss March 23, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Below are responses from the officials I emailed. You can read them and see where they stand. The best so far are city-council-candidate Amanda Fritz, who has a history of questioning the project and insisting that citizens be heard in the planning, and Chris Smith. (I wish they were running in different races - they’d both be great commissioners, but they are both running for Sam Adams’ seat. In fact, all City Council candidates are running for that seat unless otherwise noted.) Mayor Tom Potter and incumbent City Commissioner Randy Leonard get frowny points for the least responsive replies. Remember, read on if you want, but still use the links and sample letters above to write these people!
2.
jleiss March 23, 2008 at 7:37 pm
City Council candidate Amanda Fritz says…
Good morning, Jonathan. Thank you for contacting me with concerns I share about the Columbia River Crossing project. I have already acted to improve the decision-making process on this issue. Please see my response this past week on the Mercury’s blog, The Portland Mercury Blogtown, PDX Meet the Contenders: Race for Commissioner Seat #1.
I am a board member for the Coalition for a Livable Future. I believe without CLF’s advocacy on the Task Force and in the community, this project would be sailing through without proper review by Portlanders. I have been covering this issue on my blog since I started it at the beginning of 2007 - see Columbia River Crossing bridge Amanda Fritz’s blog. I pushed for hearings at the Portland Planning Commission and City Council. I am the only candidate who has testified to Council in a public hearing on this matter - see Feels like the tram Amanda Fritz for City Council.
Lots of links, included to demonstrate I am not jumping onto this issue late in the process. I hope you will support me in my quest to be elected, so that you will know someone on the Council shares your concerns. Please visit my campaign web site, sign up as a supporter, and volunteer to help me if you like what you see.
Sincerely,
Amanda
Amanda Fritz, RN, MA
http://amandafritzforcitycouncil.com/
3.
jleiss March 23, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Self-styled “Citizen Chris Smith,” running for City Council, sent the following note with a link to his reply to the Mercury. While you can follow his link, I’ve also copied his reply from the Mercury and pasted it below:
Jonathan,
I’m on the same wavelength - please see my comments on this week’s Portland Mercury blog: http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/2008/03/meet_the_contenders_race_for_c_26.php
We shouldn’t build a crossing that doesn’t reduce greenhouse gases. And there are a lot of other more beneficial projects we could apply the local match to!
Chris
P.S. Can we add you to the e-mail list for the campaign?
————————————————-
The Portland Transport blog that I publish on regional transportation policy has been one of the major venues for skeptical discussion of the Columbia River Crossing project. I would invite interested readers to check out almost three years of discussion at: http://portlandtransport.com/archives/projects/columbia_crossing/
This project attempts to address a number of issues: freight access in an important corridor, high capacity transit across the Columbia, traffic safety, maintenance of 50/100 year old bridges, among others. All of these are valid goals, but we have to ask how this fits into the big picture. I have two key questions in this regard:
1) How does this project fit in the larger picture of Portland’s goals to get out in front of Peak Oil and Global Warming?
2) What is the opportunity cost of this project? Are there other ways to invest $4B+ that would have better returns for the community? What are the cost/benefit trade-offs for this project?
Recently three people that I greatly respect: Oregon Transportation Commission Chair Gail Achterman, Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder and TriMet General Manager Fred Hansen attempted to address the first question and essentially said “in the big picture this doesn’t increase greenhouse gas production very much” (I’m paraphrasing)
Well, that may be true (depending on how flexible your definition of “very much” is), but in the big picture we’re failing to address greenhouse gases in an effective way and this goes in the wrong direction. I’m imagining this question from my grandchildren in 30 years:
“You spent $4B, the largest public works project in Oregon history, on something that didn’t REDUCE greenhouse gases?!!”
If we’re going to make an investment this large, it MUST move us in the direction of sustainability. Even being “mostly neutral” is not acceptable!
To the second question, local economist Joe Cortright has raised serious questions about whether this project returns as much to the economy as it costs (and it costs about $2,000 for every man, woman and child in the region). And one-fourth to one-third of the project costs will likely come from local sources, reducing funding for other much-needed transportation projects throughout the region.
I believe there are a series of smaller, incremental steps that could better and more cost-effectively address the real needs. Key initiatives would include:
- Build a Light Rail and bicycle and pedestrian bridge parallel to the existing bridges to create real choices for how we cross the Columbia
- Toll the existing bridges to manage demand, increase sustainability, and prioritize freight traffic
- Use the toll revenue to fund seismic and safety upgrades to the existing bridges
Coupled with smart investments of the local funds that would be saved by avoiding this mega-project, we can improve the transportation system for the whole region and keep on a path toward greater sustainability.
