The Bicycle Transportation Alliance finally issued an official written condemnation of the Columbia River Crossing bridge. The bike advocacy group’s initial position on Mayor Adam’s 12 lane bridge proposal was a little muddled, thanks to wishy-washy comments BTA executive director made on BikePortland.org. Taking no firm stance for or against the 12-lane commuter bridge, Bricker instead said, “It’s less about the number of lanes, per se, and more about the impact on the community.”
In an article I wrote later that week about several green groups’ lackluster response to the $4.1 billion project (“Greenwashing the Columbia“) BTA educator & advocate Michelle Poyourow clarified her influential group’s position more forcefully, saying, “Basically we’re disappointed that the city council has voted for a 12 lane bridge. We think that 12 lanes is a mistake and we think history will bear that out.”
This is a tricky political situation for Portland’s green groups, since many expected “Sustainable Sam” Adams not to get behind the widest, most car-friendly option for the bridge. When asked back in early March about whether there was division within the BTA about how to respond to the vote, Poyourow said, “No, it’s just been a really long process.”
It’s taken the BTA 26 days since council’s vote to solidify their position in print, but here it is! Key passages are: “Expanding the freeway and constructing six massive new interchanges will do tremendous damage to the bike friendliness of communities around the project.” And a shout out to unnamed local politicians (one of whom is perhaps pictured below), “Over the past 18 months, the BTA focused our advocacy efforts on the quality of the bike facility and relied on local elected officials to come up with a good plan for the entire project. They failed to do that…”
If any of Oregon’s other green advocacy groups would like to issue a press release finally stating a position on the biggest highway project ever undertaken in their state, NOW IS THE TIME. Or actually a month and a half ago was. 1000 Friends still has no position on the bridge, despite listing climate change and transportation as two of its top issues.
The only info about the CRC on Environment Oregon‘s site is this slightly illiterate paragraph:
“The proposal is to spend $4.2 billion doubling the size of the I-5 bridge between Portland and Vancouver to 12 lanes. Even if they add light rail and bike lanes, would lead to more global warming pollution, sprawling development, and traffic—according to the supporters own estimates!”
EDIT: 1000 Friends called to clarify the group’s position on the bridge. Here’s the official word: 1000 Friends previously did not take an “up or down position” on the CRC. Instead, they said selection of a bridge option should be deferred until Metro and CRC partners could provide analysis to show that the bridge plan met Oregon’s climate goals. “We were promised we would get that analysis, but we never did. Instead, we have the 12 lane proposal which we believe will increase transportation-induced global warming & that’s why we oppose it,” says Eric Stachon, 1000 Friends’ communications director.
1000 Friends submitted testimony and letters to Metro and the Portland City Council stating that the 12 lane proposal will significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions over current levels, when Oregon state policy is to reduce those emissions by about 80 percent over the next 40 years.
Thank you cyclists!
Oh what would we ever do without the wisdom of the “bike advocates” to constantly browbeat us with liberal guilt?
Improve me BTA!!! Socially engineer me into your vision of perfection! Lecture me until I’m whole!
“What’s that dear? You’re going into labor? Well hop on the bike and we’ll ride the 2 miles to the emergency room. No dear, don’t thank me for this car-free Ecotopia. Thank The Cyclists!”
It makes absolutely no sense to build a new bridge that is the same size as the current one. I think before anyone is allowed to oppose the project, they should be forced to commute from Vancouver for a month at rush hour.
And before you say that people shouldn’t be commuting from Vancouver, keep in mind that we already have more than 10% unemployment. You’d like it to be higher?
Mr Voluptuous, you raise a good point. Before anyone opposes high speed rail from Vancouver BC, they should have to commute from there too. And what about all the people that want to live on the moon because they are too fat to walk under normal gravity, like your mom? We should have NASA subsidize their commute too.
And I have a very good solution for lowering Portland’s unemployment rate: Remove the bridge completely. There are more jobs than people in Portland, so there will be plenty of jobs for people that live here and want to work here. And the people that want to live somewhere else can go find jobs somewhere else.
Matthew, I think you need to pull your head out of your ass. The reason (well, one of them) that people live in Vancouver and work in Oregon is because it costs less to live over here. That and the fact that there is less crime over here. Take out the bridge and a lot of existing jobs in Oregon would just go away. On further reflection, perhaps your remark about taking out the bridge was just being facetious. I hope.
> There are more jobs than people in Portland, so there will be plenty of jobs for people that live here and want to work here. And the people that want to live somewhere else can go find jobs somewhere else.
Thank you for demonstrating your deep understanding of economics. Obviously, we can just transfer jobs from ‘Couv residents to Portlanders! Why didn’t we think of that sooner? Damn. You should run for mayor or president or something.
We are going to spend $4,200,000,000 to move 44,000 more cars a day across that river in 2030 than we do now. Since those cars will cross twice a day, (once in each direction,) that is 22,000 people, and we can therefore calculate the cost per commuter at $190,000.
ujfoyt: “The reason that people live in Vancouver and work in Oregon is because it costs less to live over here.”
Costs less for who? Certainly not for society at large. But I can see how this math looks good for the 22,000 people that get $190,000 spent on them while the rest of us get stuck with the bill.
I guess you never cross the bridge, Matthew. Think of all the goods that are transported every day across the bridge. A lot of that ends up in Portland and the rest of Oregon. Also, a lot of the goods are exports from Oregon. Have you thought about that? However, since the commuters are going to be spending money on tolls, Oregon should quit charging them an income tax.
All the freight trucks that needs to cross the Columbia River between Oregon & Washington would fit over the bridge of the gods, we don’t need 20 lanes of interstate for that. And most of Oregon’s exports by dollars leaves via the airport. By tons, most of it moved by train or boat. As for the income tax, it pays for schools (which you get in state tuition for,) and prisons, (which would be cheaper than this bridge,) but if you mind paying it so much, maybe you should go find a job on your side of the river.
“All the freight trucks that needs to cross the Columbia River between Oregon & Washington would fit over the bridge of the gods, we don’t need 20 lanes of interstate for that.”
Either that’s a joke or you actually believe the Bridge of the Gods is literally controlled by deities.
Matthew is the problem with PDX naysayers – they do not understand the economic remifications of the the I-5 corridor as a freight corridor…please think outside of your little frame of reference and understand the PDX-Vancouver bottleneck is one of the worst in the nation…but this doesn’t concern you, as long as you can ride your bike to Whole Foods and the unemployment office….
You realize the BOTG is in Hood River County, right, which is 60 miles from the Port facilities?
Talk about costs to society…
I understand freight. I understand the reason they don’t take the bypass road, (complete with an 8 lane bridge,) just 5 miles to the east of I-5, that was build specifically for that purpose, is because I-5 is usually faster, even at rush hour.
OLCV isn’t an environmental group? See the post on BlueOregon a few weeks ago, and Coalition for a Livable Future has been working for smart alternatives for years.