This Week in the Mercury

All Shook Up

Food and Drink

All Shook Up

Oven and Shaker's Italian Comfort Food


Blood, Honey, and a Trojan Horse

Film

Blood, Honey, and a Trojan Horse

Angelina Jolie Brings a Dog into the Bosnian War



  |  

Friday, November 20, 2009

News BREAKING: Metro Takes Aim to Kill CRC Support in 2011

Posted by Sarah Mirk on Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:47 PM

At a Metro Council meeting on Tuesday November 2nd, Councilor Robert Liberty introduced a little amendment to the group's regional transportation plan that could actually turn out to be a bombshell.

The amendment "Sunset the Columbia River Crossing Project by September 1, 2011" (pdf) proposes that the Metro Council's 2008 vote supporting the $2.6-$3.6 billion bridge project expire in 2011 if the project has not secured local, state and federal funds. Metro's straw poll vote on the amendment at the meeting showed overwhelming support for the idea: six thumbs up and Rex Burkholder's thumb sideways.

8.42feature160.jpg

The notes from the meeting are revealing:


(1) What was the purpose of the amendment; to kill the project by subterfuge or to force a realistic assessment of the prospects for funding the project and the tradeoffs it would require to not advance other projects? For most of the Councilors the answer was the latter.

...

(3) What would be the legal impact of the amendment, near term? Might the amendment have an unintended consequence? Staff could give no clear answer to that question. Staff did note that there was a precedent for removing a major highway project from the [Regional Transportation Plan] after it had been approved, the Mt. Hood Freeway.

(4) What would be the political impact of the amendment? Would it compromise the agency or region’s ability to secure Federal funding for the project? Different Councilors had different perspectives on this issue.

(5) Why was this amendment appropriate now coming 14 months after the project had been endorsed by the Metro Council? The subsequent events that some Councilors found persuasive in this regard were the failure of the Oregon Legislature to identify funding for the project, despite earmarks for other large highway projects; critical statements made by Congressman DeFazio and Baird and the recent mayoral election in Vancouver.

After listening to the CRC staff pitch their slimmed-down 10-lane bridge to state legislators yesterday, Environment Oregon's Brock Howell noted that having Metro's support for the bridge project sunset in 2011 would effectively kill the project. Howell says the funding timelines for the bridge looking grim. Here's why: to get a lot of the federal funding on board, the CRC needs to have its light rail funds secured. But funding for light rail will come from a Vanouver area sales tax, which Vancouverites will vote on in 2011 at the earliest, though the vote could be pushed to 2013 or 2014.

If the project doesn't have the light rail funding in the bag by 2011, it can't get the federal funds in the bag by 2011 and the expiration of Metro's support would send the project back to the drawing board.

The Council decided to table the amendment for now, but will bring it up at the CRC bigwig's Project Sponsor's Council meeting in two weeks.

 

Comments (8) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Put a fork in it: the CRC is done.
Posted by peejay on November 20, 2009 at 1:27 PM · Report
2
So the bridge can't get funding until the Vancouverites decide that not only do they WANT light rail but they are willing to pay for it? Never going to happen. They want a huge bridge but they want it without more taxes, light rail, or tolls.

Maybe it's for the best that everyone just decides it's not going to happen and move to other projects.
Posted by Jinx on November 20, 2009 at 1:34 PM · Report
3
"Maybe it's for the best that everyone just decides it's not going to happen and move to other projects."

Until the existing bridge falls down? Whatever. I agree it will probably not happen.

The idea that a plan put together over many years by a group of something like 35 regional partners can be undone by Robert Liberty is ridiculous. This is the type of stuff that will get Metro and Pdx written off by everyone else across two states.

I hope that both Salem and Olympia learn an important lesson about trying to work with anyone in the Pdx bubble in the future, and just complete these types of projects without consulting us.
Posted by Blabby on November 20, 2009 at 2:11 PM · Report
4
That bridge falling down would skyrocket my North Portland home's value. Imagine how peaceful the streets will be when cars with Washington license plates aren't whizing up them trying to make good time. I'd laugh every day when the Clark county sprawl loving knuckle draggers have only the Glen Jackson bridge. So YES. Please.
Posted by McAngryPants on November 20, 2009 at 2:52 PM · Report
5
@ Blabby- I agree, the Interstate bridge will probably not fall down, esp if we add earthquake reinforcements
Posted by Allan on November 20, 2009 at 2:57 PM · Report
6
As we all know, the most likely bridges to fall down first are the Sellwood, the Marquam, and the Ross Island, as established by the most recent engineering analysis. If the I-5 bridge falls down first, we'll have the Mayans to blame, or something. Blabby, if you're so worried about the safety of the I-5 Bridge, why aren't you suggesting that we institute a toll, so that we can get the same traffic into fewer cars? Actually, that's kind of a good idea anyway, but the enlightened people of Vancouver you admire so much would sooner drink Drano than pay a toll.
Posted by peejay on November 20, 2009 at 4:17 PM · Report
7
The kind of earthquake that would take down the existing I-5 bridge would also crack the dams. So yes, the bridge may indeed fall down, shortly before it gets hit with a massive wall of water.

It is actually an interesting argument, if you are an insurance investigator. See if you have a house, and it floods in a hurricane, then it is covered by flood insurance which you may or may not have, and may or may not be subsidized by the federal government (depending on your location.) However, if it catches fire, (which happens quite often in hurricanes; gas lines break and stuff,) before it floods then it is covered by the fire insurance...

As such, I imagine the corps of engineers (who own and manage the dams,) would want to know if the bridge fell down before the wall of water hit it. If the water hit after it had fallen down, then they wouldn't have to rebuild it, where as if their dam failing caused it to fall down, they would have to rebuild it. Not that that changes anything, it would still be paid for by the taxpayers and we still wouldn't have a bridge at all for a while, but it is interesting...
Posted by Matthew D on November 20, 2009 at 5:19 PM · Report
8
"I hope that both Salem and Olympia learn an important lesson about trying to work with anyone in the Pdx bubble in the future, and just complete these types of projects without consulting us."

I was under the impression that even if Salem excluded Portland in the process Olympia would still have to deal with the fact that Vancouver doesn't want to have to pay for anything. They can't get the funding without the voters approving the tax yeah?
Posted by Jinx on November 20, 2009 at 7:22 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