Chief
05-04-2008, 05:48 AM
http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/2008/05/05042008_Bridge-project-creates-divides.cfm
Sunday, May 04, 2008
By JEFFREY MIZE, Columbian staff writer
Portlanders question the wisdom of building a 12-lane bridge during a period of record gas prices and mounting worries about global warming.
Vancouverites fear that light rail will raise their taxes and create fertile ground for car prowlers, muggers and other commuting criminals.
No one is eager to pay tolls that could range from $1 to $2.50, depending on the time of day, and be increased regularly for inflation.
And politicians? Well, they aren’t oblivious to rising tensions, and most are doing their best to keep their heads down and their mouths shut.
The Columbia River Crossing achieved a milestone last week when it rolled out a massive study on how to reduce congestion on Interstate 5 between Washington and Oregon. But the document, required by federal law, will do little to overcome a minefield of obstacles or to silence critics on both sides of the river.
John Osborn, co-director of the Columbia River Crossing project, doesn’t try to conceal his frustration with those who attack the project.
“Folks seem to be really entrenched,” Osborn said. “And they don’t have the full picture or really want to take in the data.”
Anne McEnerny-Ogle, chairwoman of the Shumway Neighborhood Association, spent several days last week poring through that data on a project she said has expanded in size and scope to include freeway interchanges, tunnels, sound walls, light rail and more.
“It has grown to become this huge, huge project,” she said, “and it’s tearing a city apart and it’s tearing the relations between two states apart.”
McEnerny-Ogle compares the schism with what happened a half century earlier when the construction of Interstate 5 bisected Vancouver.
“The way the discussion is going right now, I don’t see the city and C-Tran stepping up to take on the conversation this community needs to have,” she said. “Portland is not our sister city. It’s certainly one of the cousins we need to deal with, and every family has cousins they like and don’t like. But there are a lot of bad feelings flowing between the politicians in Portland and the politicians in Clark County.”
All of this is happening at a time when elected and appointed leaders from six governments, three in Washington and three in Oregon, are supposed to coalesce around a plan that could cost up to $4.1 billion for a replacement bridge, highway improvements and light rail.
The Columbia River Crossing already has become an irresistible target for Portland’s alternative weekly newspapers. Last week, Willamette Week referred to it “the mother of all pork-barrel projects.”
Two months earlier, The Portland Mercury characterized the project as “a recipe for disaster” and questioned why the region wasn’t looking to add tolls to the existing bridge and extend light rail to Vancouver without erecting a multibillion-dollar behemoth.
“Instead of giving Vancouver drivers a continued excuse to drive their single-occupancy vehicle into Oregon every day, why not give them reasons to leave the car at home?” The Mercury’s Amy J. Ruiz wrote. “But that option’s not on the table. What the hell are we thinking?”
Ed Barnes, who served on the Washington State Transportation Committee from 1995 until 2007, believes “the squeaky wheels are getting all the attention” in the debate.
Barnes said it’s been 12 years since officials first started working to untangle the I-5 mess. He is one of the few speaking up for the project at city council meetings, public forums and other events.
“I almost think that people are tired of hearing it,” he said. “They want to get on with the process.”
For those who support the crossing project, the following offers a look at some, but certainly not all, of the obstacles, along with some potential strategies for overcoming them:
Obstacle: Clark County’s historical opposition to light rail.
Background: In February 1995, county voters overwhelmingly rejected a plan to increase sales and vehicle taxes to bring light rail here. More recently, a couple of polls indicated that a majority of Clark County and Vancouver residents support the idea of light rail, but those polls didn’t asked about respondents’ willingness to accept higher taxes.
Possible resolution: Embrace one of the two shorter light rail segments that end at Clark College or at 15th and Main streets. Those alignments would minimize right-of-way acquisitions and possibly could be built entirely with Federal Transit Administration dollars.
Obstacle: Persuading local voters to pay for light rail operations and maintenance.
