I caught Commissioner Nick Fish heading into this morning’s city council session (during which the council will get an earful on the imminent eviction of Peterson’s convenience store–more on that later from Matt Davis, who’s here covering the pile of protesters, a surprising number of whom are gray-haired little old ladies). I’ve been trying to reach Fish for two days, to get his thoughts on the Columbia River Crossing before this afternoon’s 2 pm hearing and vote. (Get here early, and bring snacks, suggests city council candidate–and CRC critic–Amanda Fritz.)

He says that Commissioner Sam Adams’ op-ed in today’s Oregonian largely summed up how Fish feels about the project. That said, he was proud to say he’s met with every group critical of the project who’s requested a meeting–something he didn’t think the entire council was doing–and they raised questions for which he doesn’t have the answers. He’ll be listening carefully to today’s testimony and asking more questions before casting his vote.

Highlights from Adams’ op-ed:

We need a replacement. But it must be the right kind of new bridge. It must be a bridge Portland can be proud of in terms of design, construction, funding and operations. It must:

Reduce automobile reliance. The new crossing must permanently reduce vehicle miles traveled, which is Oregon’s primary source of greenhouse gas emissions. We need congestion-priced electronic tolling on both the new I-5 and existing I-205 bridges paired with new options such as light rail. Tolls should be collected in perpetuity, in part to help fund needed improvements south of the bridge on I-5 and I-205….

I thank the governors of Oregon and Washington, each state’s congressional delegation and local stakeholders for being responsive so far to Portland’s concerns and goals for this project. I appreciate the assurance these decision-makers have provided us that Portland’s concerns for planning the remainder of the project details will be addressed to our satisfaction.

But to avoid any surprises in the future, let me be crystal clear at this milestone: I will strongly oppose a final Columbia River Crossing project proposal that fails to address Portland’s goals. I would rather miss this round of federal funding and live with the challenges and vulnerabilities of the current bridge for the next 10 or 20 years than build a bad bridge that would punish Portland for perhaps another 100 years.

Read the rest here.

And I’m still trying to track down that ODOT letter, which reportedly landed at city hall yesterday. Adams’ staff didn’t return my calls all afternoon, and when I ran into him at the Milepost 5 panel last night, he promised to get them to me this morning…

Finally, here’s a sneak peek at the “oil derrick” that’ll be employed for this afternoon’s anti-CRC street theater, starting at 1 pm.

Oil_junkies.jpg

8 replies on “Today at City Hall: Columbia River Crossing”

  1. Fake “oil derricks” are an excellent use of resources. Let’s just hope they dismantle it and make more “tall” bikes out of it at a later date.

    For the record Absolute Horse Shit Guy thinks the big bridge IS absolute horse shit but photos like this are also an example of some serious horse shittery.

  2. I should have added the comments forwarded to me along with the photo: “Check it out, built out of all found materials to boot.”

  4. I am confused by the opposition to the bridge rebuilding. You got your silly light rail boondoggle – that way the bums up here can more easily bring our cans down there for a nickel a piece out of your beloved eco-pockets. The bridge is a interstate highway – not one of your easily renamed feel good streets. Why would you want to address sprawl in Clark County by hamstringing the west coast? Have any of you people been to Salem, McMinnville, Happy Valley? Population growth causes sprawl, not Washington. You Oregonians have always been confused by your north and south neighbors. Get a sales tax and quit smoking so much bicycle grease.

  5. They should leave the I-5 bridge alone and expand the I-205 bridge. People in Vancouver have much more of a cultural affiity with people in Gresham, Troudale, and east Portland than they do with Portland proper. They would be *welcomed* there instead of making a nuisance of themselves the way they do in Portland.

    Also, that way the interstate through traffic, noise and pollution would be routed around the city and into an area where they wouldn’t really notice it that much, given that where they live is already pretty much ruined anyway.

  6. I’m a little ignorant to the proposed plan, but will it address the six on-ramps in Oregon that dump more and more traffic onto the 2 miles of I-5 leading onto the bridge? That’s more of a congestion-maker than the bridge itself, due to all the merging.

    Also, we can’t just look at the bridge as if it’s a road between Portland and Vancouver. It is a vital interstate commerce route. Yes, commuters use it, but it has more purpose than just that.

    Again, this might show my ignorance on the issue, but has the study been done where we compare carbon emissions during gridlock vs carbon emissions during steady flow on a highway with larger capacity? My bet is that the emissions of crawling traffic is far worse than more autos traveling at regular speeds.

  7. Carl,

    It may be counterintuitive, but widening roads does not relieve congestion, it increases it. This is a well-known law of transportation planning which is backed up by over 60 years of hard data.

    Conversely, freeway collapses such as the one in NYC in 1973 and the ones in San Francisco in 1989 ended up *reducing* overall congestion.

    http://www.assmotax.org/Releases/AMCT%20release:%20building%20more%20roads%20relieves%20your%20wallet,%20not%20congestion.php

Comments are closed.