Bridge Backers Organize


The Oregonian reports today that supporters of the Columbia River Crossing have organized the “Columbia River Crossing Coalition“, hiring high-power PR firm Gard Communications to manage the effort.

This appears to be aimed at attracting Federal stimulus dollars to the project, since no significant local funding appears to be materializing (Governor Kulongoski only penciled in $50M in his budget proposal towards the $3-4B project).

But if the project would not be slated to start construction until 2012 is that really relevant as a stimulus project? Will backers attempt to shortcut the final EIS process to advance the project?


24 responses to “Bridge Backers Organize”

  1. This is a once-in-a-generation project , and this
    is a once-in-a-generation funding opportunity.
    We should stop our endless studies and build
    the CRC. The longer we drag out the process on any Public Works the more it costs.
    Further , we should use this chance to fund a Park Roof over the CRC Bridge , and create a world’s first Green Bridge Gateway to the N.W. Artistic
    Drawings of this are on Exhibit at the Lucky Lab
    Brew Hall in NW Portland on Nw Quimby above 19th.

  2. Billb, while I hate to say it, as I like the park idea, but doesn’t that create a problem with Pearson Field’s airspace. I know the current designs are walking a very fine line between river and air clearance. After all, Pearson Field is the oldest operating airfield in the United States. I would hate to ruin that even for a nice park.

  3. JR , while I have nothing against the airpark ,
    and the design for the parkroofed bridge does , I believe fit in the proposed dimensions [axonometric drawing at Lucky Lab NW ] we need to remember that the air space is Public ROW , and should by most
    standards be put to the ‘highest and best use’.
    Airpark for 100 , or ‘Finest Park in the NW’ for tens of thousands ? you decide.

  4. A massive motor vehicle bridge across the Columbia is a fine monument to the Past, but hardly a bridge to the Future. Better to put that money into education, and better manage what we have. Isn’t “Sustainability” our brand?

  5. “We should stop our endless studies and build [it].”

    Probably identical to phrases uttered about the Mt. Hood Freeway. Had NEPA been in place, it would have been uttered in regard to the poor residents whose homes were targeted for freeways all over this country.

    Endless studies are not helpful. Rational public debate is. “Just build it” is not rational public debate.

    I don’t think politics or law would allow them to shortcut the EIS, esp now that there’s no chance of a corrupt president influencing his faux EPA anymore….

  6. So the plan is to build a 12 lane bridge over the Columbia River, nevermind that all the Portland area freeways are no more than 6 lanes wide.

  7. Lenny Anderson wrote: bridge to the Future

    Which is…?

    Some of the world’s greatest monuments to the future are…bridges. Unless someone has a grand scheme to bring the benefits of Vancouver residency to Portland (namely: fewer restrictions on development, affordable housing), people ARE going to move to Vancouver.

    We can either fix the traffic problems now, or we can see business in Portland move to where people are going to live in Vancouver. Beaverton, Hillsboro, Lake Oswego, Tigard, Tualatin and Wilsonville are already employment powerhouses because they are closer to where people live than in downtown Portland. Do we want to focus growth in downtown Portland or are we going to develop a network of individual communities with no link between them?

  8. Lenny Anderson Says: A massive motor vehicle bridge across the Columbia is a fine monument to the Past, but hardly a bridge to the Future. Better to put that money into education, and better manage what we have. Isn’t “Sustainability” our brand?
    JK: No, Lenny, sustainability is not the goal. It presumes that one can know the future and the reality is that the future is unknowable.

    However most people would like a higher standard of living and the path to that is clear. Less time spent in traffic congestion is one element of a higher standard of living. As is less time spent on travel. Why do you oppose that?

    Thanks
    JK

  9. jim karlock Says:

    However most people would like a higher standard of living and the path to that is clear. Less time spent in traffic congestion is one element of a higher standard of living. As is less time spent on travel. Why do you oppose that?

    Lenny does nothing of the kind. He has, however, pointed out that there are many ways to achieve that goal and has, I think, suggested that simply continuing to add to highway capacity is the most short-sighted of them all.

    And if I have mis-stated Lenny’s comments, I do apologize.

