Clackamas County Weighs in on CRC


The letter is very diplomatic, but makes three points very firmly about the Columbia River Crossing:

  1. If you toll I-5, you better toll I-205, we don’t want your damn congestion
  2. Keep the costs real and practical (and by implication the scope as well)
  3. Don’t you dare soak up all the transportation funding in the region, we have needs too you know!

I could hug their whole Commission…

Dear Columbia River Crossing Review Board:

While Clackamas County has not been an official sponsor of the Columbia River Crossing project, we have followed the planning process closely. Last year, we supported the Locally Preferred Alternative, with one specific condition, that tolling be imposed on the I-205 Bridge at the same time it is implemented on the I-5 Bridge. The project analysis indicated that diversion from one bridge to another would be likely, which is a serious concern in our county.

We have urged the project team to view the Columbia River Crossing in the context of the larger regional highway and freight movement system. The businesses and industries in Clackamas County that depend on the highway system to move their goods to the airport and to the Port of Portland cannot afford additional congestion or decreased reliability on the I-205 as a result of an incomplete solution to the I-5 bridge replacement.

More than the tolling and diversion issue, however, the current status and approach of the project has caused Clackamas County to reconsider its support of the Columbia River Crossing as currently proposed. While we firmly believe that a bridge replacement is necessary, and that light rail and pedestrian/bike access are critical elements of a successful project, it appears to us that this project is beginning to collapse under the weight of unresolved community concerns and expectations.

Clackamas County has made great strides in approaching highway development by considering practical design, least cost planning, and phased system improvements. We urge the project sponsors to consider applying some of these nationally recognized approaches to the Columbia River Crossing project to determine appropriate solutions and funding strategies. We have recognized that the funding and development strategies of previous generations are obsolete. Between evolving environmental expectations and diminishing federal partnership, these mega-projects do not reflect the priorities of the communities we are elected to serve. Our citizens and businesses deserve leadership on infrastructure projects that is forward looking.

In addition to seeking a design that is sensitive to affected communities (including Clackamas County), we have grave concerns about a funding strategy for the Columbia River Crossing that prioritizes it above all other regional transportation investments. While we understand that there are rare funding opportunities for this project, we are also all too familiar with the tradeoffs involved in selected regional transportation funding priorities.

Clackamas County would like to see a revised approach to the Columbia River Crossing project that addresses the concerns about community sensitivity, phased design, and realistic funding. While we have not been invited to the table as a sponsor of the project – Metro is our representative — we are certainly willing to participate as a constructive partner in moving this project forward. We are willing to consider and help communicate with the public new ideas that can work. For example, we continue to be interested in the idea of tolling the I-205 bridge along with the I-5 bridge as a pilot project. We know this is not widely popular and are more than willing to discuss these issues with the broader public. It would not be appropriate to use these tolls revenues solely for the Columbia River Crossing when there are so many other long-anticipated projects worthy of such funding along I-205 in Vancouver, Portland and Clackamas County.

Additionally, we are happy to share our expertise in practical design where appropriate for this project. Clackamas County is part of a national coalition of experts and advocates for this approach to transportation facility design and we have access to resources that could be useful in considering design modifications or project phasing. Because we firmly believe that the scarce financial resources will require a phased approach, we would urge you to move quickly in this direction to restore faith with funders and with community stakeholders.

Similarly, we continue to emphasize a broader system view of this project. Removing a bottleneck on the I-5 bridge and moving it to the I-5 in the Central City is not a viable solution, and the region is then forced to make additional difficult and unrealistic choices. By the same token, it is not helping the freight community if traffic on I-5 is more reliable but comes at the expense of the reliability of I-205. There are a number of unresolved questions on this project that with additional investigation and investment could restore community confidence.

Clackamas County is very supportive to our partners in local government who are attempting to address a significant problem while meeting multiple objectives. This letter is meant as an attempt to help guide this project back in a viable direction. We have been watching with great concern as many of the project partners have not been able to identify solutions to these very serious community issues.

We ask that you consider our proposal to revise key aspects of the project planning approach. It is our belief that the NEPA process can continue while practical design, system planning, and revised funding strategies are concurrently applied. While we know this is a complex undertaking, we are committed to finding a solution that works for this region. The project cannot continue in its current process without losing community support. Clackamas County is willing to be a part of helping this project move forward in the wisest community context possible, and we hope the project sponsors will seriously consider the issues and alternative approaches we have raised.

Sincerely,

CLACKAMAS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Lynn Peterson, Chair,
On behalf of the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners


15 responses to “Clackamas County Weighs in on CRC”

  1. “approaching highway development by considering practical design, least cost planning, and phased system improvements.”

    Those three things are clearly not part of the CRC’s approach. Its refreshing to hear a voice of sanity in this process come from the unexpected quarters of what is usually seen as Metro’s most auto-dependent county. Although, to be fair, Lynn Peterson probably has the best handle on transportation issues of any elected official in the state.

