This Week in the Mercury

I Love Television™

Columns

I Love Television™

This Business Called "Show"


I, Anonymous

Columns

I, Anonymous

The Unwashed



  |  

Friday, March 27, 2009

Politics / Transportation Oregonian Slams BTA for CRC Stance

Posted by Sarah Mirk on Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 9:46 AM

Today's Oregonian editorial "Betting on the Wrong Bridge" issues a harsh critique of the Bicycle Transportation Alliance for speaking out against the 12-lane Columbia River Crossing:

It takes less strength to demolish a fragile political alliance than to cement and sustain one. Unfortunately, the 5,000-member organization has chosen exactly the wrong place to plant its flag. The alliance has decided to oppose what many freight, business and transportation advocates consider to be the No. 1 economic development goal for the region — replacing the Interstate 5 bridge. The alliance is urging its members to participate in a rally Sunday, April 5, to protest the $4.2 billion project. This is a very serious mistake. It shows an insularity in the thinking of the organization, just at a time when it ought to be broadening its reach.

Three paragraphs of the editorial is then turned over to a blog commentor from BikePortland who, amidst the dozens of supportive comments on BikePortland's post about the CRC, was upset with the BTA's outspoken stance.

This editorial shows a couple things. One is that the Oregonian is apparently interested in having random blog commentors write its editorial copy, so Blogtownies should maybe consider applying for a gig at the paper. The other is that the O is taking the opposition to the bridge seriously. Also, it's clear that having established advocacy groups like the BTA speak out against the bridge raises the mainstream profile of the "opposition and alternatives campaign" significantly.

The BTA and other groups that care about Oregon's environment and transit need to "plant a flag" on the CRC. Before investing $4.2 billion in the biggest single transit project in our region's history, it makes perfect sense to demand the smartest, cleanest, most bike, pedestrian and mass transit-friendly bridge possible. And it's also essential to speak out - loudly! - when it looks like the project will undermine Oregon's green goals. Since the BTA are strong allies with Mayor Adams (who proposed the bridge) and need to maintain good relations with transportation and business groups, the 12-lane CRC puts them in a tough political situation. But the BTA made the right choice. Their position isn't "extremist" or "out of touch with reality" as the Oregonian claims. Their position is well-founded, well-researched and strongly supported among cyclists in town.

The BTA publicly clarified their position on the bridge earlier this week, saying that politicians should consider alternatives to the 12-lane bridge because "expanding the freeway and constructing six massive new interchanges will do tremendous damage to the bike friendliness of communities around the project."

But impact on communities isn't the only reason to oppose the current bridge design. Even if the BTA sticks to bike-centric advocacy, the 12-lane bridge looks like a bad idea. "A 12-lane bridge is more likely to have an under bridge bike facility and that will certainly not be a world class bike facility," BTA educator & advocate Michelle Poyourow explained a few days after City Council voted to approve the 12-lane option in February. "A under bridge facility will be dark, it will be invisible, it will be under concrete."

The Oregonian says the BTA should support the bridge because Oregon and Washington governors promise that the CRC "will be the most environmentally friendly bridge ever built, providing vastly improved access for cyclists and walkers, in addition to light rail and tolling to control congestion." But none of these positive aspects are more than promises — and politicians have already come up short on those. City Council promised it would not approve the bridge without an in-depth environmental report, but voted 4-1 in favor of the bridge without that environmental report. And the CRC's own staff reports show that 12 lanes will increase greenhouse gas emissions.

The other people speaking at the rally besides the BTA's Poyourow? City Councilor Amanda Fritz, Metro Councilor Robert Liberty and Former Secretary of State Bill Bradbury. If the BTA is a group of out-of-touch extremists, they're in good company.

 

Comments (9) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
"The alliance has decided to oppose what many freight, business and transportation advocates consider to be the No. 1 economic development goal for the region — replacing the Interstate 5 bridge."

OH THE NERVE!!! To oppose business "advocates" when they want to skim profits from a taxpayer funded works project is just UN- American. How dare they have their OWN opinion. Hey Democracy - The Snoregonian says "Fuck You"!!!!!!
Posted by Abusive on March 27, 2009 at 11:16 AM · Report
2
> skim profits from a taxpayer funded works project is just UN- American.

(1) Public works projects provide jobs -- are you against those too? Do jobs say Fuck You to democracy too? Throw any bricks through Starbucks windows lately?

(2) And, they're not even talking about that -- they're talking about the hindrance to commerce that is the current bridge. More bridge capacity, less gridlock, less time wasted for everyone in traffic, more time to work and play. Follow?

I hate to be on the same side as the Oregonian, but they're dead right on this one. There is no good reason to build anything other than a 12-lane bridge. It is the only project that makes sense. I'd like to hear someone defend (while not using the words global warming, please) spending billions of dollars to replace a 6-lane bridge with a 6-lane bridge.