  10. Actually UPS did build a sub-hub in Vancouver, put 100 folks to work there and does not have a problem doing deliveries via the I-5 bridge.
    I can’t believe anyone who can count wants to spend $4billion to save a relatively few peak hour commuters a few minutes of travel time for a few years. I-5 is a management problem that tolls could fix this afternoon.
    Vancouver commuters what choices; let’s give them that…light rail on a local bridge with a beautiful bike promanade…for a quarter of the money. What’s not to like? We will still have 14 freeway lanes across the river for everyone else.

  11. Lenny said: “I can’t believe anyone who can count wants to spend $4billion to save a relatively few peak hour commuters a few minutes of travel time for a few years.”

    And there are a lot of other people who can’t believe that anyone would spend undisclosed hundreds of millions of dollars (the projected dollar figure still hidden from public view behind the politically motivated walls of socialistic secrecy) on bicycle infrastructure so a few hundred freeloading pedal pushers can cross the river without paying for it or financially contributing the bridge, and once again be gluttonous at the public trough.

  12. It presumes that one can know the future and the reality is that the future is unknowable.

    That argument negates the point of building the bridge in the first place. I mean, who knows, we may have flying cars in 30 years…

  13. Lenny Anderson wrote: Vancouver commuters what choices; let’s give them that…light rail on a local bridge with a beautiful bike promanade…for a quarter of the money. What’s not to like? We will still have 14 freeway lanes across the river for everyone else.

    What if Vancouver doesn’t want THAT choice?

    Defining a choice is not offering a choice. And light rail doesn’t provide freight mobility, or access to anything outside of the limited light rail network. There is more to the world than just what is reachable by MAX (as I see every day on my bus commute – walkable, vibrant communities, shopping centers and employment centers, entertainment complexes, parks and recreational centers, and homes – places where people live, work and play.)

    Jeff F. wrote: For starters, local roads — where the vast majority of travel occurs — receive almost no funding from user fees like the gas tax. They are funded by sales and property taxes, which we all pay.

    Actually, I went to a seminar led by a manager with the Portland Bureau of Transportation, who flat out said that no property tax dollars are used to fund Portland city streets – the funding is entirely pass-through dollars from the state gas tax and other transportation tax related revenues.

    I can’t speak for Seattle with regards to transportation funding, but I’ve often cited Seattle as an example that Portland ought to follow in terms of providing a well-invested, balanced transportation system.

  14. “Actually, I went to a seminar led by a manager with the Portland Bureau of Transportation, who flat out said that no property tax dollars are used to fund Portland city streets – the funding is entirely pass-through dollars from the state gas tax and other transportation tax related revenues.”

    Look at page 3 of this PDF

    Gas taxes makes up 30% of the budget, including some “one time” gains shown in that chart.

    “Assessments on Property” makes up 5% of PDOT’s budget. Then there is 7% from PDC, (which comes from Urban Renewal Areas in the form of property taxes.) And then the 4% “one time funding” from the general fund, (which has property tax money in it.)

    Not property taxes, but hardly “user fees” either: 3% from sewer bills (that pays for sweeping. The cost of all the pipes that drain the streets isn’t in that chart, but it certainly should be counted if we want roads that last longer and aren’t covered in water,) and 6% in transportation SDCs, which are by the dwelling unit at time of construction. Etc…

    Another way to look at it: If you live on an unpaved street, and want to get it paved, it costs about $40k/house. You as the homeowner on the street can get together with your neighbors and vote to pay that if you want your street paved, (or not.) But PDOT doesn’t pay it out of gas taxes or anything, building the street in the first place is purely paid for by the property owners on that street.

  15. Okay here are a few thoughts.

    I heard Representative Brain Baird state in public that the I-5 Columbia River Crossing WAS NOT going to be on the 2010 Appropriation Bill and the 2017 Appropriation Bill is mostly likely the soonest. There are several needed projects in the nation that are ahead of CRC. These need base drive projects are dirt ready, and CRC was not one.
    So anyone want to check if our congressional elected official have a stand on if they will be putting the CRC into the 2010 Appropriation Bill?
    With federal money in 2017 why would Oregon spend $15,000,000 to the study of the Columbia River Crossing study project anymore (what it will look like etc.) now, when in 10 more yrs. we may be so different with transportation in the I-5 Corridor.
    Much of the work CRC is doing now will be to old to use for federal funding.… In the CRC hearings out of date data was a problem now.

