Local critics of the embattled Columbia River Crossing—which breezily received Oregon’s stamp of approval in Salem earlier this year—will be heartened by questions coming out of Olympia.
Nowhere have those been more clear than in a video, mistakenly posted online, of Washington lawmakers in closed session putting the screws to US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who’d popped in this week to lobby for the project.
“Of course we want a new bridge,” State Sen. Don Benton, R-Vancouver, told LaHood., “but we want a bridge that will work for the region.”
He mentioned well-known Portland slow spots like the Terwilliger Curves an Rose Quarter which he said could see worse traffic as a result of the project.
Staffers for Washington’s Republican majority posted the video before realizing the meeting wasn’t public. That didn’t stop Democratic employees from recording the video off of a computer screen and posting their own version online. Washington Democrats say the video shows rude treatment. Benton hailed the meeting as a victory.
Washington is in the midst of considering whether to pony up $450 million for the project, equivalent to the sum Gov. John Kitzhaber formally approved last month. At stake is up to $1.2 billion in federal money for the bridge, which could go elsewhere if lawmakers can’t agree. The entire project is expected to cost roughly $3.4 billion. A good chunk of that money is based on controversial tolling projections.
The video of Wednesday’s meeting is a bit tough to see and hear, but interesting.
Despite the other arguments for or against the CRC, I find the argument that “there are multiple bottlenecks on I-5, so we should never fix any of them” to be pretty stupid.
By that logic, society would never fix anything.
@Blabby: I don’t find the argument “we should never fix any of them” convincing, but I do find the argument “we should fix those other ones first” convincing, particularly in the case of the Rose Quarter. There was talk last year of putting an extra lane in there between the I405 and I84 intersections; let’s get that done first and then see how bad the inbound traffic is after that.
Why wouldn’t a meeting of more than two public officials be public? It’s not like this is the CIA or something.
I don’t understand why everone is fixated on the CRC bridge. Have you ever tried to come into or leave Portland going south in the 5:00 o-clock rush or come into Portland in the morning from the south? The resulting traffic jams are way worse than what is experienced at the Interstate bridge. If you take the light rail off the bridge and use rapid transit buses, then you can raise the bridge high enough to clear the ships in the Columbia. It’s pretty simple, actually.
I agree, ujfoyt. Blocking ship traffic on one of the largest rivers in the country just to allow for light rail to Vancouver is wrong. The CRC project should be fixed or scrapped. Those C-TRAN commuter buses are pretty plush, and will suffice.
@Todd – Except those motherfuckers that drive for C-Tran constantly hug the right lane (exit-only) on the Fremont Bridge and wait until the last mienute to get over, blocking access for local traffic.
I agree with Blabby here: “there are other bottlenecks” is a shitty reason not to. But, from the north side of the river, the project looks silly, I think. If I’m driving from Vancouver into downtown Portland (or the Lloyd district, or whatever) every day, traffic sucks. So we’re going to spend $450M on a bridge that will disrupt traffic during its construction, and pay tolls, and when it’s done, I’m going to get a few miles further down the road before I hit stop-and-go traffic? Why bother?
If you look at it as a bridge replacement, it’s way too expensive and doesn’t solve the congestion problem. If you look at it as a freeway expansion, it’s way too expensive and doesn’t really increase capacity very much. If you look at it as a way to get light rail and a better bike route, it’s way too expensive and doesn’t incentivize non-car options (at least not permanently). It’s a perfect example of a design process that tried to be everything to all parties and compromised enough that no one will really get what they want except for the construction companies and their workers.
As I understand it, a lot of specifics in the CRC design are a result of making it qualify for federal money, which is a great example of how dumb our infrastructure funding process is in this country. If we could get the federal government to help pay for an alternative project (e.g. http://portlandafoot.org/w/Common_Sense_Al… ), everyone would be better off.
[Insert rant about how the current CRC plan was railroaded through and no meaningful variations were ever considered in the public process.]
Well, as far as Federal Money goes, I’d say Boston alone owes us a bridge for all the money the Big Dig cost the entire country.
Wow, commenty blogtowners, you’ve really missed the whole point of the opposition. which is that for $800M OR gets a 22-lane wide mammoth on Jantzen Beach / Hayden Island, shuts down the business of three of the largest employers left on the water (upstream of the bridge on the WA side), all to speed up traffic by one fucking minute.
This isn’t about replacing a bridge (which ODOT had deemed good to go), but expanding access for fucktards from Vancouver to drive over the river in their H2s for work. How much better will it get? One minute faster. for $3.4Billion. OR’s share of that is $450Million, which is not funded, so just adds additional debt, meaning actual costs are closer to $8-900 Million.
The seismic upgrade? Also bullshit, since the new bridge is only rated for 6.0 or so, substantially less the THE BIG ONE is supposed to be.