Background: Transit doesn’t pay for itself. C-Tran’s biggest revenue source is a 0.5 percent sales tax, and passenger fares cover about 22 percent of operating costs. When C-Tran hiked fares in 2005, it lost 40 percent of its commuter ridership. Last month’s rejection of a county-wide 0.1 percent sales tax for a police and fire department radio system would indicate that voters aren’t in the mood to approve higher sales taxes.
Potential resolution: Explore ways to avoid having to go to voters. State lawmakers this year approved legislation that allows a portion of toll revenue to go to transit operations.
Obstacle: Portland’s reluctance to back a transportation project that doesn’t include light rail.
Background: Portland opened its first light rail line, connecting Gresham, Ore., and downtown Portland, 22 years ago. The system has been expanded west to Hillsboro, Ore., and, more recently, north along Interstate Avenue to within a mile of the Columbia River.
Possible resolution: Acquiesce to reality. The message hasn’t been a resounding, “No light rail, no bridge,” but insisting on bus rapid transit over trains is an invitation to confrontation, not collaboration.
Obstacle: Portland’s concern that a new bridge will only help Clark County commuters.
Background: As much as some local politicians talk about being our own community, Oregon remains a huge source of jobs for Clark County’s work force.
Possible resolution: Point out that tolling and high-capacity transit would encourage commuters to abandon their single-occupancy vehicles and reduce the pollution caused by motorists sitting idle in traffic. Talk about the need to move freight on the West Coast’s primary freeway and to reduce a seismic hazard from the existing spans. Remind Oregonians that Clark County residents pay almost $150 million in Oregon state income taxes every year.
Obstacle: Some politicians in Portland believe a new bridge will reward Clark County’s pro-sprawl policies.
Background: This is hardly a new issue. In late 2001, some local officials objected to what they perceived to be an attempt by then-Multnomah County Commissioner Serena Cruz to link uncorking I-5’s notorious Delta Park bottleneck to improving growth management on this side of the river. Since then, Clark County commissioners have approved two major expansions of urban growth areas — nine square miles in 2004 followed by another 19 square miles last year — which only fuels suspicion that Clark County has no desire to curb urban expansion.
Possible resolution: Point out that so many people are moving to Clark County because of problems with Oregon schools and a scarcity of decent starter homes for families. If that doesn’t work, plead “mea culpa” or deftly switch the conversation to another topic.
8)
Sunday, May 04, 2008
By JEFFREY MIZE, Columbian staff writer
Portlanders question the wisdom of building a 12-lane bridge during a period of record gas prices and mounting worries about global warming.
Vancouverites fear that light rail will raise their taxes and create fertile ground for car prowlers, muggers and other commuting criminals.
No one is eager to pay tolls that could range from $1 to $2.50, depending on the time of day, and be increased regularly for inflation.
And politicians? Well, they aren’t oblivious to rising tensions, and most are doing their best to keep their heads down and their mouths shut.
The Columbia River Crossing achieved a milestone last week when it rolled out a massive study on how to reduce congestion on Interstate 5 between Washington and Oregon. But the document, required by federal law, will do little to overcome a minefield of obstacles or to silence critics on both sides of the river.
John Osborn, co-director of the Columbia River Crossing project, doesn’t try to conceal his frustration with those who attack the project.
“Folks seem to be really entrenched,” Osborn said. “And they don’t have the full picture or really want to take in the data.”
Anne McEnerny-Ogle, chairwoman of the Shumway Neighborhood Association, spent several days last week poring through that data on a project she said has expanded in size and scope to include freeway interchanges, tunnels, sound walls, light rail and more.
“It has grown to become this huge, huge project,” she said, “and it’s tearing a city apart and it’s tearing the relations between two states apart.”
McEnerny-Ogle compares the schism with what happened a half century earlier when the construction of Interstate 5 bisected Vancouver.
“The way the discussion is going right now, I don’t see the city and C-Tran stepping up to take on the conversation this community needs to have,” she said. “Portland is not our sister city. It’s certainly one of the cousins we need to deal with, and every family has cousins they like and don’t like. But there are a lot of bad feelings flowing between the politicians in Portland and the politicians in Clark County.”
All of this is happening at a time when elected and appointed leaders from six governments, three in Washington and three in Oregon, are supposed to coalesce around a plan that could cost up to $4.1 billion for a replacement bridge, highway improvements and light rail.
