The Columbia River Crossing project today announced the receipt of two grants (one through ODOT, the other through WashDOT) totaling $5M:
CRC received the award available under the Interstate Maintenance Discretionary (IMD) Program with a $2 million grant to the Washington State Department of Transportation and a $3 million grant to the Oregon Department of Transportation. A total of $100 million was available to be awarded nationwide under the IMD program and priority was given to projects with high traffic volumes in urban areas.
I’m not sure whether to be glad it’s not local money or in despair that the money pit seems boundless…
26 responses to “CRC Gets $5M More to Advance Unfundable Design”
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/discretionary/imdinfo.cfm
Warning: Governmental language ahead.
Further study of Concept #1 could be funded.
“Approved” Concept ‘D’ is BS & D minus; no deserved funding there.
Who was it among the 14 “invitees” who argued the Southbound-only bridge built?
Thanks, Mr JK for your insight. Mr SB of these 14 also envisioned Concept #1.
Lead transportation agency Wurshdirt sure has poorly upended things north of here. Wow.
Seattle has sunk to its lowest level. The CRC is rejected by higher ups.
Wurshdirt engineer-wannabees are playing more than the THREE Stooges.
Watch the whistle-blowers.
OTOH, Oregon bridges seem likely to win favor.
Why common sense hasn’t migrated north to Olympia, is anybody’s guess.
No bridge is going to be built. Don’t you get it? The region pissed the opportunity away with it’s constant bickering, and now the Federal government is neither of a mind nor able to fund it. Just ask John Mica.
In fact, the problem of congestion at the bridge crossings will take care of itself, except for the occasional accident or lift. The Portland area economy is pretty much totally dependent on the generosity of upper management at Intel and the international obsession with the Swoosh. Where are the jobs to fill the cars expected to cross the new bridge going to come from? Nobody is going to live in Clark County and commute to a job in Portland as a Starbucks barista.
The fight is over and nobody won.
No bridge is going to be built. Don’t you get it? The region pissed the opportunity away with its constant bickering, and now the Federal government is neither of a mind nor able to fund it. Just ask John Mica.
In fact, the problem of congestion at the bridge crossings will take care of itself, except for the occasional accident or lift. The Portland area economy is pretty much totally dependent on the generosity of upper management at Intel and the international obsession with the Swoosh. Where are the jobs to fill the cars expected to cross the new bridge going to come from? Nobody is going to live in Clark County and commute to a job in Portland as a Starbucks barista.
The fight is over and nobody won.
No bridge is going to be built. Don’t you get it? The region pissed the opportunity away with it’s constant bickering, and now the Federal government is neither of a mind nor able to fund it. Just ask John Mica.
I think the bickering and the federal funding, at this time, are two different factors.
I actually agree with Anadakos that the CRC, though badly needed, is probably not going to happen. At least not soon.
I also agree with Ron, in that its fate has little to do with our “constant bickering.” The bickering is certainly no help, but the real challenge for the CRC is that we now have a Congress interested in stopping federal funding for the nation’s transportation’s infrastructure altogether.
That might seem ridiculous and implausible, but there are two quotes in the Oregonian article from last week that make these intentions pretty clear:
1. “But New Starts too is feeling the pinch. Its budget has already been ratcheted back 20 percent in 2011 to $1.6 billion. The influential Republican Study Group, made up of House conservatives, has targeted the program for elimination.”
2. “Led by anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, some Republicans are now vowing to kill off the federal gas tax itself, the primary funding source of the federal highway trust fund. The 18.4-cent-per-gallon federal gas tax, which generates $34 billion a year, expires in September. ”
The first proposal is a modest setback, though quite devastating to our economy. The second proposal is the virtual end of the federal Interstate system as we know it. Which is probably why even the conservative Chamber of Commerce is questioning the wisdom of an all-out gas tax repeal.
TLDR: The CRC is indeed unlikely, but the biggest threats to it are at the federal, not the local or state, level. Infrastructure is no longer a priority to this Congress.
