Before I go to bed—early, so I can be at the Rose Quarter before 6:30 am tomorrow, following the stern warning from the Obama campaign to all media about equipment set up—here’s the last set of council candidates, with their thoughts on the Columbia River Crossing 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?

Transportation wonk Chris Smith is unsurprisingly up first!

Chris Smith
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: citizensmith.us
Financial status: $150,000 in public funding, $133,815.20 currently in the bank

The Portland Transport blog that I publish on regional transportation policy has been one of the major venues for skeptical discussion of the Columbia River Crossing project. I would invite interested readers to check out almost three years of discussion at: http://portlandtransport.com/archives/projects/columbia_crossing/

This project attempts to address a number of issues: freight access in an important corridor, high capacity transit across the Columbia, traffic safety, maintenance of 50/100 year old bridges, among others. All of these are valid goals, but we have to ask how this fits into the big picture. I have two key questions in this regard:

1) How does this project fit in the larger picture of Portland’s goals to get out in front of Peak Oil and Global Warming?

2) What is the opportunity cost of this project? Are there other ways to invest $4B+ that would have better returns for the community? What are the cost/benefit trade-offs for this project?

Recently three people that I greatly respect: Oregon Transportation Commission Chair Gail Achterman, Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder and TriMet General Manager Fred Hansen attempted to address the first question and essentially said “in the big picture this doesn’t increase greenhouse gas production very much” (I’m paraphrasing)

Well, that may be true (depending on how flexible your definition of “very much” is), but in the big picture we’re failing to address greenhouse gases in an effective way and this goes in the wrong direction. I’m imagining this question from my grandchildren in 30 years:

“You spent $4B, the largest public works project in Oregon history, on something that didn’t REDUCE greenhouse gases?!!”

If we’re going to make an investment this large, it MUST move us in the direction of sustainability. Even being “mostly neutral” is not acceptable!

Hear, hear! The rest of his response, and those of his challengers, is after the cut.

To the second question, local economist Joe Cortright has raised serious questions about whether this project returns as much to the economy as it costs (and it costs about $2,000 for every man, woman and child in the region). And one-fourth to one-third of the project costs will likely come from local sources, reducing funding for other much-needed transportation projects throughout the region.

I believe there are a series of smaller, incremental steps that could better and more cost-effectively address the real needs. Key initiatives would include:

- Build a Light Rail and bicycle and pedestrian bridge parallel to the existing bridges to create real choices for how we cross the Columbia
- Toll the existing bridges to manage demand, increase sustainability, and prioritize freight traffic
- Use the toll revenue to fund seismic and safety upgrades to the existing bridges

Coupled with smart investments of the local funds that would be saved by avoiding this mega-project, we can improve the transportation system for the whole region and keep on a path toward greater sustainability.

A $4.2 Billion, 12-lane mega-bridge would be a 180-degree-turn from decades of smart transportation planning in Portland. As Commissioner I’ll lead the effort to insist that we evaluate alternative options that improve our region’s sustainability.

John Branam
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: john4pdx.org
Financial status: $150,000 in public funding, $88,244.72 currently in the bank

What we decide to do as a region, regarding the Columbia River Crossing (CRC), will have a dramatic impact on our region for generations to come. How we spend our money; the degree to which we challenge ourselves to mirror our values in our regional spending; and the process by which we make our decision also speaks volumes about who we are, and who we want to be, as a community.

As a Portlander and having grown up here in Oregon, I’m passionate about reducing my carbon footprint. As a practical matter I also believe goods and services, as well as cars and people, must be able to move across the Columbia. This movement is an essential component of both a healthy economy (including jobs that pay fair, livable wages) and our ability to live reasonably comfortable lives.

As these two perspectives intersect, I find myself believing that we must work diligently to solve the congestion of the I5 crossing, but also that the $4.2 billion dollar proposal is likely not the right solution to meeting Portland’s goals and needs. Fundamentally, the solution we adopt must ensure freight and public transportation becomes more fluid, but that our reliance on SOVs (single occupancy vehicles) is reduced.

Among other specific ideas, I believe strongly that the following three elements must be part of the answer to the CRC if we’re to genuinely honor our regional values, and our commitment to reducing our carbon footprint.