A $4.2 Billion, 12-lane mega-bridge would be a 180-degree-turn from decades of smart transportation planning in Portland. As Commissioner I’ll lead the effort to insist that we evaluate alternative options that improve our region’s sustainability.
4.
jleiss March 23, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Mayor Tom Potter says…
Dear Mr. Leiss:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the Columbia River Crossing. We will certainly take citizen input under consideration when the locally preferred option is heard before City Council, at a date yet to be determined. When that hearing is scheduled, I encourage you to offer testimony at that time. You can also find other venues to participate and make your voice heard at: http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/.
Thank you, again, for emailing.
Sincerely,
Tom Potter
Mayor
5.
jleiss March 23, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Commissioner Randy Leonard says…
Thank you, Jonathan. I am cc’ing Commissioner Adams, the commisioner in
charge of this project, for a response to your concerns.
Thanks for writing….Randy
6.
jleiss March 23, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Sam Adams’s mayoral campaign says… (nb: I sent a separate message to his city office. I will post his office’s reply when I receive it.)
Thank you, Jonathan,
Actually, Sam just sent an answer to this question via the Portland Mercury, it should be posted shortly. Here is a little preview of his thoughts and I hope it helps clarify Sam’s position for you. At this point, he wants to make sure we are laying out the right guideposts for what good decision making on this issue looks like. - Jennifer
Our region is poised to consider what to do about the Columbia River Crossing—and we’re faced with an option that costs roughly $4.2 billion dollars, and possibly doubles the size of the bridge over the Columbia River. In your opinion, does the staff-recommended option—a 10 to 12 lane bridge, plus light rail transit, tolls, and improved pedestrian and bike crossing—meet Portland’s goals and needs? What would you advocate for as the optimal plan for the crossing, and how would you ensure that Portland’s needs and goals aren’t lost in a massive regional, bi-state project?
This project has been contemplated for many years. It is finally at a good point for Portland and its neighboring communities to take a hard look and scrutinize it against our values and our aspirations. At my urging city council began the process of doing just that last Monday, March 17. (The Planning and Sustainable Development Commissions will also review the proposal, and I look forward to their findings.)
It’s important to put this proposal in proper context. Much more than an effort to improve the functionally obsolete bridge we cross today, this is a decision about how the entire region lives, works, and grows—and how we intend to do for many decades to come. Here’s why:
* We are a region in flux. In Portland we have made 30 years of conscious and sustained efforts to begin weaning ourselves from exclusive reliance on the private automobile for daily trips. North of the river in Vancouver and greater Clark County, near-exclusive reliance on the private automobile remains the norm. While both sides of the river share much in common, our transportation and land use intentions are very different. Meanwhile we’re expecting 1 million more residents in the next 25 years.
The challenge for this project, of course, is to reconcile these differences in light of the anticipated growth. I believe the 12-lane staff recommendation fails to accomplish that. With due respect to our neighbors and friends north of the river, exclusive reliance on the private automobile simply cannot be sustained in the 21st century. Change, however challenging to embrace, is necessary. Consider this:
* Portland, we’re told, leads the nation’s major cities in many aspects of transportation options. We make 1% of all our trips on foot, 4% on bike, and 15% by transit. That means 8 of every 10 trips we make in Portland are made by car. In the age of rising gas prices, peak oil, and global warming it’s clear we have a long way to go. Vancouver and Clark County aren’t immune to these challenges and they even further to go.
The CRC staff proposal doesn’t do enough to address this. Light rail, improved bike, pedestrian, and freight improvements are good, but they’re the beginning not the end. We know we need more and decisions related to this bridge force us to have that difficult conversation.
How we pay for the bridge, in particular, deserves great scrutiny. The model currently in mind envisions wholesale change to how we fund transportation today. First, it assumes tolls even though the citizens that would pay them haven’t been asked yet for formal input. Second, it assumes a dramatic influx of federal dollars—about $500 million—which is much more than we’ve ever seen for one project. Finally, it contemplates a $1 billion contribution from the two states with no identified source for those funds. In Oregon the likely source would be a gas tax increase, which hasn’t seen legislative support in 15 years.
