Chief
03-02-2008, 06:08 AM
http://www.columbian.com/opinion/news/2008/03/03022008_Local-view-Third-river-crossing-is-best-solution.cfm
Sunday, March 02, 2008
By SEN. DON BENTON (R-Vancouver)
The idea of a $6 billion replacement bridge with light rail between Vancouver and Portland on I-5, rather than an additional bridge in a new corridor to move people and goods over the river, becomes more likely every day.
Regardless of the number of lanes on the bridge, there are no additional lanes planned to the corridor (except for the fix of the bottleneck at Delta Park). Only three lanes of through traffic would mean that cars and trucks will still crawl over the river, waste fuel and spew carbon monoxide, and drivers will be charged a toll to do it.
I have been a champion of transportation projects for all of Clark County throughout my 13 years in the Legislature. I have gone to bat for important transportation projects that bring great benefit to the entire county and region.
My frustration with the Columbia River Crossing Project is that a replacement bridge, while providing some short-term relief, is not a long-term solution to this very real problem.
Replacing the bridge will neither solve congestion, nor will it significantly improve freight mobility. With the forecast of six-mile backups lasting 14 hours per day made by David Evans and Associates done for the CRC in 2005, I think the idea of just replacing the bridge is unbelievable. Nearly one-third of these commuters live in Clark County — and Vancouver continues to grow, having more than doubled its population since 1995.
Root problems not addressed
It is very difficult for me to see how just replacing the current bridge will achieve any real congestion relief. While there are problems with the state of our current bridge, the underlying cause of congestion is a corridor issue, not a bridge issue. A replacement bridge will not solve that long-term problem.
My second frustration is with the continual insistence that the replacement bridge accommodate light rail. This would dramatically increase the cost to taxpayers, not only for construction, but also for the ongoing operational costs, while bringing no benefit to the taxpayer in the form of congestion relief. None!
According to The Heritage Foundation’s analysis of the 2001 Annual Urban Mobility Report published by the Texas Transportation Institute, the congestion relief offered by public transit is negligible: “It is apparent that a 50 percent increase in transit’s market share — if it could even be accomplished — would have little effect on congestion or travel times”.
Light rail has not proven to be cost-effective or to reduce congestion. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of light rail riders come from buses, not cars. The true facts on light rail are easily accessible on the Internet.
After six years of the Eastside MAX in Portland, the Banfield freeway traffic count grew from 117,928 to 162,254. Portland’s congestion grew faster than any other Western city’s.
What’s more, the Columbia River Crossing Project has been a black hole into which $73 million from Washington’s taxpayers has already been dumped. Oregon taxpayers are getting a break, only $16 million of their tax dollars has gone into the hole.
When you further consider that our citizens contribute over $100 million a year to Oregon in payroll taxes, you get the sense that we are really being taken to the cleaners on this bridge deal.
The only real long-term solution to measurable congestion relief is a new corridor over the river, either from Camas to Troutdale or Ridgefield to St. Helens.
A third bridge would have a far greater impact on congestion and travel time and would save taxpayers in the long run. A replacement bridge will provide only minimal benefits, while putting us in the same position we are in now 10 years or less down the road.
I deeply regret that the Columbia River Crossing project is becoming a boondoggle. And if the plan finally approved includes light rail, then the process has been a total waste of time and precious taxpayer resources. I want to champion a solution that benefits our community, but I cannot support a $6 billion project that we know will not reduce congestion.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
By SEN. DON BENTON (R-Vancouver)
The idea of a $6 billion replacement bridge with light rail between Vancouver and Portland on I-5, rather than an additional bridge in a new corridor to move people and goods over the river, becomes more likely every day.
Regardless of the number of lanes on the bridge, there are no additional lanes planned to the corridor (except for the fix of the bottleneck at Delta Park). Only three lanes of through traffic would mean that cars and trucks will still crawl over the river, waste fuel and spew carbon monoxide, and drivers will be charged a toll to do it.
I have been a champion of transportation projects for all of Clark County throughout my 13 years in the Legislature. I have gone to bat for important transportation projects that bring great benefit to the entire county and region.
My frustration with the Columbia River Crossing Project is that a replacement bridge, while providing some short-term relief, is not a long-term solution to this very real problem.
Replacing the bridge will neither solve congestion, nor will it significantly improve freight mobility. With the forecast of six-mile backups lasting 14 hours per day made by David Evans and Associates done for the CRC in 2005, I think the idea of just replacing the bridge is unbelievable. Nearly one-third of these commuters live in Clark County — and Vancouver continues to grow, having more than doubled its population since 1995.
Root problems not addressed
It is very difficult for me to see how just replacing the current bridge will achieve any real congestion relief. While there are problems with the state of our current bridge, the underlying cause of congestion is a corridor issue, not a bridge issue. A replacement bridge will not solve that long-term problem.
My second frustration is with the continual insistence that the replacement bridge accommodate light rail. This would dramatically increase the cost to taxpayers, not only for construction, but also for the ongoing operational costs, while bringing no benefit to the taxpayer in the form of congestion relief. None!
According to The Heritage Foundation’s analysis of the 2001 Annual Urban Mobility Report published by the Texas Transportation Institute, the congestion relief offered by public transit is negligible: “It is apparent that a 50 percent increase in transit’s market share — if it could even be accomplished — would have little effect on congestion or travel times”.
Light rail has not proven to be cost-effective or to reduce congestion. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of light rail riders come from buses, not cars. The true facts on light rail are easily accessible on the Internet.
After six years of the Eastside MAX in Portland, the Banfield freeway traffic count grew from 117,928 to 162,254. Portland’s congestion grew faster than any other Western city’s.
What’s more, the Columbia River Crossing Project has been a black hole into which $73 million from Washington’s taxpayers has already been dumped. Oregon taxpayers are getting a break, only $16 million of their tax dollars has gone into the hole.
When you further consider that our citizens contribute over $100 million a year to Oregon in payroll taxes, you get the sense that we are really being taken to the cleaners on this bridge deal.
The only real long-term solution to measurable congestion relief is a new corridor over the river, either from Camas to Troutdale or Ridgefield to St. Helens.
A third bridge would have a far greater impact on congestion and travel time and would save taxpayers in the long run. A replacement bridge will provide only minimal benefits, while putting us in the same position we are in now 10 years or less down the road.
I deeply regret that the Columbia River Crossing project is becoming a boondoggle. And if the plan finally approved includes light rail, then the process has been a total waste of time and precious taxpayer resources. I want to champion a solution that benefits our community, but I cannot support a $6 billion project that we know will not reduce congestion.