What do the candidates to replace Erik Sten have to say about the CRC project?

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?

Ed Garren
Position sought: Commissioner #2
Website: edforportland.com
Financial status: $2,035.00 in contributions, $1,237.72 currently in the bank

I am a two year and counting member of the Columbia River Crossings Community and Environmental Justice Group. It has been a very educational experience, the project is being extensively planned and there are many considerations. They include harbor and shipping navigation, traffic flow in both directions, regional commerce and long term viability, and seismic concerns.

For example, the current bridges are built upon a “foundation” of wooden pilings that were driven into the sand as deeply as possible, and then a concrete cap was poured on top of them. They do not go into rock. The bedrock is about 230 feet below the sand of the river bed. When we have our 100 year seismic event, which is slightly overdue, the bridge will probably not withstand the event, and then a new bridge will be required.

I live on Hayden Island, and we are the most directly affected and impacted by all of the issues with traffic on the bridge of any Portland residents. From my home on the river, the bridge is a constant companion. I hear the sirens when the span lifts, I watch the traffic flow, and the current bridge frames my views of Mt. Hood. Other Portlanders probably never consider that our preferred way to go to the airport, or anywhere in east Portland, is to go north across the bridge, take WA #14 east, and then go south on the 205. For us, Vancouver is already a part of our “street grid.”

There are no easy resolutions for this bridge. But some things are very clear and most of them fit with the staff recommended option. And that option has been hammered out over a few years, with input from thousands of people, and hundreds of community meetings and briefings. The staff option has not been created in a vacuum. All of the indicators are clear, the bridge needs to be replaced with a wider and safer bridge, without a lift span, and Vancouver now wants light rail, or some form of transit. 10 to 12 lanes sounds like a lot, but consider the current bottleneck with 6 lanes. Two more in each direction is not a giant leap. It’s just a bridge that is a lot like the 205 bridge across the river, which moves a lot faster and has a lot fewer accidents.

The new bridge will cost money, and depending upon the federal contribution (another reason to elect “good” people at the federal level), there may or may not be tolling on the bridge to pay for it. I would oppose any toll that would place an undue hardship on working people. Anything more than $1.50 a trip is too much.

Garren’s response continues after the cut…

And those of us who live where I do will have a front row seat for the construction noise and emissions, for about six years. That is why I have lobbied that the construction equipment used must incorporate emerging "clean diesel" technology. Virtually all of the Oregon construction will take place on Hayden Island. But much more will take place in Vancouver and a lot is being considered with regard to mitigations in Vancouver. Moreover, as the region grows, we will need to continue to partner with government and communities in Washington. Portland City leadership will be able to best serve the interests of the city by serving the interests of the region, and that means productive and viable relations with all of our neighbors.

The new bridge must be built. As our region grows, and Vancouver and Portland become a larger "metro" area, the need for safe transportation across the river will continue to expand. We will need expanded capacity, including a mass transit component, on a bridge that will withstand a strong earthquake and can last 100 years, like the east span of the current one (which is almost 100 years old).

My campaign treasurer is a member of Portland Peak Oil, and I am very familiar with the diminishing petroleum issues which loom large on the horizon. It's one reason I bought a car that gets 40+ MPG in city driving. And I remind him that before we had automobiles, people had horses and wagons, and that no matter how much transit exists, there will always be a need for personal transportation. My personal vision is that those cars will be zero emission battery electric cars, but we will still need them, and still have traffic.

So we need to prepare for it, along with the commerce which keeps our local economy pumping money into our pockets.

Jim Middaugh
Position sought: Commissioner #2
Website: jimforportland.com
Financial status: $150,000 in public funding, $138,397.97 currently in the bank

Staff Recommended Option

The existing bridge is old. It's the only lift span on I-5. It's not safe. And, the current and future constraints on freight movement cost our region jobs. The bridge is one of the most congested bottlenecks on the entire I-5 system from Mexico to Canada. It was designed in 1907 for horses and carriages; it's on 60 foot timber pilings in the sand; and has the highest crash rates in either state for I-5.

That said, the likely staff recommendation currently is insufficient when it comes to meeting Portland's needs. I understand that the CRC is a bi-state project that must provide benefits to both Washington and Oregon (and Vancouver and Portland). In my opinion, the balance tips too far toward Washington and Vancouver in what is likely to be the preferred alternative -- although we don't know for sure what will be recommended.

Specifically, the likely preferred option scores points for Portland on light rail (assuming that's what we'll get), bike and pedestrian facilities but it falls short on the finance plan, the number of "alternate" lanes that provide on ramps and exits for short trips, the scale and cost of the on and off ramps in Vancouver (in my opinion they're overbuilt) and the lack of grounding in a serious and compact growth plan for Clark County.

Finally, the projected cost of the bridge for Oregon is way too high compared with the benefits the staff says it will provide, particularly given the massive uncertainties surrounding global warming and peak oil.

Optimal Crossing

I don't know what the optimal crossing would be at this time. I believe we need to begin implementing demand management now -- i.e. tolling and congestion pricing -- to see how traffic responds. My gut says we can do better than the staff estimates at reducing and spreading demand throughout the day using tolls and other techniques. If that's the case, we can reduce the cost and scale of the project (Please note that I also believe we need mechanisms that ensure equity for low income people who must drive).

I believe light rail must be the transit option and that light rail must serve Hayden Island. As I mentioned above, it appears to me that the Vancouver on and off ramps are overbuilt and overpriced -- Vancouver doesn't need that much capacity. We also need to take a hard look at reducing the number of auxiliary lanes on the crossing. And most importantly, we need a stronger commitment from Vancouver and Clark County that they will limit sprawl and focus instead on compact development in downtown Vancouver that will give people options other than driving.

Portland's Needs and Goals

It's impossible to think of Portland alone. Vancouver and Clark County are part of our Metro region whether we like it or not. The best way to protect Portland is to focus hard on creating a balance of jobs and housing on each side of the river so people don't need to drive. The second best way to meet Portland's needs and goals is to ensure that Washingtonians -- who create most of the traffic -- pay their fair share of the costs. And, the third way to protect Portland is to ensure that the traffic, environmental and growth effects that will be created by the project -- no matter what its scale and scope -- are minimized and fully mitigated. Finally, whatever is built has to be a lot better looking than the monstrosity we have seen in the papers.

Harold C. Williams Two
Position sought: Commissioner #2
Website: none
Financial status: $300 in contributions, $300 currently in the bank

Yes, I do feel that this project will help to meet the citizen of Portland needs. Along with mapping out the Portland city government system, which is a large task in itself, I will be a strong and loud voice for the citizen of Portland. -Harold C. Williams Two Candidate for Portland City Commissioner position (2)

Nick Fish
Position sought: Commissioner #2
Website: nickfish2008.com
Financial status: $35,550.01 in contributions, $30,113.93 currently in the bank

Did not respond by deadline.

Fred Stewart
Position sought: Commissioner #2
Website: none
Financial status: $525 in contributions, $295 currently in the bank

Did not respond by deadlines.