    If that is what I actually heard Rep. Baird say, then there is plenty of time to look at hundreds of public testimony comments from taxpayer who came to the hearings and the 15,000 comment on the CRC project. Open Meetings Law state that all public testimony is to be made available to the public….. Where can all the information citizen handed in be resourced at publicly?
    At the hearing NEPA lawyers, citizen groups, agencies, and citizen stated the NEPA process was not being followed. We now have plenty of time to look into to process.
    Remembering the fictional time line of August 15, 2008 or miss out on federal funding for seven years!…..
    Now we find that the August 15th deadline time was for the application for the annual High Capacity Transit New Starts Money. We also found out that High Capacity Transit New Starts Money can be used for commuter rail, heavy rail is needed and attracts more jobs. The federal time line for 2010 Appropriation Bill is the end of 2009 and the next one will be 2017. The farce that we had to hurry and there was no time to follow the laws push needs to be looked into.
    When you read though the list of support the Columbia River Crossing project has had on their predetermine out come. Including keeping out the citizen’s projects brought in during NEPA scoping…. And data issues……
    Having a continual drum beat from the newspaper. The newspaper grossly attacking anyone especially elected official for even asking questions….. or not giving coverage at all to those will a different view……..
    Now CRC needs to put together a group to continue with the forcing this down our throats…..??……
    Not one environmental or environmental justice group supports the CRC project and several are actively working against.
    CRC has spent like ????? $60,000,000 and squashed everything in its way ….. now needs even more money, and heavy hitter for support……..
    If it can’t get off the ground on merit, $60,000,000 in show, media, stepping on competition, and the state DOT’s…. Do you think it is because it is not what taxpayers want. We realize we need more capacity across the Columbia River. The taxpayers know that the corridor is totally full and adding a large bridge in the center of the current parking lot isn’t the answer.
    The Oregon and Washington legislators made a join finding in the 1980’s that the I-5 Freeway was over capacity then, from finding of a 1978 study. That is what led the Governors to start this little project and have continual study ever since.
    How about the fact that they don’t have any real champion with the elected officials….. CRC has used a picture of Senator Ron Wyden with a quote of his on transportation….. then of course a statement from Senator Wyden’s office that the elected official is okay that his picture was being “used” however it should NOT be looked at as support in the CRC project and that the project still needed to be decided by locals. Does this mean they used his picture without asking……? Or just that they had to have NO elected official and they thought since Sen. Wyden wasn’t running for election now, his would be the safest to try and use?
    The Port to Port connection and how much it will do for us in creation of jobs not only in construction but in opening up or land lock industrial lands in Oregon and Washington attracting more jobs into our area. It takes traffic off I-5 the Freeway, I-205 Freeway, I-84, and I-405 many being placed on a new corridor…. relieving congestion, helping spill over traffic problems in our neighborhoods, less pollution in the neighborhoods…. Helping the environment, less cars on I-5 and less traffic in our neighborhoods means it adds more safety….. Economy, environment, safety enhanced and congestion relieved….. The focus of the project right? The Port to Port connection more than gives us a world class ped and bike access into our industrial lands and natural areas. Creating Smith and Bybee Lake Drive to pedal to work on.
    Then you have a landslide on democratic issue, yet in SW Washington, Clark County Commissioner elect-Tom Meilke ran on no tolls, and scraping the I-5 Interstate Bridge Replacement idea in favor of a new Third Bridge Port to Port just won election to office.
    CRC “LPA project” on it’ own merit should be able to walk and talk.
    With all the support and money CRC’s has already had, it should be in use, not needing rescued.

    Peace Sharon

  16. “Assessments on Property” makes up 5 percent of PDOT’s budget.”

    I believe this is money from local improvement districts (voted on by people in those districts for a specific project) and possibly from developers required to upgrade a adjoining street and/or add sidewalks as a condition of development of a property.

    “Then there is 7% from PDC, (which comes from Urban Renewal Areas in the form of property taxes.)”

    In the form of increased values on new development only and is used for all kinds of transportation infrastructure with the greatest amount going to Interstate Max.

