CRC in the Crosshairs

DEMURE, BEARDED, middle-aged Metro Councilor Robert Liberty
may have just become the hero for Portland’s rowdy anti-Columbia River
Crossing activists. In early November, he quietly introduced an idea to
the Metro Council that both critics and supporters of the new I-5
bridge say could effectively cut the legs out from under the
controversial project.

The idea is an amendment to Metro’s Regional Transportation Plan
that would set an expiration date on Metro’s support of the big bridge
project. Metro signed off on the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) project
in 2008 and the CRC needs Metro’s support to move forward. But the
amendment says that unless federal, state, regional, and local
governments have committed to funding the $2.6-3.6 billion project by
September 1, 2011, Metro’s support will sunset and all the CRC money
will go toward “study of potential alternative investments in the
corridor.”

Environmental groups and green leaders oppose the 10-lane bridge and
light rail link planned to replace the current six-lane I-5 bridge
because they say it will lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions,
sprawl, and more cars on the road. On November 5, three days after
Liberty pitched his expiration date plan to Metro, five green
organizations including the Bicycle Transportation Alliance and
Coalition for a Livable Future demanded the CRC staff go back to the
drawing board and come up with a more sustainable fix for the congested
corridor [“Throw it Out,” News, Nov 12].

Liberty insists he introduced the amendment with “good intentions.”
“It’s not to kill the project, it’s to force a discussion about the
project. We don’t really think it’s realistic that we’re going to be
able to fund it,” he says.

Liberty is frustrated to see “$1 million a month” spent on planning
a project he believes will never materialize. “Even if it’s a $3
billion project, we’ll still need $700 million from the Oregon State
Legislature,” says Liberty, noting that this past year, Oregon
legislators balked at allocating any funds for the CRC.

In a straw vote taken on November 17, the idea received overwhelming
support—six thumbs up and one thumb sideways from Councilor Rex
Burkholder. Metro Council President David Bragdon was one of the
supporters. “I think it’s an overdue question to ask what this project
is going to cost. I think the timeline within Robert’s proposal is very
reasonable,” says Bragdon.

But Environment Oregon advocate Brock Howell says that if Metro
approves the idea, it could effectively kill the bridge project. Much
of the money for the project’s light rail line is supposed to come from
a sales tax increase in the Vancouver, Washington
region—notoriously anti-tax Vancouverites will vote on it in 2012
at the earliest. That vote would not line up with Metro’s 2011
expiration date. “If Metro turns on the bridge, it’s basically dead,”
says Howell.

Mayor Sam Adams spoke out against the expiration date measure at a
Metro advisory meeting last week, saying a two-year deadline would make
it difficult to get the facts he needs to make key decisions about the
bridge. “There are a lot of legitimate concerns about the CRC project.
Funding is one of them,” Adams told the group, saying he had not
received enough good, solid facts about the project to date.

At the same meeting, Adams secured an assurance from Metro that it
would study the carbon impact of all new roads proposed in the region,
including the CRC.

While their support is slipping locally, bridge backers seem to be
getting a more positive reception in Salem. Last Thursday, November 19,
CRC leaders pitched a slimmed-down version of the bridge to the state
transportation committee legislators who specifically erased CRC
funding from the state budget last year.

“Here is a project, where if we make the investment, brings up to
20,000 jobs,” said Oregon Department of Transportation Director Matt
Garrett. “It will be a gift that keeps on giving.”

“The question I get asked when I talk with my constituents about
this is, ‘When are we going to start building?'” North/Northeast
Portland Representative Tina Kotek told the committee.

The Oregon and Washington Departments of Transportation recently cut
$650 million from the cost of the big bridge project, trimming the size
of the planned bridge from 12 lanes to 10. Representative Nick Kahl, an
outspoken CRC critic, seemed swayed by the reduction from a budget that
formerly totaled $4.2 billion. “I’m becoming increasingly satisfied
with the design of the bridge,” said Kahl.

Representative Mike Schaufler went further. “It is criminal to
delay, obstruct, deny, and prohibit this project from going forward,”
said Schaufler. “I’m done. I don’t need another public meeting.”