Some bottom lines for me include considerations for:
* including transportation management districts
* establishing tolls should involve input from the people and should include I5 and I205
* light rail serving to connect Clark County to Portland should be part of this
* light rail serving as safety improvement and accessibility improvement to Hayden Island should be part of this
* building the most sustainable, green bridge in America that deals with reducing pollution and greenhouse gases, and dealing with stormwater in an environmentally responsible way.
The good news is CRC staff has done a lot of hard work to gather transportation data and make projections about travel behavior. Elected officials and stakeholders need to use that as a foundation for a broader conversation with their communities about our collective regional future, and how we meet the environmental and other challenges we know we need to address.
-Sam
7.
jleiss March 23, 2008 at 7:46 pm
City Council Candidate John Branam got my name wrong. He also said…
John,
Thanks for your email. Just a few days before you sent me this I responded to effectively the same question posed. I hope my response gives you a clear sense of where I stand on this issue.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts.
Best,
John
My Response:
What we decide to do as a region, regarding the Columbia River Crossing (CRC), will have a dramatic impact on our region for generations to come. How we spend our money; the degree to which we challenge ourselves to mirror our values in our regional spending; and the process by which we make our decision also speaks volumes about who we are, and who we want to be, as a community.
As a Portlander and having grown up here in Oregon, I’m passionate about reducing my carbon footprint. As a practical matter I also believe goods and services, as well as cars and people, must be able to move across the Columbia. This movement is an essential component of both a healthy economy (including jobs that pay fair, livable wages) and our ability to live reasonably comfortable lives.
As these two perspectives intersect, I find myself believing that we must work diligently to solve the congestion of the I5 crossing, but also that the $4.2 billion dollar proposal is likely not the right solution to meeting Portland’s goals and needs. Fundamentally, the solution we adopt must ensure freight and public transportation becomes more fluid, but that our reliance on SOVs (single occupancy vehicles) is reduced.
Among other specific ideas, I believe strongly that the following three elements must be part of the answer to the CRC if we’re to genuinely honor our regional values, and our commitment to reducing our carbon footprint.
First, I believe we should add tolls to discourage driving SOVs, and in particular, discouraging doing so during peak usage times. Not only will this assist us in raising revenue by taxing those who use the bridge the most, but it will also serve as one mechanism for encouraging car-pooling and public transportation use.
Second, the crossing must include light rail and ample bike/ walk space that connects to user-friendly paths on both sides of the river. This, I believe, is the crossing’s most crucial element. Ample studies show that this piece, not adding more lanes, will significantly reduce traffic congestion. (And as we advance this idea I think we must examine whether, after building such a crossing, we would even need a new bridge for vehicles.)
Third, we must re-designate a lane for carpooling, public transport and freight to help increase, in particular, freight fluidity.
In terms of ensuring these values won’t be hijacked in the process, I believe the answer is to have firm leadership that is as unified as possible, but that negotiates in a way that is respectful, genuine, and collaborative.
Together, as a region, we will solve this challenge, but let’s do it in a way that honors our commitment to reducing our reliance on vehicles while also promoting our commitment to reducing our carbon footprint.
8.
jleiss March 23, 2008 at 7:55 pm
City Council Candidate Jeff Bissonnette says…
Jonathan:
Thanks for your e-mail. As luck would have it, the Columbia River Crossing was the subject of the Question of the Week put out by the Portland Mercury. The response that I wrote is below. Please let me know what you think.
Thanks again.
Jeff
———————————————
Back in November 2007, the staff and consultants made a recommendation to the Columbia River Crossing Task Force for a completely new bridge span to replace the Interstate Bridge . The new bridge is projected to be a twelve-lane span with either light rail or rapid bus transit capacity along with improved pedestrian and bicycle access.
A complete bridge replacement is the most ambitious, and expensive, option among the current project alternatives. While this project is not on my list of top priorities, I do not believe the current “no build” option will be adopted so it is our responsibility to fashion a plan that fits with the overall strategies to address global warming and better transportation for the residents of our region. I question the number of lanes in the current recommendation (an increase from the current six lanes to twelve seems excessive to me) and I am not convinced the expense of a totally new bridge is worth it at this point, although maintenance costs over the long term are projected to be lower than with other options.
While I am still studying the issue, I initially lean toward the project alternative that calls for a supplemental bridge built directly downstream (west) of the current bridge that would have a four-lane capacity and light rail included. The current bridge pair would be re-striped to four lanes and have capacity for improved pedestrian and bicycle access. It would also be seismically upgraded. I am more comfortable with this approach because:
* it calls for increasing the number of overall lanes from six to eight lanes;
* it appears as though it can be done at a somewhat lower cost;
* it focuses on light rail (rather than rapid bus transit, which would be more expensive than light rail);
* it seeks to improves bike and pedestrian usage; and
* it gets several more years of life out of the current dual-bridge span.
