THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS in planned state funding this year for
the design of the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) bridge looks
increasingly doubtful as legislators question Governor Ted Kulongoski’s
budget priorities.
Kulongoski included $30 million for the ongoing design of the CRC in
his $1.1 billion proposed transportation budget last December. But the
state is now facing an expected budget hole exceeding $4 billion of its
$15 billion total budget thanks to the economic downturn, and the House
Transportation Committee has responded by pulling money for the bridge
from Kulongoski’s proposed package.
Transportation Committee Chair Terry Beyer was very negative about
funding for the CRC at the group’s meeting last Friday afternoon, April
24. Beyer listened to testimony from Reed College student Joel
Batterman, a member of the Cascade Climate Network, who urged the
committee to spend more money on pedestrian/bike funding and public
transit.
“Whenever we make a trip by one of these modes, more money stays in
Oregon,” said Batterman. “And less goes to pay for oil from places like
Dubai, where they’ve used our gas money to build an indoor ski slope,
even as our Oregon ski slope melts away.”
Beyer responded: “I just want to be clear that right now in House
Bill 2001 [the state’s transportation funding package] and all the
amendments we are looking at, there is no language in there that refers
to the Columbia River Crossing at this point in time.”
“The governor would like to see the money for the CRC remain,”
responds Kulongoski’s spokeswoman, Anna Richter Taylor. “But at the
same time he recognizes that the economy is very different today than
when he released his budget last December.”
Now Kulongoski’s office has planned a press conference for
Wednesday, April 29, at the Expo Center in North Portland to talk up
the supposed benefits of the CRC, “including the number of jobs it is
expected to create,” according to a briefing put out by his office.
“Your show of support is essential at this time as we navigate through
upcoming state and federal budget hearings,” it continues.
“This is about jobs, it’s about the economy, and unblocking this
economic artery,” Richter Taylor says.
But state legislators say the CRC is years from beginning
construction, and that in the midst of an economic downturn the state’s
focus needs to be on funding projects that are ready to begin
construction over the summer.
“I think there’s a strong desire that any money we do provide will
create jobs immediately to get Oregonians back to work,” says State
Representative Jules Kopel Bailey, who sits on the transportation
committee. “And there’s certainly been some discussion about whether or
not the CRC meets that criteria.”
Burgeoning statewide opposition to the CRC comes just two months
after Mayor Sam Adams led city council to approve a 12-lane bridge on
February 25 [“Greenwashing the Columbia,” News, March 5].
The bridge also faced opposition from US Representative Peter
DeFazio last week, who called for its design and cost to be scaled
back, and even described the CRC as an “impending disaster,” in
conversation with one reporter. DeFazio’s opposition echoes that of
Washington Congressman Brian Baird earlier in April: Baird told the
Columbian newspaper that the federal government might only be
able to deliver $200 million to $300 million in CRC funding—far
less than the $400 million to $600 million envisioned in early CRC
plans.
“Now it’s not clear that federal funding will be available,” says
Bailey. “And so we as a legislature need to make a decision as to
whether our own money is well spent in the absence of that
funding.”
House Bill 2001 will be voted on in the house over the next five
weeks. Money for the bridge could work its way back into the state’s
budget elsewhere before it reaches Kulongoski’s desk for signature this
summer, although that’s now unlikely to happen without a fight.