Chief
03-01-2008, 12:42 PM
http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/120424831859520.xml&coll=7
Friday, February 29, 2008
M etro Councilor Rex Burkholder, Fred Hansen of TriMet and Gail Achterman of the Oregon Transportation Commission, offer a puny defense of the need for a replacement bridge across the Columbia River (In My Opinion, Feb. 22).
While these three have impeccable credentials, there is a lot they omit in their defense of the $4.2 billion Big Bridge.
The trio admits that it is a "valid concern" that greenhouse gas emissions will increase with the proposed bridge because 40 percent of such emissions are caused by fossil fuel for vehicle transportation. But these environmentalists blithely sweep aside the true impact of the 12-lane bridge they are promoting. That impact is a 40 percent increase by 2030 in vehicle-miles traveled over the crossing. That means more than a 40 percent increase in global warming pollution with any of the alternatives the bridge task force is proposing.
To be on track to meet standards passed by the Oregon and Washington legislatures, a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is required by 2030.
It's tempting to say that no individual project makes a big difference in the huge challenge of global warming. But this expensive project is clearly a step in the wrong direction. There are catastrophic consequences for continuing to ignore climate change -- in Oregon a 5 percent change in temperature, expected by 2050 if we don't change current trends, would have a dramatic impact on our snowpack in the Cascades and our water supply. It would put much of the Oregon coast underwater with the melting of the Arctic icecap.
The writers suggest the bridge is going to fall down if it's not replaced, which is contrary to the tens of millions of dollars spent to shore it up in recent years.
The cost of virtually eliminating seismic risk on the current bridge is $165 million to $250 million. Safety improvements are even less expensive, and, if done right, would focus largely on the current numerous on-ramps and off-ramps near the bridge, not the bridge itself. A low-profile light-rail bridge, also serving pedestrians and cyclists, is estimated to cost less than $500 million if built alongside the existing crossing.
The "years of serious analysis and intense community engagement" cited by our trio have not addressed climate change, nor have they honestly told people how much they are going to have to pay locally to support Clark County commuters and sprawl.
Everyone wants a big new bridge if you suggest it is free to them and you don't tell them you are dramatically expanding greenhouse gas emissions, and you don't tell them you are just moving the congestion down the road a few miles, and you don't tell them what you are not doing in the region in order to be able to create this stranded investment.
This is a fairy tale told by the auto, oil and trucking lobbies. Elected officials in Metro and the city should vote against any replacement bridge.
Ronald A. Buel is a Portland businessman.
::)
Friday, February 29, 2008
M etro Councilor Rex Burkholder, Fred Hansen of TriMet and Gail Achterman of the Oregon Transportation Commission, offer a puny defense of the need for a replacement bridge across the Columbia River (In My Opinion, Feb. 22).
While these three have impeccable credentials, there is a lot they omit in their defense of the $4.2 billion Big Bridge.
The trio admits that it is a "valid concern" that greenhouse gas emissions will increase with the proposed bridge because 40 percent of such emissions are caused by fossil fuel for vehicle transportation. But these environmentalists blithely sweep aside the true impact of the 12-lane bridge they are promoting. That impact is a 40 percent increase by 2030 in vehicle-miles traveled over the crossing. That means more than a 40 percent increase in global warming pollution with any of the alternatives the bridge task force is proposing.
To be on track to meet standards passed by the Oregon and Washington legislatures, a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is required by 2030.
It's tempting to say that no individual project makes a big difference in the huge challenge of global warming. But this expensive project is clearly a step in the wrong direction. There are catastrophic consequences for continuing to ignore climate change -- in Oregon a 5 percent change in temperature, expected by 2050 if we don't change current trends, would have a dramatic impact on our snowpack in the Cascades and our water supply. It would put much of the Oregon coast underwater with the melting of the Arctic icecap.
The writers suggest the bridge is going to fall down if it's not replaced, which is contrary to the tens of millions of dollars spent to shore it up in recent years.
The cost of virtually eliminating seismic risk on the current bridge is $165 million to $250 million. Safety improvements are even less expensive, and, if done right, would focus largely on the current numerous on-ramps and off-ramps near the bridge, not the bridge itself. A low-profile light-rail bridge, also serving pedestrians and cyclists, is estimated to cost less than $500 million if built alongside the existing crossing.
The "years of serious analysis and intense community engagement" cited by our trio have not addressed climate change, nor have they honestly told people how much they are going to have to pay locally to support Clark County commuters and sprawl.
Everyone wants a big new bridge if you suggest it is free to them and you don't tell them you are dramatically expanding greenhouse gas emissions, and you don't tell them you are just moving the congestion down the road a few miles, and you don't tell them what you are not doing in the region in order to be able to create this stranded investment.
This is a fairy tale told by the auto, oil and trucking lobbies. Elected officials in Metro and the city should vote against any replacement bridge.
Ronald A. Buel is a Portland businessman.
::)