The Columbia River Crossing bridge proposal is a boondoogle.
Three Oregon legislators (Bailey, Bentz, Clem) are right to ask for more
debate. From their guest op-ed in the Oregonian titled “Columbia River
Crossing; Where’s the debate?” (here):
Questions such as why Oregon should subsidize Vancouver commuters, trucks
bound for California, bicyclists, light rail, pedestrians and more emissions
from increased traffic must be asked and answered. Responsibility for the final
project decision-making must be clearly understood, and the people and
organizations making those billion-dollar decisions must be ready to justify
them.
As it stands, we still have many questions regarding the Columbia River
Crossing and the recent $30 million allocation. We have yet to hear why adding
more traffic lanes will not make a bad situation worse. We have not heard why
this expenditure should be made now, in the midst of a recession, when the
money could be spent in a more effective job-generating way. And most importantly,
we have not heard how the commissions and the governors plan to bring the
people of this state to the table to weigh in on a project that will affect
every Oregonian.
Yes, let’s have a debate and consider:
(1) The
existing bridge still has a useful life. It needs maintenance and could use some
upgrading (and better or alternative access to Hayden Island) but it does not
now need replacement.
(2) Additional
through capacity can more easily and economically be added to the I-205 bridge.
(3) Twelve
lanes would bring much more traffic to North Portland. There is not enough I-5
capacity to handle in the increased traffic in North Portland and even further
south, so congestion would just move from the bridge area to other Portland
sites. Why bring all that traffic into Portland.
(4) $4.2
billion is a lot on money. There are other higher priority uses, IMHO, such as
replacing the Sellwood Bridge and funding education adequately. With federal
stimulus funds we are paying for highways and bridges with general funds, not
gas tax funds, so setting priorities across categories (transportation vs.
education, for example) is quite appropriate.
(5) The
bridge will not reduce carbon emissions.
Comments