    “we continue to be interested in the idea of tolling the I-205 bridge along with the I-5 bridge as a pilot project. We know this is not widely popular and are more than willing to discuss these issues with the broader public.”

    And political courage as well. Of course, once you toll the bridges the whole equation changes. If traffic exceeds capacity you can just raise the toll. That doesn’t eliminate other options, but it raises the bar for them to win support.

  2. Oregon’s next governor ought to be seriously considering appointing Lynn to be the new ODOT Director.

  3. To Chris (not Lynn),

    Do you want to “hug their whole Commission” because they’ve asked for a serious review of diversion to I-205 or an evaluation of the impact of funding the CRC to other regional transportation priorities; or are you just hoping to see the project and its efforts fail?

    Want to remind you that the CRC is in the RTP and has been guided by a political process. Perhaps you’re unhappy with the consensus political process being different than your own opinion. That’s understandale, but celebrating the possibility of the demise of this effort or simply pointing out what you don’t like about it is extremely counterproductive.

    Why not figure out a way to make it better.

    The CRC is a big target and is easy to throw darts at; what’s harder to do is to formulate and establish an approach that is both feasible and represents an improvement to our mobility. And if you don’t think it’s needed, just say so.

  4. Sorin, I want to hug them because they’re asking exactly the right questions.

    I agree that we should “formulate and establish an approach that is both feasible and represents an improvement to our mobility”. Unfortunately the DOTs have been hell bent to make sure that we can’t talk about any solution other than the one they have pre-determined.

  5. Those of us on the Governors’ I-5 TF who voted way back in 2002 for an arterial option in the DEIS were promised by ODOT staff the night of the 9-10 NO vote that such an alternative would be included. That promise was not kept. If the CRC process is now failing, it has only its masters, ODOT and WSDOT, to blame. It appears that they were afraid to take a DEIS level look at an alternative that addressed local access, provided high capacity transit and improved bike/ped access, all of which together with tolls will vastly improve the operations of the existing I-5 bridges across the Columbia.

  6. Oregon’s next governor ought to be seriously considering appointing Lynn to be the new ODOT Director.
    Actually, it’s things like this (along with her statement that she couldn’t possibly run the county while campaigning) that sometimes make me wish Lynn Peterson was running for governor.

  7. Of course, that’s been the scam all along. Refuse to look at ANY reasonable alternatives to their pre-selected project, and throw up a couple of designed-to-fail sham alternatives while pretending to go through an EIS process. And shoveling around $100 million into consultants so they could pretend they were listening to the community.

    Of course they’re afraid to look at reasonable alternatives. They know they couldn’t justify the megabridge if they did.

  8. That sunrise project is another bottomless planning pit.

    The whole freeway was already planned, from start to finish, and put on “hold,” only to be planned again a few years later.

  9. Keep the costs real and practical (and by implication the scope as well)
    JK: Easy criteria to meet – dump the toy train, dump elevated Hayden Island and dump most of the interchange rebuilds.

    Thanks
    JK

  10. Sorin, I’m not sure how you read Chris’ post to say he wants the project to fail. I read it as his supporting Clackamas County’s efforts, which were in a nutshell: “Let us help you figure out how to build a REALISTIC project before it all goes up in smoke.”

    The writing is on the wall for this project – and has been for quite some time for anyone paying attention. I agree with the above posters that ODOT and WSDOT are entirely to blame for the sham process that produced the current project.

    This train needs to be pushed onto another track, or we can all kiss the $100M+/- of our taxes goodbye.

  11. Question: suppose the DOT’s are conspiring to withhold smaller, better alternatives. What is their motive?

    I understand that DOTs are comfortable with the status-quo, but what beyond that? Not like we can claim the departments are being influenced by special interest money. They do not have election campaigns to finance, and dont get kickbacks right?

  12. Many DOTs are institutionally focused one one thing: building highways, especially for regional and/or freight traffic. They have a big hammer, and think everything is a nail.

    When you think about it, despite the mode-neutrality suggested by the name “department of transportation”, what is ODOT’s primary responsibility? Maritime issues are generally handled by the USCG and various port authorities; the freight rails are mostly privately owned (and under Federal purview as far as regulations are concerned), aviation is also a mainly Federal area of concern; and transit generally a local issue. The bulk of ODOT’s responsibility, then, is building roads and regulating the vehicles which drive on them. And not just any sort of road–regional connectors and freight corridors of an arterial nature.

  13. This train needs to be pushed onto another track, or we can all kiss the $100M+/- of our taxes goodbye.

    Can we just save all the studies, decide to build a simple third bridge type solution, and put the $100 million worth of studies in a time capsule to see what the region really needs in 15 or so years?

Leave a Reply to jimkarlock Cancel reply

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