LAST THURSDAY, January 29, Mayor Sam Adams delayed a planned
city council recommendation on the number of lanes for the
controversial Columbia River Crossing (CRC) project by a month, in a
bid to secure consensus before Portland speaks out.
But Adams is stuck between a rock and a hard place on the
project—trying to uphold his sustainability credentials with
environmentally active Portlanders while negotiating the $4 billion
project with the City of Vancouver and statewide business leaders, who
are pushing for the highest number of possible lanes for the project: a
dozen.
“It seems pretty clear Adams is trying to get agreement on both
sides of the river so we don’t have disagreement on the project
advisory council that would make it very difficult to get funding for
the bridge,” says transportation activist and former city council
candidate Chris Smith.
Adams began the council session on an optimistic note, hoping that
council could “come up with a concept for the CRC that we can all agree
on.”
Nevertheless, consensus was hard to come by. Seventy-five people
signed up to testify on the project, and opinions varied strongly.
Supporters of a 12-lane option with light rail, bike lanes, and
possibly tolling, argued that 12 lanes would reduce traffic, greenhouse
gas emissions, and even vehicle miles traveled, citing projected usage
studies done by the CRC team and Portland’s Metro Council. They
described the 12-lane option as “forward thinking,” but also as “green”
and “sustainable.”
Twelve-lane supporters included representatives from the City of
Vancouver, residents of Jantzen Beach and people living on Hayden
Island who want to get to the hospital on time if they ever suffer from
heart attacks —or in Vancouver resident Jodi Parker’s case, if
their daughter ever goes into labor again. Parker almost missed the
birth of her grandchild, thanks to traffic on the bridge.
The Oregon chapter of the American Federation of Labor and Congress
of Industrial Organizations, the Portland Business Alliance, and the
Oregon Business Association all spoke up in support of 12 lanes, not to
mention the Port of Vancouver.
Conversely, opponents of the bridge’s expansion labeled the
so-called “sustainability” research as flawed, and expressed concerns
about how the bill for the bridge will be paid.
“I’ve had to sit here all afternoon and listen to this bridge
described as ‘green’ and ‘sustainable,’ but it’s rhetoric,” said Tom
Buchele, a lawyer from the Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center,
representing the Coalition for a Livable Future, which opposes the
proposed bridge.
“The choice is between a 12-lane concrete monument to everything
that was wrong with mid-20th century transportation planning,” Buchele
continued, “and something much smaller that is truly consistent with
Portland’s values.”
“I don’t think we can pay for it,” said Zipcar General Manager Bill
Scott, adding that as more people give up their cars, “I’m not sure
you’re going to have the need for this capacity when the bridge is
built, and I’d urge you to look at tolling alternatives in the short
term.”
Meanwhile, Anthony Gomez, an activist from Rising Tide, said that
any addition of lanes would “take jobs from low-income people here in
Portland who really need them,” and be potentially “racist and
classist.”
Mayor Adams has delayed the lane decision because he wants to hear
more about tolling options as well as lanes at a meeting of the CRC
sponsors council on Friday, February 6, says Catherine Ciarlo,
transportation director in Adams’ office.
“I don’t think there’s a settled opinion on this side of the river
as to whether 10 or 12 lanes would accomplish our sustainability goals
better,” Ciarlo adds.
Asked whether Adams might stand up to the 12-lane supporters, and
push for a controversial 10-lane option, based on sustainability
arguments, Ciarlo pointed out Adams’ commitment in his 100-day plan to
working toward a design for the bridge “that adequately protects the
city’s interests.”
“Tolling is a key part of that question,” Ciarlo adds.
If you want to have quick access to a city and its services, then live in that city, not on a little island to the north. Dumbasses.
Vancouver should be paying for most, if not all of the money for this bridge. It’s their irresponsible growth (and those who have moved there) that have gotten us into this mess. They are the ones who will truly “gain” by the construction of the bridge.
I agree with Will above, and not to be “statist”, but pay attention to the license plates of drivers in PDX…I’ve noticed 9 out of 10 cars that do something dangerous are from our Northern Neighbors.
Hayden Island may be a little island to the North, but it is still in Portland. Dumbass. However, I do agree that people who want to work in Portland, and who take advantage of Oregon’s lack of a sales tax, should live here too. Build 12 lanes and charge a toll (during peak hours only) to pay for it.
The sales tax plays both sides. Washington is running a multi-billion dollar deficit and so is Portland. Less people are working, there are less jobs, less people are driving, and people are spending less. SO tell me again why this bridge is needed? Out of a 24 hour day, only 4 hours max,is there heavy traffic(rush hours). This bridge is not necessary at all and I won’t be paying for it. If Portland wants to raise employment taxes (already at 10%, some of the highest in the nation) then they will see business leave, more for lease signs, and more people wanting entitlements which they cannot already fund. This is complete stupidity. And there is nothing environmentally friendly about it either. If you want the Max to cross the river, go rent those tracks from Railroad Company, which was nationalized in the 1900’s.