Building a bridge to the past?
February 26, 2008
STEVE DUIN
The Oregonian
Apparently, I need a little help with the math on the Columbia River Crossing:
The $4 billion bridge will shave 10 minutes off the commute to Clark County . . . and add 20 years to that fabled effort to dramatically reduce greenhouse gases in Oregon and Washington?
Those 10-12 lanes at the state line will funnel into four lanes at the Rose Garden . . . and still reduce the legendary I-5 bottleneck?
And if, indeed, a feasible funding model for the bridge is one-third federal dollars, one-third tolls and one-third state and local financing -- as John Osborn, the Oregon Department of Transportation project director suggests -- lend an ear to Robert Liberty:
"If the local cost is split equally between Oregon and Washington," the Metro councilor said, "that works out to a 6-cent gas tax in our region for 20 years. For this one project."
Osborn said he would "robustly" challenge Liberty's math, but he concedes the financial numbers are hard to pin down at this point. The federal support is up in the air. Folks in Oregon are looking at different ways to fund transportation planning (now, there's a shock).
All the more reason, Liberty said, to rethink the bridge project: "There is no financing plan. How we can reach a decision to go ahead makes no sense to me. But it seems to be standard practice."
Reasonable people, it seems, can disagree on the essential arithmetic of the $4 billion Columbia River Crossing. Osborn contends that the new light-rail line into Vancouver and tolls on the bridge will actually reduce the number of cars sulking at the abysmal I-5/I-84 interchange.
"That still needs to be proven," said Metro Council President David Bragdon. "You have to start with the supposition that adding a lot of unregulated road capacity will induce new driving. Are there sufficient mitigating factors -- tolls, alternatives (light rail), limits to that capacity -- that will make this a neutral deal?"
Neutral? When the state of Oregon claims we are duty-bound to reduce greenhouse gases 75 percent from 1990 levels by 2050, who says we can still afford "neutral"? And how is it possible to claim those goals and support a bridge project that will -- let's stop kidding one another -- encourage auto commuting between the city and Clark County?
Liberty and transportation activist Chris Smith argue it isn't possible. "This isn't a gateway to sustainability," Liberty said, "it's a gateway to Los Angeles. We're building a bridge to the past: 1960."
"You have a bridge that is unsafe and seismically unsound," said Smith, who is running for a seat on the Portland City Council, "but I don't know the answer is to build something that encourages more commuting from Clark County."
Particularly when that county has a much more leisurely philosophy about taxes, land use and sprawl. "If I had $4 billion to invest," Smith said, "I might put it into affordable housing in Portland, not economic development in Vancouver."
Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder reminds us the interstate bridges "were designed for Model Ts and streetcars. They're dangerous. They need to be replaced. What, then, is the responsible thing to do?"
For some, light rail, tolls and bike lanes fit the $4 billion bill, managing the traffic in a way, Bragdon said, that prevents "100,000 people thinking they can live in Battle Ground or Wilsonville."
But I tend to think the Columbia River Crossing may end up a monument to just how paralyzingly difficult it is for us to come to terms with the transportation choices before us, and the need to create cities where people aren't compelled to drive until the last drop of gasoline is gone.
Steve Duin: 503-221-8597; 1320 S.W. Broadway, Portland, OR 97201 steveduin@news.oregonian.com http://blog.oregonlive.com/steveduin
Link to the article
-