I am completely opposed to a project that does not include light rail as a transportation option across the river.
As I said, I am still studying the issue. There are several questions that I am trying to answer for myself about the project before I take a firm position on it. They include:
* what is the actual remaining potential life of the current dual-bridge span? I’ve seen several conflicting reports about the bridges’ viability over the long term and I’d like more clarity on that point.
* what is the actual effect on traffic flow? Are we simply moving traffic gridlock a few miles north and south from where it is occurring today or are we actually fixing the gridlock problem with a new bridge configuration?
* will the project improve the air quality in North and Northeast Portland?
* what is the effect of new configurations on the roads and streets adjacent to the bridge and any new interchanges?
* will a reconfiguration of the current bridge pair with better pedestrian and bicycle access actually make it more pleasant to walk or bike across the river?
* is there public support for instituting tolling as a way of partially paying for the project and can that tolling be implemented as “congestion pricing” so that more is paid when using the bridge at high traffic times (ie - during rush hour) and less at low traffic times (ie - at night).
* what effect will the project have on the businesses located in Jantzen Beach?
* how does this project fit with the greater regional transportation plan that seeks 1) to rely less on forcing people to use cars to get around and 2) to reduce our overall carbon footprint?
There are other questions but those are the key points I am considering. Lastly, while this is a very important project that we must develop thoughtfully, it is only one piece of a much larger picture. As my last question suggests, the project needs to be evaluated in that larger context. You can read more about the project for yourself at http://www.blogger.com/www.columbiarivercrossing.org/ and let me know what you think by writing info@portlandersforjeff.com.
9.
jleiss March 23, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Jim Middaugh, who is running in the special election to fill Erik Sten’s seat, replied with the following. If Nick Fish responds, I will post his reply right away.
Hi Jonathan,
You are correct to be asking hard questions. Here’s a post I put up on the Portland Mercury site earlier this week (note, my main opponent, Nick Fish, did not respond to the question):
—–
Our region is poised to consider what to do about the Columbia River Crossing-and we’re faced with an option that costs roughly $4.2 billion dollars, and possibly doubles the size of the bridge over the Columbia River. In your opinion, does the staff-recommended option-a 10 to 12 lane bridge, plus light rail transit, tolls, and improved pedestrian and bike crossing-meet Portland’s goals and needs? What would you advocate for as the optimal plan for the crossing, and how would you ensure that Portland’s needs and goals aren’t lost in a massive regional, bi-state project?
Staff Recommended Option
The existing bridge is old. It’s the only lift span on I-5. It’s not safe. And, the current and future constraints on freight movement cost our region jobs. The bridge is one of the most congested bottlenecks on the entire I-5 system from Mexico to Canada. It was designed in 1907 for horses and carriages; it’s on 60 foot timber pilings in the sand; and has the highest crash rates in either state for I-5.
That said, the likely staff recommendation currently is insufficient when it comes to meeting Portland’s needs. I understand that the CRC is a bi-state project that must provide benefits to both Washington and Oregon and Vancouver and Portland. In my opinion, the balance tips too far toward Washington and Vancouver in what is likely to be the preferred alternative (although we don’t know for sure what will be recommended).
Specifically, the likely preferred option scores points for Portland on light rail (assuming that’s what we’ll get), bike and pedestrian facilities but it falls short on the finance plan, the number of “alternate” lanes that provide on ramps and exits for short trips, the scale and cost of the on and off ramps in Vancouver (in my opinion they’re overbuilt) and the lack of grounding in a serious and compact growth plan for Clark County.
Finally, the projected cost of the bridge for Oregon is way too high compared with the benefits the staff says it will provide, particularly given the massive uncertainties surrounding global warming and peak oil.
Optimal Crossing
I don’t know what the optimal crossing would be at this time. I believe we need to begin implementing demand management now - i.e. tolling and congestion pricing - to see how traffic responds. My gut says we can do better than the staff estimates at reducing and spreading demand throughout the day using tolls and other techniques. If that’s the case, we can reduce the cost and scale of the project (Please note that I also believe we need mechanisms that ensure equity for low income people who must drive).
