A little late, but still an important topic—what do we do about the route between Portland and Vancouver?

Our region is poised to consider what to do about the Columbia River Crossing—and we’re faced with an option that costs roughly $4.2 billion dollars, and possibly doubles the size of the bridge over the Columbia River. In your opinion, does the staff-recommended option—a 10 to 12 lane bridge, plus light rail transit, tolls, and improved pedestrian and bike crossing—meet Portland’s goals and needs? What would you advocate for as the optimal plan for the crossing, and how would you ensure that Portland’s needs and goals aren’t lost in a massive regional, bi-state project?

Jim Lee
Position sought: Mayor
Website: blogmayor.com
Financial status: Intends to raise less than $300

I’ve had a lifelong love affair with bridges, from the time my mother pointed to the great Eads Bridge from the levee in Saint Louis. Portland fed the fascination, with its marvelous and unique collection, during high school, and college found me zipping over my all-time favorite, the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, whenever we could get out of the dorms on Thursday nights to hit the Symphony in the War Memorial Opera House.

8.4 miles long and double decked, designed and built in five years, it opened in 1936. The upper deck of a truss span on the eastern side collapsed in the World Series Quake of 1989, but Caltrans quickly repaired it. Then a long study decided on replacing the Oakland side, and reinforcing the two suspension spans leading into San Francisco.

Nineteen years after the earthquake the replacement is not open—and will not be for another five! Twenty-four years to replace the lesser half of a bridge that was built entirely in five.

The proposed Columbia River Crossing looks like what Caltrans is doing to the East Bay—trying to pave it over. Big kahunas in the freeway trade are wedded to vast projects: build as big, ugly, dysfunctionaly, expensively as possible, taking an eternity for what is euphemistically called a “planning” process.

The Columbia River Crossing is the Sellwood project on steroids, which Multnomah County has botched from beginning to end—if there is an end. I have spoken with very capable engineers in the County, but they can do nothing, for the project is run by
aesthetes, sociologists, public relations people, and worst, “facilitators.” Process run wild.

I have told the County Commission and its staff that they have no idea what they are doing. But I have covered my bet by designing my own bridge, to a quantitative level where I have calculated locations of piers, a detailed cross-section, live and dead loads,
sizes of structural members, deflections, vibrational modes, even erection sequence. They refuse to give hard facts or numbers on their designs—because after all these years they do not have any! I calculated mine in two months.

I have a conceptual design for a new Columbia Crossing: smaller, lighter, cheaper, realistically functional. It even accounts for flight patterns of Pearson Air Park in an interesting way.

“In Oregon our engineers have been trained to go to the stream, build a bridge for utility and economy, and at the same time design it to blend with the terrain.” Thus Conde McCullough, our Mozart of Bridges.

No way the current proposal will be built! Absolutely no way!

David Ackerman
Position sought: Mayor
Website: none
Financial status: Intends to raise less than $300

tell the truth i barly heard about that project. I plan to look into it more. I am glad that'll it have light rail and bike lanes. Right now I am glad because it'll mean liviable wage jobs.

Bob Leonard Forthan
Position sought: Mayor
Website: rfortha.wordpress.com
Financial status: Intends to raise less than $300

I'm totally against building any thing that cost 4.20, billion dollars, and if Portland waits long enough the baby boomer will die off, and their will be more than enough room for both states populations. I have answered both questions with one answer.

Craig Gier
Position sought: Mayor
Website: myspace.com/craiggierformayor
Financial status: Intends to raise less than $300

This question has been floating around for awhile and all I hear in response badly scripted answers. The first thing you have to ask, " Do we need this?". The answer is yes, the current setup cannot accomodate the traffic we have. Two seperate bridges would be the best route. As for the light rail option, would it be worth it? don't know about that. I don't think that would work since most of the people going back and forth would not be able to use it, i.e. work earlier or later than it would run or time constraints. Instead of forcing light rail everywhere lets first put in the bridge then come back to the train at a later date. Roads and bridges first then we can have the toys. Don't get me wrong, I use public transit everyday so I have no problem with it if it works in the area it's in. As for tolls, they take enough money in gas taxes and dmv fees to pay for these things. If you look at the budgets, we have enough money for these things, the problem is that we have wrong people deciding where the money should go. Thanks for your time.

