A personal message from Council President Bragdon

The Columbia River Crossing controversy continues to be in the news this week. As reported by the Portland Tribune yesterday, U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio once again cautioned Oregon and Washington State to be realistic about expectations for the federal government's contribution to the project, and he reiterated once more that the huge price tag being bandied about these days is not reasonable. That news this week echoes an article by Dylan Rivera in the Sept. 18 Oregonian, entitled "Big Idea but no money," which accurately described the diminishing prospects for this project in the unrealistic "jumbo" form currently being promoted. And a Sept. 19 editorial in the Oregonian, entitled "Right words but a frowny face," further described the eroding local support for this huge version. So, members of Congress from both Oregon and Washington State have given us that good advice earlier, and local officials have been saying it for months. What needs to happen? The two state governments need to start listening, or we won't have any project at all.

It's increasingly obvious that the "jumbo" proposal currently under consideration is not going to work, so people of good will need to re-mobilize and fashion a realistic, positive alternative which will work. This vital transportation corridor is too important for us to do nothing. Local officials on both sides of the river recognize that, and in fact the mutual respect and dialogue among myself and other local officials in Oregon and our counterparts in Washington is high, and while we may debate details there's a constructive commitment among local leaders to getting something done. To avoid missing this opportunity I thought it would be useful to once again express my hopes and fears about the various forms this project could take, and get us back on the path to success.

My position is simple and unchanged over the past two years: I have been working hard to construct a replacement Interstate 5 bridge, which would be paid for in part with tolls, and would offer new light rail and great bicycle and pedestrian sidewalks. But I am very, very skeptical about the "jumbo" version of this project currently being pushed by the two state highway divisions. The version being promoted -- as if it were the only alternative -- is proving very difficult to finance, and moreover would probably either result in much worse traffic than we suffer from today or simply move the traffic around to spots where the impact would be just as bad. Clearly we need to abandon that fruitless approach and construct a new consensus to design a reasonable project that will get the job done without all the negative impacts of pollution, sprawl and congestion that the jumbo version would cause.

A little history would be helpful in tracking how consensus for a project (including my support) grew through last year, but has unraveled more recently as the frightening details and price tag of what the two state governments are proposing became clearer. In 2008, most of the local governments involved voted to endorse a replacement bridge with light rail, bicycle and pedestrian paths, and three through auto-truck lanes in each direction to be partially paid for and managed with tolls. I was and remain an enthusiastic proponent of those goals. The unprecedented consensus between Portland and Vancouver on those major points could have been a good start toward building a great project. (Again, cross-river communication is at a healthy level now, as is my respect for the local officials in Vancouver and Clark County who I get to work with.) But what happened with that consensus? Unfortunately, the two state highway divisions who are managing the plan instead took enormous license with those local endorsements, and while we were asking for a 2,600-foot replacement bridge across a river, now we find we are being sold a 5-mile mega-project through our neighborhoods. Instead of designing a replacement bridge to meet our foreseeable long-term needs and budget, the state highway divisions insist on trying to double -- double! -- the bridge's width and constructing a multitude of Texas-style interchanges miles and miles to the north and south.

We can't afford that version, and it wouldn't work anyway: the jumbo proposal has no realistic financing, loses public support the more people learn about it, and would probably make traffic much worse than it is today and/or simply move the traffic to places where it would be even more detrimental to our communities on both sides of the river. There is certainly no point in spending a huge amount of money in ways which just make congestion worse. But there is still a path to success for a Columbia Crossing: over the next several months, working together through the Project Sponsors' Council on which I serve, local officials and congressional pressure must refine this project back into what was originally intended: a replacement bridge that meets our current and future needs and budget.

Just as the jumbo version is a self-defeating option, doing nothing is not a good option either. Common sense and the need for economic trade both say we ought to replace a 90-year-old bridge which is built on wood pilings in an earthquake zone. Common sense and the experience of other states and countries also says a replacement can be accomplished within a realistic time, scope, size and budget which fits the region's needs and does not simply induce more traffic than we already suffer from. The sooner we all acknowledge that the jumbo version would be harmful to our region and unaffordable to toll-payers and taxpayers, the faster we can get on with building something that works. That's what I and other local leaders must continue working to do.