As for the GW bullshit: This bridge is going to be around for 50+ years, most likely. Gas engines are not. In 20 years, we will all be driving EVs or something like them - zero-emissions vehicles. And we will have a couple million more people in the region. We will need a better bridge.
Posted by mr. voluptuous on March 27, 2009 at 11:43 AM · Report
3
I agree with the Oregonian (surprise, surprise, right?).

I think that it's appropriate for the freight and business communities to have a lot of sway over this particular project, because it affects them directly. The interests of the (mostly central-city) bike advocates are frankly tangential.

I think when liberals speak out about this type of thing, they just demonstrate a lack of understanding of how the world works. And I think that's how the real decision-makers are going to look at this rally, too.

I'm very concerned about green house gases myself, but the solution will clearly be technological (i.e. non-polluting cars). Our society works around cars now - has for a century. Almost every household has a car and uses it regularly.

We're not going to regress to a system of trains and bikes. Just not going to happen. So focus your energy on auto solutions instead of pie-in-sky utopianism.
Posted by Blabby on March 27, 2009 at 12:01 PM · Report
4
More efficient vehicles are coming for sure, but there is no such thing as a non-polluting car, electric or otherwise. Where do you think the electricity comes from? And current hybrids cause more greenhouse gas emissions that the more efficient normal cars, once you've included the costs of making nickel batteries...

Mr V: you're making the same mistake the bridge supporters have been making all along. More bridge capacity does NOT mean less gridlock. It means that the current gridlock is moved from the river towards downtown Portland. Short of widening every arterial road in the metro area, the gridlock isn't going to go away. When people say you can't build your way out of gridlock, they're not just talking about induced demand.

And you're right, spending all that money on replacing the current bridge with a new 6-lane bridge makes no sense. Better to keep the current one, move the lift on the rail bridge, and build a new light rail / bus / bike / local access bridge alongside. Strangely, that option was never considered by the CRC group...

Blabby - for once I agree, the BTA's position is largely irrelevant. What isn't irrelevant is that nobody has come up with a convincing argument that a bigger bridge will decrease overall congestion. Just because it *seems* obvious - because it will reduce congestion around the bridge - doesn't mean it's true. If you want a quicker commute from Vancouver into Portland, building light rail may help a bit, but building a bigger bridge with 12 car lanes won't help.
Posted by Stu on March 27, 2009 at 12:33 PM · Report
5
Stu, I think it will help for awhile. They have projections on when it would get congested again, and it isn't for a couple of decades, I think.

Doing nothing will eventually turn I-5 into a parking lot from Tigard up past Vancouver. All those cars moving at a crawl will belch out a lot more smoke than cars moving along.

Believe me, by not being realistic about the need to expand your freeways, you can create a miserable miserable situation. I lived in Seattle for a long time. It sucks, it can easily happen here, and refusing to increase capacity doesn't help.
Posted by Blabby on March 27, 2009 at 1:55 PM · Report
6
I have heard that the railroad is going to replace their bridge within the next couple of years. If this is true, it would be a perfect time to integrate the railroad, bikes and light rail. Except that light rail should go out to the CC fairgrounds, from both sides of Portland. I believe this would help relieve some of the gridlock.
Posted by ujfoyt on March 27, 2009 at 2:00 PM · Report
7
http://slbsoftware.com/doom.png
Posted by NIG GER on March 27, 2009 at 3:39 PM · Report
8
Thanks for the post Sarah! Well put. Definitely, today's editorial shows that the Oregonian and the business community are taking opposition to the 12-lane I-5 bridge seriously - as well they should.

The more people in Portland start to realize that they are about to pay for the only 12-lane freeway in the Northwest, maybe the only (last?) new 12-lane freeway in the country, the more they are going to demand that this project get yanked or seriously amended.

There are so many better ways we could spend $4 + billion. If it has to be on transportation, how about a bullet train to Seattle with a stop in Vancouver (8 mins from downtown, anyone?)
Posted by bike_militia on March 27, 2009 at 5:54 PM · Report
9
Blabby, not just in a few decades. The projections say that the bridge will be congested the day that it is opens, for 5 hours of a day, (2 hours in the morning, southbound, 3 hours in the afternoon, northbound.) If you look at the entire corridor, (I-205 split in WA, to I-84 split in Portland) Travel speeds, after the new bridge, will be very similar to the travel speeds today. (It will still take about an hour, at rush hour.)

With the exception of the people that get paid to work on this project, I don't know a single person who has actually read the EIS who thinks this is a good idea.
Posted by Matthew D on March 27, 2009 at 7:35 PM · Report

Add a comment

Our Friends

Our Enemies

/images/adoftheweek.gif

ad of the day

The Handyman Pro - Your Honey-Do Specialist
Don’t let our name fool you. The Handyman Pro, LLC is a repair and remodel service provider with over 25-years experience. We cover all aspects of construction and repairs for residential and commercial clients.go


post an ad

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC

115 SW Ash St. Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204

Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Production Guidelines | Terms of Use