Ah, another morning spent in Vancouver’s Corporate Woods, the meeting place of the mighty Columbia River Crossing (CRC) Project Sponsors Council. You know what I love about CRC meetings? There is always free Starbucks and bottled water. These items flow freely in Corporate Woods.
- Over a dozen protesters biked to the meeting this morning, but no one was allowed to give testimony on the plan.
Four members of the 10-person Council signed onto a strongly-worded letter to the governors this week saying the current bridge plan would create “unacceptable impacts” on local communities. It’s an unusual coalition: Metro President David Bragdon and Sam Adams have trouble supporting a bridge that increases greenhouse gasses and car capacity, Vancouver Mayor Tim Leavitt and SW Washington rep Steve Stuart don’t think their constituents can stomach the planned tolls. Where all four find common ground is in agreement that the big bridge is too expensive.
The budget plan the CRC staff put forward at the meeting today estimates Oregon and Washington will put $1 billion toward the bridge, tolls will raise $1.25-1.5 billion and the federal government will be asked to earmark $400 million. Mayor Adams is in DC so he couldn’t make it in person to the meeting, instead he tuned in via a speakerphone that projected his occasional interjections across the meeting room like the voice of God.
“Mayor Adams is in DC, maybe he’s going to come back with a bag full of money?” joked Washington Department of Transportation secretary Paula Hammond
“I will also be riding a sleigh,” intoned Adams, from above.
With no toll, the CRC team estimates there will be seven hours of traffic jams over the new bridge every day, an increase from the four to six hours traffic jams today on the bridge. A $3-6 toll each way would reduce that to just one hour of daily congestion, cut the number of cars crossing both the I-5 and 1-205 bridge by 20 percent and raise $1.2-2 billion for the bridge budget.
Still, newly-elected, anti-toll Vancouver Mayor Tim Leavitt told the group that tolls are not the most reliable form of funding and perhaps the committee should consider other options for digging up money for the project.
“Maybe a tax on mayors?” suggested chair Henry Hewitt.
Though Hewitt tacitly told the group that they would create a “workplan” to address the four critical leaders’ concerns, an email exchange between Adams’ office and the CRC staff seems to show that the bridge-backers are not taking cost-reduction ideas seriously.
This November 30th email exchange between Adams’ transportation director Catherine Ciarlo and CRC chief Richard Brandman is telling. Ciarlo asked a series of questions about how to reduce the cost and impact of the bridge, including, “What would be the cost savings of going to an 8-lane bridge capable of accommodating 10 lanes? A 6 lane bridge that could accommodate 8 lanes?”
Bradman responded: “An 8-lane facility was analyzed in the alternatives analysis phase and rejected by the Task Force and then by the Project Sponsors Council. Neither a six nor eight lane facility meets the project’s purpose and need.”
So in short: Don’t even bother asking how much money a smaller bridge could save. We’re not even going to tell you because we’re building 10 to 12 lanes, baby!
If Bradman can’t explain WHY the smaller bridges were rejected, than yeah – that seems like exactly what he’s saying.
The headline of this article is confusing – $1 Billion States? What?
Typo in third paragraph – should be “tolls will raise” not “tolls with raise.”
also, Steve Stuart’s actual title is Clark County Commissioner.
wuggienorpie,
I shorthanded Stuart’s title to “rep” from “Chair of the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council.”
Again, you’re making a logic error. You’re assuming that because YOU weren’t engaged during the planning phases, that they were inadequate.
What Brandman is saying is: “We went through planning and the things you’re now raising were discussed and ruled out. There were reps from the City of Portland there at that time, and that was your chance.”
Note that under the proposed funding, there’s no mention of funding from either city. So maybe it’s appropriate that the states have a lot of say in the design. They’re paying for it. Arguably, through travelers and Vancouverites will pay most of the tolling, not Portlandites.
Odd that they are saying that the 8 lane option wouldn’t work, the DEIS looked at a 3 lane in each direction bridge, with between 1 and 3 add/drop lanes. If the 3+1 lanes alternative doesn’t actually work at all, then they’ll need to issue a new DEIS that analyzes the alternatives that they are actually considering, they can’t just dismiss parts of the alternatives without a public process.
All the new bridge needs is 1 extra lane (both ways) to accomodate the traffic to and from Jantzen Beach, and access to and from SR 14 in Washington. As an aside, I traveled from Wa to Or last night about 5:30, and was surprised at how many cars had Oregon license plates. Way over half, by my rough calculations. There is a lot of south bound traffic across the 205 bridge, and all those Oregon cars can’t be just shoppers. Given the time frame, it suggests to me that there a lot of Oregonians working in Washington. So it’s not a one-way deal. The trouble with a high toll, like was mentioned ($6) is that the toll will just be passed on to consumers on both sides of the river. There is a hell of a lot of truck traffic and freight movement across the river, and the trucking companies will just pass it on.