IMO, Grover Norquist is a nut case. How he gets so much media attention lately is beyond me. When I first heard about him two decades ago I had the same opinion. Why a then twentysomething out of nowhere would think he had a major contribution to make on national policy was pretty hard to fathom.
But having said that I do think our spending needs an overhaul. Even if you think the basic premises are good, isn’t it time to examine the technology and see where economic improvements could be made? In fact, Portlanders ought to take a look around; there are many cities, around the world, that are struggling with the same urban issues—-and don’t have a pipeline to the US Treasury to pay for their ideas.
If you really think the Portland solutions are the best here is a forum you can submit them to and get worldwide feedback:
http://www.unhabitat.org/categories.asp?catid=672
They should have an online forum up and running sometime before the 2012 session in Naples, Italy.
In 2006 this was hosted in Vancouver, BC.
And if the Portland vision is predicated on rapid population growth I would ask “what’s the underlying purpose?: Agreed, the Pacific NW is a wonderfully safe place to live but there are a lot of choices besides the big cities. And the west is a pretty big place. There is not going to be a mass exodus from the heartland; either they can’t afford to leave, they have family or business ties, those areas will initiate recovery strategies, career opportunities will beckon people back, etc.
I’m not really worried about the federal gas tax expiring. Any state that wants to keep their highways in shape can just raise the state gas tax, or put tolls on formerly toll-free highways, or perhaps both. That would actually be a pretty good deal for gas-tax donor states. Oregon, IIRC, is very close to 1:1 return on federal gas tax payments. Kick our state gas tax up another 20 cents if the federal tax expires and we’d come out ahead.
???
Federal highways need federal $$$ for their upkeep. Unless the US DOT gives up ownership of the interstate and US highways to each individual state, states (especially low population western states with larger highway miles/ capita) are not going to tax themselves to maintain them.
“Government is actually the worst failure of civilized man. There has never been a really good one, and even those that are most tolerable are arbitrary, cruel, grasping and unintelligent.”
(Henry Louis Mencken)
Ron,
You’re certainly right that the bickering and Federal funding slashes are not directly related. The Portland Metro region arguing over tolling and light rail trains has had no discernible effect on the political changes in Washington.
What the arguing DID do is slow the process by years and eventually exposed it to the Tea Tide in Washington.
“Nobody is going to live in Clark County and commute to a job in Portland as a Starbucks barista.”
Actually, completely anecdotally, I know two people who do just this.
This is sort of the real market for Vancouver I think. People who make good wages – can, if they so desire, afford more expensive housing closer in the city. Those who make poor wages are constantly “tricked” by the cheap real-estate outside of town. I say “tricked” because there are other costs which are never accounted for by the price of the rent or the price of the house.
Of course many people who make good wages also choose Vancouver because they like to have larger lots which are not as available closer in to the city – but we are talking about what they *could* do. A family of 3 with $180k income who currently has a largeish house in Vancouver *could* if gas prices and congestion become too much – decide to buy a smaller house/lot closer in to the city.
A starbucks barista can neither afford the good housing close in to the city – nor the gas and congestion prices related to living out in the cheap real-estate. That is the main problem.
I think we could use the 4 to 6 billion that this project is currently estimated at (which means 6 to 10 billion in actuals) and take that money to improve access to affordable housing and good schools in the central Portland areas and get rid of the two main reasons people decide to “drive till they qualify” in Vancouver. We lived close in for a decade with a child and constantly got ridiculed by Vancouver-ite co-workers that we should move up there for the better schools.
Put affordable housing and good education back in the city, and everyone wins. You can buy a lot of that for $10billion.
Unless the US DOT gives up ownership of the interstate and US highways to each individual state, states (especially low population western states with larger highway miles/ capita) are not going to tax themselves to maintain them.
The states already own and operate the interstate freeways within their borders. The federal government channelled the money and set the standards to build the freeways, and continues to send money to the states to help maintain them. But ODOT already owns the various interstate and US highways in Oregon and is already responsible to maintain them.
