This Week in the Mercury

The Blueprint

Film

The Blueprint

So Some Stuff Happens in Safe House I Guess


Blood, Honey, and a Trojan Horse

Film

Blood, Honey, and a Trojan Horse

Angelina Jolie Brings a Dog into the Bosnian War



  |  

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Politics "Railroaded" Politicians Demand Debate on CRC Bridge, Adams Suggests Cutting Lanes

Posted by Sarah Mirk on Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:17 AM

During the legislative session, our elected representatives in Salem cut $30 million in Columbia River Crossing bridge funding from their strapped budgets. But that didn't keep the state from handing over the big bucks to the bridge—Governor Kulongoski got the appointed group the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) to approve the $30 million from his budget anyway.

That move pissed off some politicians who say the bridge is receiving taxpayer money without going through the rigorous debate and scrutiny of most transportation projects because it skipped over the floor of the legisalture. Reps Brian Clem, Jules Bailey and Cliff Bentz penned an editorial in The Oregonian yesterday titled, "Where's the Debate?"

"I think there's been an almost, by design, maneuvering to get this thing done without having a public debate in the legislature," says Clem, explaining why he felt compelled to write the editorial. "I need to voice my opinion and it's obviously not going to be on the floor of the legislature. I'm sure there were not 36 votes for this project, so if this was railroaded to get it through, that's a problem."

Clem says he supports an improved bridge that gets freight moving between states quicker and easier, but does not want to subsidize single-occupancy commuter car trips from Vancouver to Portland. "I don't think we need to feed the growth machine. If Vancouver commuters want to get into Portland, they should have to figure out how to carpool, get on the light rail or get on their bikes."

Jules Bailey says the OTC was within their legal right to approve the money, but that statewide elected officials need to have a debate NOW about the bridge, "We as a legislature scrutinize a huge array of projects that had funding specifically allocated to them. And we did that because we wanted to have a debate about the best way to create jobs and improve our transportation system."

And recently, the local elected officials who have been able to debate the issue have been suggesting we cut the number of lanes on the 12-lane $4.2 billion span.

At a meeting of the Project Sponsor's Council last week, reports The Columbian, Mayor Sam Adams uttered these words: "Given the financial realities we face, I think we need to change that to six to 10 (lanes)."

What? Was that perhaps the sound of angels singing "I told you so!" in tiny voices? Metro Council President David Bragdon, who sits on the Council, agrees with Adams that the CRC staff needs to start cutting lanes or interchanges from the bridge project and fast. His analysis is devastating.

"It's clear that the version the DOTs [dept of transportation] are pushing is not fundable at its current size. It's also unpopular. They're in a real jam, because they've cooked up this project which is unfundable," says Bragdon. With tolling a controversial topic, the feds unsure if they can put as much money toward the project as the CRC staff wanted and the "near death experience" in the Oregon legislature, says Bragdon, "They've basically overestimated and been overly optimistic on all three revenue streams. How they've gotten this far and spent as much money as they've spent without being realistic about the revenues is beyond me."

Bam.

 

Comments (11) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
But the 12-land mega-bridge was part of Adams grand plan to make Portland the "greenest city in the world." How can he do that if sensible people like Jules Bailey point out Adams' utter hypocrisy and the insanity of subsidizing unsustainable growth in Clark County? What a POS we have for a Mayor.
Posted by Jesus Fucking Christ on September 9, 2009 at 9:28 AM · Report
2
So I'm unclear. Are folks like Bragdon, Bailey etc for the new bridge but only 10 lanes or are they in the "leave it as it is" camp?

I also fear that if they start cutting things to reduce the costs the first thing that goes is the Light Rail line.
Posted by Finnegan on September 9, 2009 at 9:54 AM · Report
3
You don't "feed the growth machine," you choose to accommodate growth.
Or take these peoples' advice and ignore it.
Posted by D on September 9, 2009 at 10:23 AM · Report
4
Whatever, its not really the exact number of lanes that is at stake. Replacing a bridge that is not rated as "Structurally Deficient" is absurd (especially when there are multiple bridges that are rated as "Poor".

Dont believe me? Check
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BRIDGE/
Look for this link on the right column: "2009 Bridge Condition Report (New!)"

It is infuriating that this pathetic idea is still being funded. I applaud Reps Clem, Bailey and Bentz for making a stand.

There are a dozen cheaper fixes that wont make it necessary to toll $5 to cross the Columbia.
Posted by revphil on September 9, 2009 at 10:30 AM · Report
5
How they've gotten this far and spent as much money as they've spent without being realistic about the revenues is beyond me."

The money line.

I'm in the leave it as it is camp. Throw some tolls up, and build a light rail bridge. All for about 1/3 of the cost. Clark Co commuters will adjust.
Posted by nopoboy on September 9, 2009 at 10:42 AM · Report
6
and it's not so much that they'll adjust; it's that an army of new Clark County commuters WON'T be created.
Posted by peejay on September 9, 2009 at 12:52 PM · Report
7
A city has only two choices - grow or die. A city that doesn't grow is a dead city.

But then what else would we expect from a state that uses pubolic money to pay for assisted suicide.

As for me, I'm fine with growth.

growth = jobs.

It's just that simple.

Grow or die.

As for your insane tolls, well you can shove those.
Posted by anonymous123 on September 9, 2009 at 1:31 PM · Report
8
Anonymous123, we can't get something for nothing.

If we a brand new bridge, we'll have to either pay tolls or pay taxes.

We should spend the money on maintaining our existing infrastructure instead. That's still jobs.


Posted by Ed7 on September 9, 2009 at 1:59 PM · Report
9
Anon123 - grow or die sounds like Vancouver's problem not Portland or Oregon's.
Posted by crankmychain on September 9, 2009 at 4:31 PM · Report
10
It is possible for the city to grow without a new bridge, you know. There are other directions to build houses in. And (even better) lots of space within current city limits that could easily accommodate more people. Portland's population density has gone down over the last fifty years. The growth => bridge argument is ridiculous.
Posted by Stu on September 9, 2009 at 4:53 PM · Report
11
"Grow or die" is a false choice. But it's a catchy phrase, and a particular favorite of money-grubbing developers.

Growth is, by its nature, unsustainable. We live in a finite world.

Another name for uncontrolled growth, in the biological realm, is cancer.
Posted by Inductee on September 13, 2009 at 12:13 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