Sam Adams
Position sought: Mayor
Website: samforpdx.com
Financial status: $151,761.31 in contributions, $64,426.51 currently in the bank

It’s important to put this proposal in proper context. Much more than an effort to improve the functionally obsolete bridge we cross today, this is a decision about how the entire region lives, works, and grows—and how we intend to do for many decades to come. Here’s why: We are a region in flux. In Portland we have made 30 years of conscious and sustained efforts to begin weaning ourselves from exclusive reliance on the private automobile for daily trips. North of the river in Vancouver and greater Clark County, near-exclusive reliance on the private automobile remains the norm. While both sides of the river share much in common, our transportation and land use intentions are very different. Meanwhile we’re expecting 1 million more residents in the next 25 years.

The challenge for this project, of course, is to reconcile these differences in light of the anticipated growth. I believe the 12-lane staff recommendation fails to accomplish that. With due respect to our neighbors and friends north of the river, exclusive reliance on the private automobile simply cannot be sustained in the 21st century. Change, however challenging to embrace, is necessary. Consider this:

Portland, we’re told, leads the nation’s major cities in many aspects of transportation options. We make 1% of all our trips on foot, 4% on bike, and 15% by transit. That means 8 of every 10 trips we make in Portland are made by car. In the age of rising gas prices, peak oil, and global warming it’s clear we have a long way to go. Vancouver and Clark County aren’t immune to these challenges and they even further to go.

The CRC staff proposal doesn’t do enough to address this. Light rail, improved bike, pedestrian, and freight improvements are good, but they’re the beginning not the end. We know we need more and decisions related to this bridge force us to have that difficult conversation.

How we pay for the bridge, in particular, deserves great scrutiny. The model currently in mind envisions wholesale change to how we fund transportation today. First, it assumes tolls even though the citizens that would pay them haven’t been asked yet for formal input. Second, it assumes a dramatic influx of federal dollars—about $500 million—which is much more than we’ve ever seen for one project. Finally, it contemplates a $1 billion contribution from the two states with no identified source for those funds. In Oregon the likely source would be a gas tax increase, which hasn’t seen legislative support in 15 years.

Some bottom lines for me include considerations for:
including transportation management districts
establishing tolls should involve input from the people and should include I5 and I205
light rail serving to connect Clark County to Portland should be part of this
light rail serving as safety improvement and accessibility improvement to Hayden Island should be part of this
building the most sustainable, green bridge in America that deals with reducing pollution and greenhouse gases, and dealing with stormwater in an environmentally responsible way.

The good news is CRC staff has done a lot of hard work to gather transportation data and make projections about travel behavior. Elected officials and stakeholders need to use that as a foundation for a broader conversation with their communities about our collective regional future, and how we meet the environmental and other challenges we know we need to address.

-Sam

Kyle Burris
Position sought: Mayor
Website: site not up yet
Financial status: Intends to raise less than $300

I want to do a joke about bombing out bridges to protect the motherland, but I'm way too tired.

Seriously, the proposed plan is a bunch of bullshit. I really like what Chris Smith had to say. Go back and read his post, if you haven't yet.

Christopher Rich
Position sought: Mayor
Website: myspace.com/chrisrich4mayor
Financial status: $0 in contributions, $0 currently in the bank

Did not respond by deadline.

Jeff Taylor
Position sought: Mayor
Website: portland123.com
Financial status: -$31,420.95 currently in the bank, the balance of a loan to himself

Did not respond by deadline.

Sho Dozono
Position sought: Mayor
Website: shoformayor.com
Financial status: $46,028.13 in contributions, $25,141.52 currently in the bank

Did not respond by deadline.

Beryl McNair
Position sought: Mayor
Website: myspace.com/301848721
Financial status: $220.00 in contributions, $220.00 currently in the bank

Did not respond by deadline.

Patricia Stuart
Position sought: Mayor
Website: myspace.com/votepatriciastuart
Financial status: Intends to raise less than $300

Did not respond by deadline.

Steven Entwisle
Position sought: Mayor
Website: myspace.com/votepatriciastuart
Financial status: Intends to raise less than $300

Did not respond by deadline.