SInce the federal gas tax can (and is) used for public transit projects and other non-road projects, and Oregon’s gas tax is limited to paying for roads, state highways could actually come out a little bit ahead … even while we’d lose our shot at federal dollars for transit, bicycle and other alternate transportation.
@valkraider:
I think we could use the 4 to 6 billion that this project is currently estimated at (which means 6 to 10 billion in actuals) and take that money to improve access to affordable housing and good schools in the central Portland areas and get rid of the two main reasons people decide to “drive till they qualify” in Vancouver. We lived close in for a decade with a child and constantly got ridiculed by Vancouver-ite co-workers that we should move up there for the better schools.
Put affordable housing and good education back in the city, and everyone wins. You can buy a lot of that for $10billion.
Yes. And some job development in Vancouver while we’re at it.
Spending all this money to make a chokepoint across a half-mile-wide river a viable commuting option is just nutty.
On the subject of jobs, I have to wonder why there isn’t more outrage from this side of the river over spending all this tax money to make it easy for out-of-state commuters to access jobs in a state that isn’t exactly brimming with employment opportunities. Especially when it’s mainly commuters that are clogging the chokepoint. Of course this could get ugly fast, so I’m not eager to stir that pot. But I do have to wonder why we’re not hearing more along these lines from our state representatives.
I did hear the inverse of this idea from WA Rep. Paul Harris in the videos from the “Bridging the Gaps” event. He said that the Oregon economy is so dependent upon Washington workers that southbound commuters shouldn’t have to pay tolls:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw54YzxCD20&feature=player_detailpage#t=27s
Are WA commuters really the “third largest economic engine in the state of Oregon”?
I would think those jobs would provide even more of a boost to the OR economy if they were held by Oregonians.
Generally, it seems like if we’re going to subsidize toward the creation of job opportunities, we might want to skew toward making it so people don’t have to drive so far to get to those jobs. “Shorter trips” is a good mantra for an potentially energy-constrained future.
Put affordable housing and good education back in the city, and everyone wins. You can buy a lot of that for $10billion.
Parents who raise law abiding kids might just be getting a little peeved at having to subsidize schools where the parents don’t. And there could be other reasons why people are starting to feel that the educational system is turning into a black hole of financial trouble. I am not saying that something should not be done. The approach is arguable, though.
Please don’t write “But studies show that there is a correlation between poverty and……”
The War on Poverty has been the longest running war in US history. Started in 1964 by Pres. Johnson. Does it pay out veteran’s benefits? Haven’t seen any yet.
The point I am getting at is that there are cultural trends in play, amongst what appear to be strictly political decisions. I would be leery of anyone who tells me “Just spend $10 billion here and the problem will go away.”
I have to wonder why there isn’t more outrage from this side of the river over spending all this tax money to make it easy for out-of-state commuters to access jobs in a state that isn’t exactly brimming with employment opportunities.
Because those out-of-state commuters are paying a hefty amount of income taxes to the State of Oregon, while receiving very little benefit from the State of Oregon’s general government.
http://www.oregon.gov/DOR/STATS/docs/101_406_11/09_tables_3.xls
Clark County contributed 55,820 Oregon taxpayers in 2009 (with the rest of Washington adding another 33,717) and paid $126,133,000 in income taxes in 2009 – behind only Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas, Lane, Marion, Jackson and Deschutes Counties. Yet, we aren’t providing them with many of the services that income taxes fund – Washington residents don’t get the choice of putting up their kids in Oregon schools; Washington residents do not receive resident tuition at Oregon universities; Washington residents do not get additional police protection simply because of their income tax status; Washington residents cannot apply for food stamps or other welfare programs in Oregon.
I would think those jobs would provide even more of a boost to the OR economy if they were held by Oregonians.
One could argue that in a number of ways. I see a lot of City of Portland employees on my bus that starts out in Sherwood. Those jobs would be more of a boost if they were held by Portlanders…?
Remember that those Vancouver residents are probably spending some of that money in Oregon – especially since they get more bang for the buck by spending it here and avoiding the sales tax. While not necessarily legit, everyone knows it happens. If anyone should be for/against it – Oregon should be welcoming Vancouver residents with open arms while Washington should be the one opposing it on the grounds that it’s a money train out of state.