    Also something else to think about:

    A 12 lane I-5 Columbia River Crossing would be accommodating approximately 14,500 vehicles per lane by 2035 which includes multi-passenger vehicles and freight. A 20 foot bicycle crossing – maybe 1000 bikes, however the projected numbers are still being hidden from the public and maybe the numbers are so low is the reason why. In reality, the number of bicyclists using the crossing will NEVER reach 14,500 per day. Since a proportionate percentage of the bridge superstructure, including support pilings must be calculated with the cost of providing the bicycle deck and infrastructure, the far and away greater numbers of motor vehicles per lane of travel using the crossing make the highway portion of the project an extremely more efficient use of transportation dollars by moving more people per public dollar than does a bicycle crossing for a piddley few freeloading pedal pushers.

  17. Terry Parker:

    Since a proportionate percentage of the bridge superstructure, including support pilings must be calculated with the cost of providing the bicycle deck and infrastructure, the far and away greater numbers of motor vehicles per lane of travel using the crossing make the highway portion of the project an extremely more efficient use of transportation dollars by moving more people per public dollar than does a bicycle crossing for a piddley few freeloading pedal pushers.

    The “bicycle deck” is a wide sidewalk, Terry. You keep writing about bicycle infrastructure as though it was some massive undertaking requiring all sorts of expensive engineering and construction. It’s just a big sidewalk and pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure is MANDATED in highway projects.

    One cyclist agreed wholeheartedly with the notion of fees on cyclists just as for autos and suggested a standard of $1 per pound. Seems like a fair plan.

  18. Matthew wrote: “Assessments on Property” makes up 5% of PDOT’s budget. Then there is 7% from PDC, (which comes from Urban Renewal Areas in the form of property taxes.) And then the 4% “one time funding” from the general fund, (which has property tax money in it.)

    According to Page 3, Property Tax assessments totaled $10.8 million.

    According to Page 4, you can derive the $10.8 in income to the following expenditures:

    “Central Interagencies”: $6.9M (this covers expenses incurred while providing services to other agencies, rightfully funded through property taxes)
    “Streetcar Operating”: $1.4M (prohibited to be funded through gas taxes by state law)
    “Transit Mall”: $2.6M (prohibited to be funded through gas taxes by state law)

    Those three line items total $10.9M, and you can figure that the $.1M is just a rounding error.

    So, again, property taxes do not support the road system in Portland and the provided documentation backs it up.

    As for the 7% from PDC, I have no problem zeroing this out (for building new streets in SoWa and the Pearl District, when those property owners should have paid for it themselves); the 4% “one time general fund” pays for street lighting which certainly benefits pedestrians, bicyclists, children and other people – hardly just motorists; and the 3% street-sweeping fee – my street doesn’t require sweeping, so do I get a discount off my sewer bill to cover street-sweeping in the downtown core?

  19. Jeff F. wrote: One cyclist agreed wholeheartedly with the notion of fees on cyclists just as for autos and suggested a standard of $1 per pound. Seems like a fair plan.

    I still believe that taxation of transportation should take two forms, one by the use of the transportation, and one by the pollution.

    A Toyota Prius, for example, uses just as much roadway capacity as a Dodge Caliber. The empty weight of a Prius is 2,932 pounds; the Dodge Caliber 2,966. Both have the same passenger capacity (five occupants, although the fifth one might be a little squished).

    So, in that sense, both vehicles should be taxed identically – and a method of taxation that is based upon vehicle weight and miles driven (as well as consideration for congestion charge, time-of-day, roads used and other factors) should be identical between the two cars – the more you drive the more you pay.

    NOW…the Prius obiviously pollutes less than the Caliber, by nature of its hybrid powerplant that requires less fuel burn. So, in that sense, the Prius deserves to be taxed slightly less if we agree that pollution is a social cost that could be charged. The best way to implement a “pollution tax” is simply to tax the gasoline not as a transportation tax but as a pollution tax. The more gas you burn, the more you pay.