I believe light rail must be the transit option and that light rail must serve Hayden Island. As I mentioned above, it appears to me that the Vancouver on and off ramps are overbuilt and overpriced - Vancouver doesn’t need that much capacity. We also need to take a hard look at reducing the number of auxiliary lanes on the crossing. And most importantly, we need a stronger commitment from Vancouver and Clark County that they will limit sprawl and focus instead on dense, compact development in downtown Vancouver that will give people options other than driving.
Portland’s Needs and Goals
It’s impossible to think of Portland alone. Vancouver and Clark County are part of our Metro region whether we like it or not. The best way to protect Portland is to focus hard on creating a balance of jobs and housing on each side of the river so people don’t need to drive. The second best way to meet Portland’s needs and goals is to ensure that Washingtonians - who create most of the traffic - pay their fair share of the costs. And, the third way to protect Portland is to ensure that the traffic, environmental and growth effects that will be created by the project — no matter what its scale and scope — are minimized and fully mitigated. Finally, whatever is built has to be a lot better looking than the monstrosity we have seen in the papers.
10.
jleiss March 24, 2008 at 9:05 am
Charles Lewis, candidate for City Council, says…
Mr. Leiss,
Thank you for your message – I agree with you wholeheartedly concerning the need for green alternatives. I do believe that we need a new bridge – having a draw bridge on a freeway was a terrible idea to begin with – but we need to demand green alternatives that will help reduce traffic congestion and green house emissions. In addition, I’m concerned that just fixing a bottleneck in one area will move that bottleneck to another area. We need a comprehensive approach that really values light rail and alternative modes of transportation – something that I will be pushing for when I’m on city council.
Please continue to let me know about your concerns. I definitely appreciate your input.
Take care,
Charles
11.
John Reinhold March 26, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Bumper sticker politics.
No CRC
12.
jleiss April 3, 2008 at 6:52 pm
The CRC Task Force said (in response to a slightly different letter than the one I suggest here):
Dear Mr. Leiss:
Thank you for contacting the Columbia River Crossing project with your question regarding proposed bridge options.
Your suggestion to build a similar lift-span bridge next to the existing I-5 bridges dedicated to high capacity transit and bike and foot traffic was considered by the project in the spring of 2006. Several reasons led to the decision to drop this proposal from further consideration:
Vehicle safety: Bridge lifts contribute to a high collision rate. Crashes occur three to four times more often during a bridge lift as I-5 traffic unexpectedly comes to a stop. There are outdated design features associated with the freeway to bridge connection that could not be fixed by interchange and ramp adjustments. These outdated design features have a strong correlation with increased crashes. Improving safety is one of the primary goals of this project.
Marine safety: This area of the Columbia River is already difficult for barges to navigate especially during periods of high water flow. Another bridge similar to the existing bridges would add more piers in the water, which increases the navigation complexity. In addition, the existing bridges need to be upgraded to meet current seismic standards if they remain in use. The upgrades would require the piers to be reinforced with a concrete encasement. Pier encasements would increase the diameter of each pier by 10 to 40 feet, which would reduce the space between piers for marine traffic. When traveling downstream, barge captains attempt to avoid calling for a bridge lift by traveling under the high portion of the Interstate Bridge and then turning to the right to access the lift span on the railroad bridge. An additional bridge combined with the seismic upgrades on the existing bridges would make this maneuver more difficult and, as a result, would lead to more bridge lifts. Improving safety and congestion are the primary goals of this project.
Traffic flow: Bridge lifts cause traffic jams. It can take up to an hour to restore traffic to pre-lift conditions following a bridge lift. Reducing congestion is a primary goal of this project.
Transit reliability: The presence of a bridge lift introduces schedule unreliability into the proposed high capacity transit system. If light rail is chosen, the entire MAX system would be affected by the traffic stop associated with bridge lifts. An unreliable transit system does not encourage ridership. Increasing transit ridership and improving transit reliability are primary goals of this project.
The project is studying the following five build alternatives to determine how well each relieves congestion and improves the safety and mobility problems defined for I-5:
No build
Replacement bridge with bus rapid transit
Replacement bridge with light rail
Supplemental bridge with bus rapid transit
Supplemental bridge with light rail
The supplemental bridge being studied is different than the proposal you suggest because it would be built high enough to accommodate marine traffic, thus reducing the need for bridge lifts, and would carry southbound vehicle traffic and high capacity transit.