Generally, it seems like if we’re going to subsidize toward the creation of job opportunities, we might want to skew toward making it so people don’t have to drive so far to get to those jobs.
The problem is that Oregon has made it clear that it does not want to do that. People are going to live where they can afford to do so. Oregon could have chosen to have affordable housing but instead is focused on restraining housing availability. A young family can buy much more home in Vancouver than in Portland. And not everyone wants to live in an overpriced, undersized condo in a city that has a very poor school district.
If you really want to help people live closer to work, the solution is very simple: make housing cheaper, affordable and desirable. That means building modest sized homes (yes, 1000-2000 square foot ranch homes), on decent lots, at an affordable price, without a lot of fancy frills.
Since Oregon has no interest in allowing reasonable housing construction, you can count on more homes being built in Clark County, and those homes will easily sell. So now we must build an transportation infrastructure to support it.
@Erik H
Clark County contributed 55,820 Oregon taxpayers in 2009 (with the rest of Washington adding another 33,717) and paid $126,133,000 in income taxes in 2009 – behind only Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas, Lane, Marion, Jackson and Deschutes Counties. Yet, we aren’t providing them with many of the services that income taxes fund
First off I should point out that I don’t personally have anything against people from Washington working in Oregon. As you point out, both states reap benefits, and it’s not worth engaging in us-and-them-ism over something as abstract as a state line. (I was mainly idly wondering why we don’t see more of that kind of irrational “they took our job” finger-pointing, a la this South Park clip: http://youtu.be/768h3Tz4Qik )
My concern is more about the way infrastructure projects like the CRC subsidize sprawl, no matter if it’s Oregon sprawl or Washington sprawl. I’ve got nothing against people in the burbs – I see the appeal of living there – but I object to being asked to subsidize the perceived cheapness of their homes via thousands of millions of tax dollars poured into a few miles of freeway tangle.
Furthermore, just as the affordability of a “drive ’til you qualify” suburban home is undermined by the expense of the cars required just to get to an from that home, so too are the economic rewards provided to Oregon by Clark County commuters undermined by the fact that an interstate shipping link gets clogged up by them daily, and the fix proposed to accommodate their numbers (a “fix” which will ultimately encourage even more people to make that same commute) will cost thousands of millions of dollars.
Really it’s the same old problem of suburban living putting a strain on transportation infrastructure, but in this case that infrastructure is a bottleneck over a river that is twice as wide as the Willamette through Portland. The CRC is like any other sprawl-inducing freeway in, say, Orange County, except made far more expensive by being routed over a river chock full of logistical challenges.
You make the point that Clark County contributed $126 million to Oregon. That’s a lot of money, and you’re right to point out that they don’t get much in the way of services (though they do benefit greatly from Oregon’s transportation infrastructure, and also perhaps Oregon’s job creation efforts). But looked at a different way, $126 million is only about as much as has been spent planning the CRC. And it’s a fraction of what the CRC will ultimately cost. (I happen to have a video illustrating that very fraction: http://www.vimeo.com/22953738 )
Oregon could have chosen to have affordable housing but instead is focused on restraining housing availability.
I’m guessing you’re talking about the Urban Growth Boundary, but the UGB’s primary goal is to preserve farmland and wild areas. (And personally I’m glad it’s there doing that.) If the UGB restrains housing availability that’s less its focus than it is a side effect. To the degree that housing prices and availability are a problem in Portland, again I’d rather see subsidies go to affordable housing within the UGB than into freeway infrastructure that pops a hole in the UGB.
And then there’s cost vs worth. A house might cost more in Portland, but IMO it’s worth it. It’s worth it to pay a little more to live in a place that has amenities close enough that you’re not tied to a car, and where you can get around on foot, bike or transit. And without being quite so worried about being run over. And housing prices within the UGB aren’t quite so prone to slumping.
you can count on more homes being built in Clark County, and those homes will easily sell. So now we must build an transportation infrastructure to support it.
We “must”? Why? If someone chooses to live cheap by building a home in an area that is not easily accessed, why then must taxpayers be expected to pony up a massive amount of money to improve access?
If someone was to build a new house on top of a hundred-foot cliff, he might of course hope the community would see fit to build a new tram for his ease of access, but it would be something else entirely for him to say the community must build one.
The community should spend its tax dollars on projects that are to its overall benefit. I don’t think the CRC qualifies, at least not for Portland.
Just looking at a typical morning traffic jam on Google maps – http://screencast.com/t/Z0lUNRLl – there is an extreme slowdown visible south of the CRC project area, but well north of proposed Rose Quarter freeway expansion. This slowdown in that location is a common occurrence (and note by comparison the free-flowing traffic on the bridge that is supposed to be the heart of the problem). It’s hard to imagine how the CRC, by pouring more cars into that glut of traffic (and points south) will benefit Portland. Even taking into account the benefits provided by the tax-paying drivers of those cars.
We all know the reality of how projects play out – an estimate of $4-6 billion usually will end up a $10 billion project. Very few major projects in the USA have ever stuck to budget and there are *Always* unforseen costs and difficulties – not even taking in to consideration the rising cost of oil products… So, lets stick with the $10 billion number – as I am fairly confident that it would probably end up that way (especially considering we are already at over $100 million without a single grain of earth being moved).
“A young family can buy much more home in Vancouver than in Portland. And not everyone wants to live in an overpriced, undersized condo in a city that has a very poor school district.”
That is exactly my point. Couldn’t we do a lot about these two “problems” with 10 billion dollars?
Also, for the record, our “young family” didn’t want “more house”. We need 2 bedrooms, a kitchen, a living-room and a couple bathrooms. Thats it. No need for a 3000 square foot house on a quarter acre. My family and I including our children, walk downtown, walk in the pearl, walk to movies and parks and hockey games and soccer games. We walk and bike on the springwater, esplanade and waterfront park. We take transit to dining and bowling and shopping, and we have a lot of fun doing it. We enjoy the Saturday Market and weekly farmers markets. We walk and take transit to swimming pools. We hike in the west hills, and we visit the zoo and arboretum(s). Our elementary age children love the city.
For 10 BILLION dollars we could do a lot to improve schools (which in all reality are not really that bad – I have coworkers in Vancouver who have problems with their schools to, again – always anecdotes – I am but one man) and to increase housing options.
Of course, like Spencer wrote, we can also work on job creation in Vancouver so that those who still wish not to live in Portland can work in Vancouver and not drive so far (and save a lot of money on income tax to boot).
For $10 BILLION we could do a lot to improve society on both sides of the river in ways that would reduce the need to commute for lots of people. Heck, based on the above statistic of 55,000 Clark County residents working in Oregon – for the $10billion we could give every one of those commuters a check for $180,000 to not come across the river during rush hour.
As far as:
“Parents who raise law abiding kids might just be getting a little peeved at having to subsidize schools where the parents don’t.”
This is absurd, and confrontational. First – there is plenty of crime and plenty of trouble making kids in Vancouver. Second – we all subsidize all public schools – it is important for society to have an educated population, and it is simply unfair to pretend that some schools are worth subsidizing and others are not. I believe in the value of all kids – even those less fortunate. And third – I have met wealthy kids in suburbs who could give a crap less about following the laws, and in fact in my own youth despite my parents best efforts I was fond of rebelling and pushing the limits my self. It is more a youth thing than it is a demographic thing, so please – don’t make this into an unfriendly discussion. The main difference is the wealthy kids have more resources to “get away with things” than the poorer kids and are also more likely to get let off with things like warnings or slaps on the wrist.
We live in one of those “undesirable” areas you speak of, and we and our neighbors and friends are raising law abiding children just fine, thank you very much. I could Google around a bit and find lots of suburban youth who are not law abiding.
As far as:
“Parents who raise law abiding kids might just be getting a little peeved at having to subsidize schools where the parents don’t.”
This is absurd, and confrontational.
