SIX MONTHS AFTER Mayor Sam Adams led city council in voting
for the largest, most expensive possible option for replacing the I-5
bridge to Vancouver—a $4.2 billion bridge up to 12 lanes
wide—Adams is back where his green allies want him. Last Friday,
September 18, the mayor officially rescinded his support for a 12-lane
Columbia River Crossing (CRC).
“I think every aspect of this bridge has to shrink, including the
number of lanes,” says Adams, who thinks the bridge should be between
six to eight lanes rather than the previously planned 10 to 12. Adams
explains his downsizing attitude as a response to “significant change
in the fiscal and political context on this project” since he signed
off on it in late February.
A delegation from Adams’ office went to Washington, DC, in April to
ask about getting $400 million in federal funding to support the cost
of the bridge. “But the message we’ve gotten is that the project is far
too expensive,” says Catherine Ciarlo, Adams’ transportation
director.
The mayor primarily cited the protests of anti-toll Vancouverites in
his decision to advocate for a smaller bridge last week. Lowering the
cost of the project could lower the price of tolls on the new bridge
and minimize the anti-toll debate now overshadowing the Vancouver
mayor’s race [“Political Tolls,” News, Sept 17].
“I do not get involved in [Vancouver’s] internal politics,” says
Adams. “But I want them to know that their partner south of the river
will not support a project without tolls.”
Local groups fighting the controversial design view Adams’ policy
shift as a big victory.
“Adams has a major impact,” says Mara Gross of Coalition for a
Livable Future, which argues that the 12-lane bridge will increase
sprawl, car travel, and air pollution. “This will force us to have an
actual conversation about what we can afford and what is good for the
region and the environment.”
“I’m glad he’s come to his senses,” agrees Portland Transport
blogger and transportation activist Chris Smith.
Though city council has already had its say on the bridge as a
group, Adams personally sits on the CRC Project Sponsors
Council—a group of Oregon and Washington bigwigs who oversee the
bridge’s design. While other members of the project sponsors council
say they are still undecided on how big the bridge should be, co-member
and Metro Council President David Bragdon has been forthright with his
criticism.
“I’ve always been very skeptical of the 12 lanes, which I think was
an overreach by Oregon and Washington’s state highway departments which
live in the 1950s,” says Bragdon. “The design was based on very, very
questionable demand figures which they manipulated to promote the
biggest possible bridge and then ran a big propaganda effort for.”
Oregon and Washington have so far collectively spent over $131
million on planning the bridge, in the past year focusing exclusively
on the 12-lane option. But both the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) and Washington State Department of Transportation disagree with
Bragdon’s characterization of the process.
“We’re not trying to rig this. We are revisiting the bridge: what it
looks like, how it operates, how much it costs,” says ODOT’s Matt
Garrett, who also sits on the project sponsors council with Adams and
Bragdon and says it is now possible that the number of lanes on the
bridge could be cut. “Big, noisy, healthy conversations still need to
take place, but I think that’s good. And that’s what Oregonians and
Washingtonians want,” he says.
Oregon politicians demanded more discussion on the bridge in early
September, when three state representatives penned an Oregonian editorial titled, “Where’s the Debate?”
State Representative Brian Clem, who wrote the piece along with
Portland Democrat Jules Kopel Bailey and Ontario Republican Cliff
Bentz, says he felt “railroaded” by bridge backers after Governor Ted
Kulongoski added $30 million for the CRC’s ongoing design back into his
transportation package after the legislature’s transportation committee
had decided to cut it. “I think there’s been an almost by design
maneuvering to get this thing done without having a public debate in
the legislature,” says Clem.
The CRC is now aiming to hammer out a financial plan this winter.
Check blogtown.portlandmercury.com for updates.
In my opinion, there should be only eight lanes in the bridge. Add 1 lane in each direction for Hwy 14 access, and keep the 3 lanes in each direction that we now have. I would support a small toll, but I do not support the addition of light rail as proposed by Mayor Pollard. As I have stated before, if we MUST have light rail, it should go out to a park and ride at the fairgrounds, from both sides of Portland. And, if there are tolls, both bridges will have to be tolled. Otherwise, the Glenn Jackson will be totally blocked. Also, it would help I-5 traffic if trucks that are not stopping in Portland were to be routed on I-205. If we do this, then the only traffic jams that will be left will be up to Portland and the state of Oregon to fix.
It would be ridiculous not to have light rail go to the same place the cars do; that’s the whole point of light rail.
Maybe I should send Mr. Sam Adams a monthly or yearly bill for his pompus attitude on how I have to pay a toll because HE wants it!! Who the he!! does he think he really is? We are taxed enough. A toll is another word for tax, as if fee, charge or any other word used in place of “tax” as a way to get money for things they want.
I am not opposed to light rail, as long as it is done comprehensively and will support the real flow of people. Look at how it is laid out now and you will see it does not flow as comprehensively as it should. After spending 4 years in Europe and experiencing their transit system it is clear to me that we could learn a lot from how they design their systems. We look for the cheapest routes through a neighborhood (often the lower valued ones), not the best.
Sam Adams can have my toll if he sends me a check to pay for it.
if they are adamant about charging tolls for the I-5 bridge then the state of Oregon should IMMEDIATELY suspend the practice of taking the 9% income tax from any person living in Washington. They want the folks of Southwest Washington to pay for this bridge not them. It’s the typical Oregonian response. I want something but I don’t want to have to pay for it.
As far as tolling the Glen Jackson bridge. That bridge is bought and paid for. There are rules in place from when that bridge was built prohibiting tolling.
Yeah, why should people who use the bridge have to pay for it? Someone else, somewhere, who doesn’t use it has money they’re not spending for things they don’t need. And I need a brand new, big bridge, now! Pay for it, somebody else!