A thorough analysis of each alternative under consideration will be summarized and documented in the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as required by federal law. The Draft EIS will include an explanation of the potential community and environmental effects of the alternatives. The Draft EIS will be published this spring and will be followed by a 60-day public comment period. Project sponsors are expected to take formal action to adopt a Locally Preferred Alternative in summer 2008, after reviewing Draft EIS findings and public comments. The Locally Preferred Alternative will focus on three decisions: bridge type (replacement or supplemental), transit mode (bus rapid transit or light rail) and transit alignment.
I encourage you to sign up for the project’s monthly email to be kept informed about new developments and the release of the DEIS at http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/GetInvolved/SignUp.aspx.
Thank you for your interest in the Columbia River Crossing project.
Sincerely,
Anne Pressentin
Columbia River Crossing
Communications and Public Outreach
I replied:
Dear Ms. Pressentin,
Thank you for your thorough reply to my email. I appreciate your responsiveness to my concerns. I do still have one question: you responded to my suggestion about the additional lift bridge, and I now appreciate the additional complications such a scenario would pose for all involved. When studying effects on traffic safety, congestion, and flow, how come there is no build alternative that studies an alternative bridge for mass transit only, possible interchange adjustments, and tolling? Would this achieve the 15% traffic reduction the CRC projected, and would this meet the CRC’s goals?
Sincerely,
Jonathan Leiss
I have not yet received a response from the CRC. When/if I do, I will post it here.
13.
jleiss April 4, 2008 at 5:48 pm
The Portland Tribune ran this letter as the lead letter in the April 4 issue. You can read it by clicking on the link below, but mostly just keep writing and spreading the word.
- Jonathan
http://portlandtribune.com/opinion/story.php?story_id=120724833812135400
14.
jleiss April 15, 2008 at 2:00 pm
The CRC’s second response:
Dear Mr. Leiss,
Thank you for again contacting the Columbia River Crossing project with your clarifying question regarding a supplemental bridge for mass transit.
The CRC project is a three-part project focusing on bridge, transit and highway improvements to address six problems along I-5 including safety, congestion, freight mobility and travel options. The projected 15 percent reduction in vehicles crossing the bridge comes from the project’s integrated solutions of tolling, bridge improvements and high capacity transit. The project also aims to lower safety risks on the bridge by adding shoulders and auxiliary lanes for safer lane changes and movements to and from interchanges near the bridge.
The proposal to implement bridge tolls and build a high capacity transit bridge without completing the bridge and highway elements would not meet the project goals for reduced congestion, improved mobility for transit and freight and enhanced safety conditions on the I-5 bridge.
Thank you for your continuing interest in the Columbia River Crossing project.
Sincerely,
Anne Pressentin
Columbia River Crossing
Communications and Public Outreach
15.
jleiss April 29, 2008 at 9:58 am
Yet MORE from the CRC:
Dear Mr. Leiss:
I am writing to provide a correction to the response I sent you on April 15. I have since received further clarification on information we discussed.
In your previous email you asked about the 15 percent vehicle reduction projected by the Columbia River Crossing project. I am assuming that you got this figure from the memo posted on our website from CRC staff to CRC project directors, Doug Ficco and John Osborn. The memo says:
“The CRC project is proposing provision of tolls. Compared to a non-tolling scenario, tolling the I-5 bridge would reduce daily vehicle-trips crossing the Columbia River on I-5 by 15 percent.”
The 15 percent reduction is a projection for a scenario that only included tolling the I-5 bridge. This projection didn’t take into account the project’s other two integrated solutions of bridge improvements and high capacity transit. A tolling-only scenario is not one under consideration by CRC because it would not meet the goals established by project sponsors to address highway safety problems, upgrade bicycle and pedestrian access, increase freight mobility and provide travel options.
I hope this provides clarification on this projection. Thank you for your interest in the Columbia River Crossing project.
Sincerely,
Anne Pressentin
Columbia River Crossing
Communications and Public Outreach
16.
m.t.hand July 6, 2008 at 11:39 am
Here’s my take on the CRC: http://unconventionalfolly.blogspot.com/
Basically, we do need to upgrade a bridge. Unfortunately, not that bridge, but the one a mile downriver that the trains go across.
17.
Heather Spalding July 9, 2008 at 8:24 am
The Associated Students of Portland State University voted yesterday to oppose the expansion of the I-5 bridge until further research and public opinion is considered. The vote showed 13 opposed and 1 for the expansion. We represent 25,000 students, and PSU is the number one destination on Tri-Met. We will be at the City Hall today to express our opinions about this project.
Senate Vice President
Assistant to PSU Sustainability Coordinator
Environmental Club President