    Now, that bicyclist… Is it fair to charge a higher tax to someone that rides a 20 year old steel bike (that was probably purchased for $50) while charging someone who owns a $2,000 carbon-fiber racing bike less (because the weight of the bike is so light)? Again, both bikes occupy the same space and use the same bikeway infrastructure, the carbon-fiber bike really offers no benefit over the steel bike. (It’s not like we are having to add more asphalt because of the older bikes!) So paying by-the-pound for bikes really doesn’t make all that much sense.

    And even I, who supports taxing bike use (as well as increasing taxes for motor vehicles), would never argue to tax bikes at the same or similar rate as a motor vehicle. I would very easily support a $15 or $20/year tax (flat fee) on a bike, while charging a minimum $100/year tax on a motor vehicle (plus usage).

    By the way, as a former Montana resident, I paid $217 ANNUALLY in state registration fees, plus County taxes (since Montana taxes vehicles as personal property), plus state/federal gas taxes. And frankly, Montana’s roads would put Oregon’s to shame (well, except for the “left turn lane” on I-90…but that’s since been fixed :-) )

  20. Erik Halstead Says:

    Now, that bicyclist… Is it fair to charge a higher tax to someone that rides a 20 year old steel bike (that was probably purchased for $50) while charging someone who owns a $2,000 carbon-fiber racing bike less (because the weight of the bike is so light)? Again, both bikes occupy the same space and use the same bikeway infrastructure, the carbon-fiber bike really offers no benefit over the steel bike. (It’s not like we are having to add more asphalt because of the older bikes!) So paying by-the-pound for bikes really doesn’t make all that much sense.

    I’m pretty sure the suggestion was tongue-in-cheek. But, yes, a flat rate for all bicycles (including tandems and recumbents and portables and . . .) makes much more sense in the real world.

    And even I, who supports taxing bike use (as well as increasing taxes for motor vehicles), would never argue to tax bikes at the same or similar rate as a motor vehicle. I would very easily support a $15 or $20/year tax (flat fee) on a bike, while charging a minimum $100/year tax on a motor vehicle (plus usage).

    There might be some equity issues at $20/year for bicycles, and I would hope that any such tax would include registration of frame numbers to help in recovery of stolen bikes. And I think automobile taxes should be based on value rather than a flat rate.

  21. Jeff F said: “The “bicycle deck” is a wide sidewalk”

    And the highway deck is even a wider 12-lane sidewalk. Moreover, the bicycle deck must be able carry the weight of heavy motorized service vehicles and there is a significant cost to providing it. The same pilings and superstructure that support the highway deck will also provide support for the bicycle deck. Therefore, a proportional share of the costs for the superstructure and pilings needs to be paid for directly by the bicyclists. Bicycles need to be licensed and registered at the same price it costs to register a motor vehicle simply because there is a significant cost to constructing and providing specialized bicycle infrastructure. Sam Adams wants $24M in stimulus money just for this purpose. Any local match dollars needs to come directly from taxing bicyclists, NOT from motorist paid taxes or other from non-user taxpayers.

  22. Terry, by your logic we should be issuing permits and taxing pedestrians as if they were automobiles. A “proportional” share of the costs of a superstructure would be based on weight support needed, which in the case of bicycles and pedestrians is an insignificant, if not immeasurable, addition to the structure needed to support cars and trucks. Your “heavy motorized service vehicles” is what we would call a red herring, if not just “b.s.”.

    The “significant cost” for bicycle infrastructure is an assertion you make repeatedly in order to justify the “freeloader” meme, but you have once again failed to provide any evidence at all. All of this flies in the face of the obvious: it is better for the community as a whole for people to ride bikes than to drive cars. You simply cannot ignore this basic fact.

  23. Jeff – Your primary argument against taxing bicyclists appears to be the costs for bicycle infrastructure are “insignificant”. One can argue the exact dollar amount, but it is NOT insignificant. The $24M Sam Adams wants in stimulus dollars is NOT insignificant. Neither will any match dollars if required to go with it. The cost to widen the sidewalks to accommodate bicycles on the Hawthorne Bridge was NOT insignificant. Neither will the cost to provide bicycle infrastructure on the CRC, and maybe that is why the costs have been hidden and not disclosed to the public. Bicyclists continually rant for more specialized bicycle infrastructure as long as somebody else pays for it. The terms “freeloaders” and “freeloading pedal pushers” are appropriate!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *