Governor on CRC: 'It's time to build this bridge'
PORTLAND, Ore. – Getting a new Interstate 5 bridge built across the Columbia River was an oft-repeated hope among business and political leaders Monday gathered for the annual Oregon Business Plan Leadership Summit.
At times it was almost a plea from new-bridge proponents to get the project underway, fearing a stalled state funding plan may result in the loss of federal funding for the bridge.
Chair of the Oregon Business Plan’s steering committee John Carter, of Schnitzer Steel Industries, pressed political leaders in attendance at the Oregon Convention Center to move forward on the project. In his view, completion of the bridge is one of the major keys to future economic success in Oregon – in the construction jobs it will create to build it and to ensure a major transportation route for commerce will be maintained.
And to hear the participants talk, including keynote speaker Gov. John Kitzhaber, the Columbia River Crossing issue will soon be getting the must-needed attention it deserves.
Kitzhaber said during his speech that he had met with Oregon’s bipartisan leadership team from both the House and Senate last week and "We all agreed that the I-5 bridge replacement project is a critical state project that needs to move forward," he said. "It's time to build this bridge."
His statements set the project up to be a high priority during the upcoming 2013 legislative session that is slated to officially get underway at the beginning of February.
"I emphasize that it is important to get this done by March 1 (2013) to give the Washington Legislature the time to act as well," Kitzhaber said, adding that he's spoken to outgoing Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire and incoming Gov. Jay Inslee and was told they will also advance their own CRC funding plan.
The governor's budget, which he officially released last week, calls for Oregon to kick in $450 million for its share of building the bridge. In addition to Washington's share, the plan also is for the federal government to pick up a significant portion of project funding. It is projected to cost more than $3 billion for a bridge and new interchanges on both sides of the river.
The drumbeat for movement on the CRC has grown louder over the months and to listen to panelists and participants at Monday's summit, political leaders have noticed and vowed that it's time to act.
"The good news is there's increasing consensus (among lawmakers) recognizing how important the project is and that we need to go forward with it," said state Rep. Tobias Read, D-Beaverton.
Business leaders and political leaders emphasized that the bridge is not just a Portland-Metro area issue, but is necessary for the economic health of the entire state.
State Rep. Cliff Bentz, a Republican representing Eastern Oregon, specifically Ontario, said many of his constituents recognize the importance of the bridge.
"They do so, because when you’re from a small community like mine ... you only have one road home, and if the bridge is washed out, you're in real trouble," he said, alluding to the potential derailment of the region's economy if the project doesn't go forward.
The bridge has been a political flashpoint on both sides of the river. It is strongly supported by business groups - which want to speed the flow of commerce - and labor unions, whose workers would build it. Proponents say the existing bridge is too small, choking the flow of commuter and freight traffic, and would likely collapse in a large earthquake.
Critics say it's a waste of money and poorly designed. Many of them say it would fail to get the necessary permits from the U.S. Coast Guard because of a concern there wouldn’t be enough room for ships to pass beneath it.
In a joint statement two days after November's election, 10 lawmakers in southwest Washington, including U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, a Republican, raised the clearance problem as a project stumbling block, expressed concerned that citizens were left out of the process, and that citizens wouldn’t support proposed tolling "for a project that doesn't meet their needs."
Kitzhaber said the most likely source for Oregon's share of the project would be a new tax on vehicle registrations or titles. He said he'd support hiking the gas tax but didn't think it was politically feasible.
Kitzhaber also pitched his proposal to cut back on pension benefits for retired public employees in order to free up more money for education. The plan has broad support in the business community, but union officials and some of Kitzhaber's fellow Democrats are wary.
Kitzhaber spoke to House Democrats at a weekend retreat and acknowledged that there's "a lot of nervousness" about his pension agenda. Some of his other proposals should be very attractive to Democrats and to unions, Kitzhaber said, including a proposal to add funding for day care and for more than 200 new union-represented child-protection workers in the Department of Human Services.
"I don't expect them to embrace it, but I'm hoping that it won't be World War III," Kitzhaber said.
Associated Press reporter Jonathan J. Cooper contributed to this report.
I'm afraid I just don't get the 'against' side. I typically try to find reason in both sides of any debate. That is, I try to sort through the rhetoric and find the substance behind both supporting and opposing arguments. That being said, I've tried to seek out the 'con' sides arguments and I just don't see anything beyond ideological programming debate points.Â
Â
The bridge is a component of the interstate highway system. As such, it is also an essential component in both the states, and the regions commerce. It is past it's designed age limits. It DOES need to be replaced. Neither of these points are debatable.Â
Â
From there, it begins quickly to devolve into either the quagmire of money (funding/tolls), or ideological absolutes (light rail/environmental). That's typically where I get lost. Since the bridge does need to be replaced, I would tend to believe that replacing the functional structure should be the priority. If tolls need to be a part of it in order to pay for it, so be it. So long as there is an iron clad guarantee that once the money is repaid, the tolls go away. Insofar as light rail, pedestrian, bike, bus, etc.... Build the traffic component with design specifications that allow for it to be added on to when funds become availible for such projects. There does need to be pedestrian/bike access, but sidewalks shouldn't be a stop point in the design process. Neither should light rail. Just because Vancouver sees potential revenue, and Tri Met sees expansion opportunities, that should not be a stop point for the project. Again, design the support structure to allow for future modifications.Â
Â
Not high enough for river traffic? Make it an arched structure. Allow for sufficient navigational clearance mid-span. It will meet USCG and state of OR/Federal navigable waterways laws and regulations.Â
Â
The sad part is that the detractors will not likely be dissuaded from their persuit. They smell the potential, and the money, and not unlike sharks in a feeding frenzy, they will devour the whole of the project rather than let it proceed without their demands being placated. Unfortunately, despite Gov Kitzhabers statements, the project is not likely going any where soon. Which is yet another object of supreme idiocy in my book. Considering that to date, a couple of hundred-million have been spent with not a thing to show for it.Â
Â
As I said, I just don't get it. Build the damn thing already.Â
"Not high enough for river traffic? Make it an arched structure. Allow for sufficient navigational clearance mid-span."
Â
Millions of dollars already spent, and they haven't even managed to do this. I don't think the "anti" movement is so much that a bridge isn't necessary, it's the remodeling of downtown Vancouver and Hayden Island, along with the light rail that Vancouver voters rejected before, all being rolled into the cost that people are annoyed with.
 @EnoughAlready >' it's the remodeling of downtown Vancouver and Hayden Island'
Â
I find it absolutely hilarious that emminent domain can be used to build schools and strip malls, but not to rebuild a vital component of the interstate highway system.Â
Â
>' along with the light rail that Vancouver voters rejected before,'
Â
That's where my 'ideological absolutes' comment comes from. The bridge is not a part of the interstate highway & light rail system... Build the necessary components, and design it for potential improvements/modifications down the road as need & funding come along. The whole process getting bogged down in light rail, to me, is the very definition of stupidity.Â
It seems that the people who oppose this project are the voice of reason. This project will not solve any congestion problems; we are trading 6 lanes for 6 lane and MAX lines. Now add toll booths and you have a new bottle neck. You'll have traffic jams when itâs not rush hour. To me all I hear from our governor is we need to spend the federal dollars or they will go away. We canât afford it at the state or federal level.
 @MadMax64 So, what is the alternative?
Â
The bridge is a federal interstate component. If we condemn it (or it fails), we are simply shifting the traffic over to the Glenn/Jackson. The need for such a structure, to complete and maintain right of way for interstate (and intrastate) commerce is real, and essential.Â
Â
So, as I asked, what is the alternative?
Â
Nothing says 1% like a few Vancouverites rich enough to own airplanes having this much say in the design of a bridge that will affect the lives of millions. Remember, traditionally whole neighborhoods can be bulldozed away to build a highway. Also... no light rail, no bridge. All the wingnut whining in the world won't change this. No light rail, no bridge. There are enough people in Portland who simply will not let it happen.
 @realoldguy Keep your loot rail, we don't need it in Vancouver.
Well, when the Unions succeed in getting the terminals to shut down from their greed, we will not have a need for any river traffic and the height of the rise will be a moot point as there will be no ships/barges coming into our territory.
As bad as we don't need to spend the money, we really do need that portion of I5 brought into the current century. Not just the bridge but the whole log jam section just south of it as well.
If they had come up with a halfway decent design in the first place they probably would of broken ground by now.
Really, a decent design would probably alleviate most of the hold back. That and the elimination of any talk of a toll.
Odd. It seems that the residents of Washington are the people most likely to benefit from the bridge. But then it seems they are the ones who work the hardest to oppose it.
I think there needs to be another bypass cut from around Vernonia to Ranier, then crossing into Longview, leaving Portland off the primary link from Washington to California.  The Delta Park changes took over 20 years to happen, this much of a rework is likely to be a generational thing.
The CRC people have already been burning money for many years on this and I doubt they want it to ever end anyway, payrolls are hard to come by these days.
 @EnoughAlreadyÂ
Â
I wouldn't go so far west as Vernonia, but an "I-605" loop from Longview through Washington County and then connecting at Willsonville or maybe like I-205, Tualitin.
Â
Nah, I think that we need to blow another 100 million dollars on "studies" first before this thing gets built.
@UtterReality ........that's what this incompetent does best.......study. Then hire more studies. Then appoint a panel. And then study that.
I know logic has nothing to do with politics, however, I absolutely do not understand the logic in building a bridge, and setting a toll high enough that no one but tourists will be using, because they won't be able to afford it. Â You can't bleed blood from a turnip and that's exactly what this new project will end up doing. Â Goodbye I 5 bridge, hello 205 bridge and MAJOR congestion in a bottle neck area that already has problems.
 @mischie I remember paying a toll on the I-5 bridge in the 50's, but there was no traffic...
 @boned  @mischie Went to college in Vancouver in the 60's and the toll was 25 cents.  If I was short of change, a "necco wafer" worked just fine.
Slugs in a meter probably carries a 5 year prison term these days.
You don't mess with government money collection.
So the only people who want it is  some political and business leaders.  That means the tax payer doesnt want or need a new bridge.
Go ahead and build it. It will become the most expensive pedestrian and bike path in the country because there sure won't be any vehicle traffic on it. Why won't there be any vehicles on it you ask? Because no in their right mind is going to pay a $16.00 or more toll to cross it ($8 going &$8 coming) everyday. The Glenn Jackson is the viable option, but it will also get even more congested than it is now. The CRC is a lose lose proposition, not just for the people in Oregon and Washington, but for river traffic as well. The so-called new design calls for a lift of somewhere around 100 - 125 feet, while the current lift is almost 200 feet. At a 125 feet, some barge traffic would be unable to go under it, and the dredges would have difficulty as well. The reason for the short lift is so the crime train can cross the river (the train can only climb a certain degree angle).  As it stands now the coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers will not sign off on it because of the short lift. So again, the CRC project is a lose lose deal for the people of Oregon and Washington. Look at all the money that can be saved by dropping the project altogether.
 @theobserver The current bridge provides clearance of some 175'.  The proposed bridge is in the 90' to 125' range.  I agree that it is not a good thing to put limitations on what kind of commerce can pass under the bridge, but we need to take a hard look at the cost/benefit of building the bridge higher to accommodate the taller than average shipment.  Also consider that not only is river traffic going to be affected but also air traffic out of PDX and Pearson Airfield.  Lots of chainsaws are being juggled here.  Initially the bridges had streetcars running across so the notion that your so called "crime train" is mucking it up is a little silly.  The simple fact is this bridge needs replacement.  I-5 is the main vein of our west coast economy and even a moderate rumble could send the current mud anchored bridge crashing into the Big C.
 @Bennicus  @theobserver Just seems odd to build a new bridge with LESS clearance than the old one.  We're supposed to improve transportation, not create new limits on what can and can't go down the river.  JMHO.....
Without the dredges, the locks become pointless as the channel will eventually not support the sort of commercial river traffic you want.
Let me re-think this. State funding from a State that is running huge deficits on a per capita basis; Federal funding from the U.S government that is bankrupt; and funding from tolls that drivers will avoid by using another bridge. Yeah, this'll work !
What about all the wasted money to figure out what kind of bridge to build!? If Sam Adams would have stayed out of it, the bridge would have been built by now.Â
No mood lighting, bicycle and food cart deck, or power turbines in the current designs at least.
 @washcomom He needed to add to his legacy in the OR Blue Book...
I guess the thing that blows me away is that the bridge as planned won't have ANY more capacity for the evil automobile..!! Â People keep saying "oh, we need the bridge" but what the don't realize is that unless they take light rail, it's not going to be any different at all....
This comment has been deleted
 @'CouvGuy @Fed up FedÂ
Â
Hey 'Couve, does the bridge even lift that often during the commute?
Â
My understanding is that most maritimers are kind enough to avoid tall ship passing through during those hours.
Â
To me if we want to improve I-5 from Vancouver, we need to make it three through lanes from Haden Island all the way to the I-84 East interchange.
Â
Â
 @'CouvGuy  @'CouvGuy  @Fed up FedÂ
No southbound the third lane dies at N Vancouver Ave.
Â
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&complete=0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&bpcl=39580677&biw=1076&bih=827&q=portland+oregon&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x54950b0b7da97427:0x1c36b9e6f6d18591,Portland,+OR&gl=us&sa=X&ei=c0G-UPSEEOquiAKU54Ag&ved=0CKABELYD
Â
In my expereince this is the worst spot.
 @Repoman  @'CouvGuy  @Fed up Fed I believe it's three lanes all the way now, both directions.
Â
I honestly believe that four lanes, three through with an 'exit' lane would make a huge difference. Â You can see it any afternoon on the northbound traffic. Â Sits in a big wad going through Jantzen Beach, and as soon as you get north of the HWY 14 ramp (just north of the bridge) the traffic completely opens up and the congestion goes away. Â Three through and a right lane for exits would solve that.
 @'CouvGuy  @'CouvGuy  @Fed up FedÂ
I don't commute that area so forgive the ignorance, but my understanding is that much of the issue from the commute would not be solved by more lanes on the bridge.
Â
That while much of the congestion comes from that  more significantly, the area in north Portland where the freeway goes from 4 to, 3 then to two lanes while additional traffic from that area is added.
Â
Is that misunderstood?
Â
 @Repoman  @'CouvGuy  @Fed up Fed "....My understanding is that most maritimers are kind enough to avoid tall ship passing through during those hours....".  Not really....;-)  we get stopped a couple times a month.  Not common, but not unheard of, either.  Truth is it doesn't take a bridge lift to make things grind to a halt...happens every day during rush hour.
Â
As far as the bridge width, if they really wanted to improve capacity, the bridge would be four lanes each way....the three leftmost lanes would be "through" lanes, the right hand lane would be for folks taking the exits on either side that are close to the bridge.  Keeping the current three lanes each way really does nothing to help out commuters.....IMHO.
 @Fed up Fed Three lanes each way on the old bridge.....three lanes each way on the new bridge...sounds like the same capacity to me.  Yes, I understand the bridge won't lift, but the AM / PM traffic will be the same stop and go mess.  Not sure why you'd make the "stirring the pot and not trying to contribute" comment when the facts are rather clear.  This is shaping up to be another huge boondoggle.  Seems pretty easy to spend other people's money, doesn't it..??
Let Vantucky build the bridge; Portland doesn't need another bridge north...there's enough weed in Portland already.
@Icarus  We don't wany your f(*(^Y*ng bridge. We don't want any more of your homeless druggies up here either. And most of all, we don't want your "gang rail" coming into our town.
Sure Kitz. Just as soon as you file for PERS bankruptcy. The money saved will help pay for the bridge. While you're at it, add some automobile lanes and try to forget the notion that the earth is flat, and that cars are a thing of the past. Both are fallacies. If we were smart enough to elect you, then we are smart enough to vote on train tracks on our bridge.Â
Â
The discussion seems to be all or nothing. The Glen Jackson bridge was designed with rail capabilities considered for future expansion, and that likely didn't add billions to the bill as the light rail project alone initially did in this CRC discussion.
And if its made a toll bridge, as has been reported, polls have shown that the majority of people will use the Glen Jackson.
 @Rob C 503 For awhile, and then they will slowly drift back to their old habits - human nature. The Glen Jackson bridge is already jammed in the AM & PM and the car crashes keep both sides quite busy. Uncle John just wants more revenue from out-of-state folks because he needs to spend more on the have-nots being the megalomaniac he really is, Sir.Â
 @boned  @Rob C 503 ...dunno, boned, ~$400.00 / mo is quite a bit of motivation for us daily commuters...
 I could not agree more, Sir!! When was the last time you used I-205 in the AM and tried to get on I-84 with all the PDX traffic trying to the same thing? It will be a hurdle, but Omama wants it, and Shazam!!
Can't wait to pay $400.00 a month in bridge tolls, for the privilege of working in OR and paying income taxes for services I don't get.  Bet the 205 bridge is going to be busy...!!!
 @'CouvGuy I no longer live, nor work in OR, but Uncle John is hell-bent on taxing me 9% just because I retired from there with PERS and I guess it is all 'my' fault that he and Uncle Ted squandered my taxes all away for so many years for the have-not's. Just get a bigger jar of Vaseline...
 @'CouvGuy Yeah but what about the property tax? Do you buy a lot in Oregon and avoid the sales tax? You could move back to Oregon..........
 @oops Perhaps you could clarify. What does property tax have to do with anything? We pay a lot less property tax over here if that is your point...
 @'CouvGuyÂ
Â
Why doesn't your company move to the 'Couv? According to everything I hear Portland is an anathema for business and sales taxes are the only solution to budgets.
Â
It would seem to be a match made in profitability.
Â
 @Repoman  @'CouvGuy My company is the largest private employer in OR...;-)  It would be a cold day in a well known inferno before they'd move.  Honestly, I'm very happy with my job and accept the OR income taxes as part of the deal.  Just not thrilled about an additional $400.00 / month fee for the privilege of working in OR....
 @JohnQ.Public  @'CouvGuy I have a car pool buddy that lives a couple miles away, so it works out as OK as this type of commute can.  We leave our respective houses about 0600 and beat the biggest rush into OR.  You are right - if OR keeps dinging the companies that pay very respectable salaries and making things tougher...you never know.  I keep telling my manager and director that a VancWA design division makes great sense....we'll see...;-)
 @'CouvGuy My company is probably your company and I don't envy your commute. Mine is bad enough and I live in Oregon. Things are quickly changing though so who knows where we'll be in another five years.