Kind of harsh, there, dude. I didn’t say anything about a region specific difference. Just making a general statement. If schools in Detroit or Chicago are going to h— that’s their problem, and I am not paying taxes in their districts.
FYI, I’m getting fed up with well-to-do bleeding heart Portlanders who identify a problem—-and then expect everyone else to share the same concern and financially contribute to solving it. What’s wrong with private initiatives? Does the government have to intervene into every social concern? I worked with a guy who had a school age child in one of the “poverty” areas of Portland. He thought nothing of literally smashing his kid in the face for misbehaving. Please don’t burden reasonable people with the other folks’ problems.
Furthermore your personal anecdote about “wealthy kids in suburbs” has little statistical value. We need an educated population—we don’t need a vested, educational lobby that poses more money as the only solution to deviance or ignorance. This was painfully proven during the baby boom era, when millions graduated with virtually useless degrees. Then you impugn me with a pejorative comment I didn’t even make—and exaggerate your west side neighborhood as substandard. And then you wonder why many people object to generalizations about the quality of their own parenting skills and which lump everyone in as “failing.”
>”If schools in Detroit or Chicago are going to h— that’s their problem, and I am not paying taxes in their districts.”
Schools do receive federal dollars directly and/or indirectly.
>”He thought nothing of literally smashing his kid in the face for misbehaving. Please don’t burden reasonable people with the other folks’ problems.”
Wait, I thought the problem was people raising kids who are not law abiding, here is your original comment: “Parents who raise law abiding kids might just be getting a little peeved at having to subsidize schools where the parents don’t.”
So now the problem is parents who over discipline? I am not condoning abuse, but you can’t say that if he was overly harsh for misbahiving that he wasn’t raising kids to disobey laws…
>”Then you impugn me with a pejorative comment I didn’t even make”
I never attributed comments to anyone. I was responding to multiple comments made in this discussion.
>”and exaggerate your west side neighborhood as substandard”
The Lloyd district is “west side”?
valraider
so please – don’t make this into an unfriendly discussion.
So you have to beg me to restrain some imagined incivility just because I stated I would be leery of someone proposing a fix–that costs ten billion dollars? I certainly didn’t beak the rules of this discussion, except in responding to something that was already veering off topic. I wonder what the limit is where people can or cannot strenuously object to a economic suggestion. Maybe $10 million. $10 billion is quite a lot.
I stated nothing about “undesirable areas.” I stated nothing that said suburban kids should get preferable treatment. It seems that you are the one asking for discriminatory treatment when you say that we should put ten billion into central Portland schools and housing. Perhaps schools in Klamath Falls or Burns need the money worse. Why is your area entitled?
Now the topic of this thread is the further advance of $5 million to the CRC.
Let’s try to keep this somewhat focused on transportation please!
On the topic of gas tax user fees (and Vancouverites buying Oregon goods sales tax free), what percentage of Vancouver commuters fill up in Oregon vs. Washington?
If a large percentage of Vancouver commuters fill up in their own state and drive a majority of their miles (and create congestion) on Oregon roads — that’s a major issue at least for tolling to alleviate that loss.
If the Costco off of Airport Way is any indication, I think that Vancouver-ites fill up in Oregon whenever possible. Our gas tax is lower here, and there is no sales tax.
I filled up in Vancouver a lot when I lived in Portland because I got sick of waiting for the gas guy to feel like doing his job. I’d rather fill my own tank if it takes a quarter of the time.
“Let’s try to keep this somewhat focused on transportation please!”
Identifying the reasons that people drive across the CRC project area is very relevant, as is determining if money would be better spent in the “trip not taken” effort rather than the “build bigger roads” effort.
Land Use and Transportation Planning go hand in hand, Chris you yourself have been a big proponent of this concept.
Two of the primary reasons people live in Clark County is cheap real-estate and allegedly better schools. If we are going to spend $10 billion dollars (number taken from the recent documents posted to CRC Leaks) on a bridge – why not spend $10 billion dollars reducing the need for a bridge?
It isn’t just about moving bodies, some times it is about moving minds…