First, I believe we should add tolls to discourage driving SOVs, and in particular, discouraging doing so during peak usage times. Not only will this assist us in raising revenue by taxing those who use the bridge the most, but it will also serve as one mechanism for encouraging car-pooling and public transportation use.

Second, the crossing must include light rail and ample bike/ walk space that connects to user-friendly paths on both sides of the river. This, I believe, is the crossing’s most crucial element. Ample studies show that this piece, not adding more lanes, will significantly reduce traffic congestion. (And as we advance this idea I think we must examine whether, after building such a crossing, we would even need a new bridge for vehicles.)

Third, we must re-designate a lane for carpooling, public transport and freight to help increase, in particular, freight fluidity.

In terms of ensuring these values won’t be hijacked in the process, I believe the answer is to have firm leadership that is as unified as possible, but that negotiates in a way that is respectful, genuine, and collaborative.

Together, as a region, we will solve this challenge, but let’s do it in a way that honors our commitment to reducing our reliance on vehicles while also promoting our commitment to reducing our carbon footprint.

Jeff Bissonnette
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: portlandersforjeff.com
Financial status: $150,000 in public funding, $136,258.48 currently in the bank

Back in November 2007, the staff and consultants made a recommendation to the Columbia River Crossing Task Force for a completely new bridge span to replace the Interstate Bridge . The new bridge is projected to be a twelve-lane span with either light rail or rapid bus transit capacity along with improved pedestrian and bicycle access.

A complete bridge replacement is the most ambitious, and expensive, option among the current project alternatives. While this project is not on my list of top priorities, I do not believe the current "no build" option will be adopted so it is our responsibility to fashion a plan that fits with the overall strategies to address global warming and better transportation for the residents of our region. I question the number of lanes in the current recommendation (an increase from the current six lanes to twelve seems excessive to me) and I am not convinced the expense of a totally new bridge is worth it at this point, although maintenance costs over the long term are projected to be lower than with other options.

While I am still studying the issue, I initially lean toward the project alternative that calls for a supplemental bridge built directly downstream (west) of the current bridge that would have a four-lane capacity and light rail included. The current bridge pair would be re-striped to four lanes and have capacity for improved pedestrian and bicycle access. It would also be seismically upgraded. I am more comfortable with this approach because:

* it calls for increasing the number of overall lanes from six to eight lanes;

* it appears as though it can be done at a somewhat lower cost;

* it focuses on light rail (rather than rapid bus transit, which would be more expensive than light rail);

* it seeks to improves bike and pedestrian usage; and

* it gets several more years of life out of the current dual-bridge span.

I am completely opposed to a project that does not include light rail as a transportation option across the river.

As I said, I am still studying the issue. There are several questions that I am trying to answer for myself about the project before I take a firm position on it. They include:

* what is the actual remaining potential life of the current dual-bridge span? I've seen several conflicting reports about the bridges' viability over the long term and I'd like more clarity on that point.
* what is the actual effect on traffic flow? Are we simply moving traffic gridlock a few miles north and south from where it is occurring today or are we actually fixing the gridlock problem with a new bridge configuration?
* will the project improve the air quality in North and Northeast Portland?
* what is the effect of new configurations on the roads and streets adjacent to the bridge and any new interchanges?
* will a reconfiguration of the current bridge pair with better pedestrian and bicycle access actually make it more pleasant to walk or bike across the river?
* is there public support for instituting tolling as a way of partially paying for the project and can that tolling be implemented as "congestion pricing" so that more is paid when using the bridge at high traffic times (ie - during rush hour) and less at low traffic times (ie - at night).
* what effect will the project have on the businesses located in Jantzen Beach?
* how does this project fit with the greater regional transportation plan that seeks 1) to rely less on forcing people to use cars to get around and 2) to reduce our overall carbon footprint?

There are other questions but those are the key points I am considering. Lastly, while this is a very important project that we must develop thoughtfully, it is only one piece of a much larger picture. As my last question suggests, the project needs to be evaluated in that larger context. You can read more about the project for yourself at www.columbiarivercrossing.org and let me know what you think by writing info@portlandersforjeff.com.

