IN A QUIET HALL at the Expo Center last Wednesday night,
December 3, a few women who live in houseboats along the Columbia
Slough, a stone’s throw from I-5, pored over a map of the proposed
Columbia River Crossing bridge.
“What a mess!” one woman said, pointing to the tangle of on and off
ramps and extra “auxiliary” lanes that intertwined on both sides of the
Columbia River. If the plan she was looking at is eventually
built—with three through lanes in either direction, and six
auxiliary lanes to facilitate entrances and exits, for a total of 12
lanes—her home would have a new roof of concrete overhead. “And I
thought my roof would last 30 years,” she joked, wryly.
That woman, and others, were on hand for an open house on the
Columbia River Crossing—a chance to weigh in on everything from
the number of lanes to whether light rail should go under the vehicle
bridge, or should get its own span across the river. Big tables were
covered with large-scale drawings of both the 10-lane and the 12-lane
options for the $4.2 billion project, and project staffers helpfully
answered questions.
Two days later, the Columbia River Crossing Sponsors Council—a
group of officials from every jurisdiction impacted by the
project—gathered to check out essentially the same info. It’s
their job to help decide how many auxiliary lanes the bridge will
ultimately have (the jurisdictions all initially signed off on six
lanes of traffic, with the extra number of lanes to be determined
later).
“Everybody has an opinion, and I’ve heard them all,” said Council
Co-Chair Henry Hewitt. “What I’ve tried to say in all those
conversations is, ‘Let’s have an opportunity to hear all the
facts.'”
And facts they heard, from project staffers and analysts who double
checked things like whether a bigger bridge will cause sprawl (the
analysts say no, but elected officials like Metro Council President
David Bragdon questioned their findings).
They also heard that the amount of traffic went down—and
safety went up—with an increased number of lanes. Finally,
project staffers noted that every option on the table—eight, 10,
and 12 lanes, but no six-lane option lacking auxiliary
lanes—increased the amount of “vehicle miles traveled” (VMT) in
the region. The council will dig further into that issue at a future
meeting, and it’s likely to be a sticky
conversation—jurisdictions like Metro and the City of Portland
have insisted that the bridge reduce the region’s overall VMT.
As much as I’d like to see a 6 lane option, what about a no build option that implements some tolling now adds transit and studies for 2 years the impact on vehicle trips and VMT? If we implement the tolls first along with real increases in options then we will know what size bridge we need, and it will probably be the 6 lane option if the toll is high enough and the transit options are good enough.