Amanda Fritz
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: amandafritzforcitycouncil.com
Financial status: $150,000 in public funding, $124,099.22 currently in the bank

In this project as with all others, my questions are: "What is the true cost? Who pays, who benefits, and is that fair?"

It is premature for decision-makers in Portland to take positions on the staff-recommended option, or any other, since neither the Portland City Council nor the Portland Planning Commission has held a public hearing to review the options and their potential impact on Portland and Portlanders. Big Picture issues including global warming, international freight movement from Canada to Mexico, and Washington-Oregon commuters must be considered, and so must the local needs of folks in Bridgeton, East Columbia, Kenton, and other neighborhoods to get to and from Hayden Island. There have been many opportunities for input to the diligent committees working on this project, but none before the Portland City Council. Citizens must have opportunities to testify directly to their elected officials, before decisions are made.

Current estimates call for the citizens of Oregon to pay at least $800 million towards the cost - that's in addition to proposed tolls, and hoped-for federal money. I have not yet heard any proposal for how to carve out $800 million from our state and/or regional/local budget, at a time when schools, health care, senior services, and other transportation needs statewide and in Portland are underfunded. My campaign's core focus is on prioritizing the City's budget to fund basic services first. The Metro Council and State Legislators should also make thoughtful decisions about where the Columbia River Crossing fits into the overall plan for paying for the things we need most in Oregon.

I support the approach of the Coalition for a Livable Future - I urge evaluation of all options (including no-build) with respect to Oregon's mandate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to staff analysis, all the proposals being considered, including doing nothing, result in 40% or more increased driving by 2030. It is not yet clear which bridge option - replacement or supplemental - is better for achieving the goal of a "climate smart" Columbia River Crossing that will reduce driving in the future.

I am a member of the Coalition for a Livable Future's board, so I have been following this issue closely with member organizations such as the Environmental Justice Action Group, and staff serving on the Task Force. When I heard that no hearing was planned in Portland, I testified at City Council last fall, on a minor funding contract related to the Columbia River bridge, to bring the matter to the attention of the Councilmen. I talked with the Planning Commission President and staff, urging hearings before the Planning Commission and Council. Those hearings are now planned. Public input is important not only to help choose the right bridge options, but also to promote community buy-in on such an expensive project.

Portland has the right to veto this project, and I have consistently advocated for Portlanders on all sides to be allowed to testify to their own elected and appointed decision-makers. Once again, I did not wait to be elected before taking leadership on an important issue, making positive changes for Portland. If you elect me to the Council, I will make sure Portlanders don't have to make special requests to have the opportunity to be heard.

Charles Lewis
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: charleslewis.com
Financial status: $150,000 in public funding, $129,287.29 currently in the bank

The Columbia River Crossing will likely be the largest public works project in the history of our region. Taking on a project of this magnitude requires bringing leaders together from throughout Oregon and Washington to find real solutions. Six local agencies have veto power over the proposal, meaning that we need collaborative leadership to craft a proposal that satisfies the needs of all involved parties. The future of our environment and economy rely heavily on the decisions that will be made regarding this project.

Congestion on the I-5 bridge has gotten to the point where some action needs to be taken. Simply ignoring the problem is not the type of leadership that will serve the people of Portland well. However, I do not believe we can simply build our way out of this problem. We need a modern day solution that is responsive to our environmental, transportation, health and community needs. According to research conducted by the Coalition for a Livable Future, each option being considered would increase driving at least 40% by 2030. This is not a sustainable solution.

I will support a climate friendly option that increases transportation choices to reduce the number of drivers on the road each day. This includes investing in light rail, creating bike and pedestrian facilities, instituting a congestion based toll and encouraging carpooling. As Amy correctly pointed out in last week’s edition of The Mercury, tolls and light rail are the most effective ways to get drivers to consider alternative forms of transportation. I would like to see these options at the forefront of any Columbia River Crossing proposal.

Mike Fahey
Position sought: Commissioner #1
Website: friendsofmikefahey.com
Financial status: $14,530.00 in contributions to date, $10,629.60 currently in the bank

Did not respond by deadline.