The Columbia River Crossing already has become an irresistible target for Portland’s alternative weekly newspapers. Last week, Willamette Week referred to it “the mother of all pork-barrel projects.”
Two months earlier, The Portland Mercury characterized the project as “a recipe for disaster” and questioned why the region wasn’t looking to add tolls to the existing bridge and extend light rail to Vancouver without erecting a multibillion-dollar behemoth.
“Instead of giving Vancouver drivers a continued excuse to drive their single-occupancy vehicle into Oregon every day, why not give them reasons to leave the car at home?” The Mercury’s Amy J. Ruiz wrote. “But that option’s not on the table. What the hell are we thinking?”
Ed Barnes, who served on the Washington State Transportation Committee from 1995 until 2007, believes “the squeaky wheels are getting all the attention” in the debate.
Barnes said it’s been 12 years since officials first started working to untangle the I-5 mess. He is one of the few speaking up for the project at city council meetings, public forums and other events.
“I almost think that people are tired of hearing it,” he said. “They want to get on with the process.”
For those who support the crossing project, the following offers a look at some, but certainly not all, of the obstacles, along with some potential strategies for overcoming them:
Obstacle: Clark County’s historical opposition to light rail.
Background: In February 1995, county voters overwhelmingly rejected a plan to increase sales and vehicle taxes to bring light rail here. More recently, a couple of polls indicated that a majority of Clark County and Vancouver residents support the idea of light rail, but those polls didn’t asked about respondents’ willingness to accept higher taxes.
Possible resolution: Embrace one of the two shorter light rail segments that end at Clark College or at 15th and Main streets. Those alignments would minimize right-of-way acquisitions and possibly could be built entirely with Federal Transit Administration dollars.
Obstacle: Persuading local voters to pay for light rail operations and maintenance.
Background: Transit doesn’t pay for itself. C-Tran’s biggest revenue source is a 0.5 percent sales tax, and passenger fares cover about 22 percent of operating costs. When C-Tran hiked fares in 2005, it lost 40 percent of its commuter ridership. Last month’s rejection of a county-wide 0.1 percent sales tax for a police and fire department radio system would indicate that voters aren’t in the mood to approve higher sales taxes.
Potential resolution: Explore ways to avoid having to go to voters. State lawmakers this year approved legislation that allows a portion of toll revenue to go to transit operations.
Obstacle: Portland’s reluctance to back a transportation project that doesn’t include light rail.
Background: Portland opened its first light rail line, connecting Gresham, Ore., and downtown Portland, 22 years ago. The system has been expanded west to Hillsboro, Ore., and, more recently, north along Interstate Avenue to within a mile of the Columbia River.
Possible resolution: Acquiesce to reality. The message hasn’t been a resounding, “No light rail, no bridge,” but insisting on bus rapid transit over trains is an invitation to confrontation, not collaboration.
Obstacle: Portland’s concern that a new bridge will only help Clark County commuters.
Background: As much as some local politicians talk about being our own community, Oregon remains a huge source of jobs for Clark County’s work force.
Possible resolution: Point out that tolling and high-capacity transit would encourage commuters to abandon their single-occupancy vehicles and reduce the pollution caused by motorists sitting idle in traffic. Talk about the need to move freight on the West Coast’s primary freeway and to reduce a seismic hazard from the existing spans. Remind Oregonians that Clark County residents pay almost $150 million in Oregon state income taxes every year.
Obstacle: Some politicians in Portland believe a new bridge will reward Clark County’s pro-sprawl policies.
Background: This is hardly a new issue. In late 2001, some local officials objected to what they perceived to be an attempt by then-Multnomah County Commissioner Serena Cruz to link uncorking I-5’s notorious Delta Park bottleneck to improving growth management on this side of the river. Since then, Clark County commissioners have approved two major expansions of urban growth areas — nine square miles in 2004 followed by another 19 square miles last year — which only fuels suspicion that Clark County has no desire to curb urban expansion.
Possible resolution: Point out that so many people are moving to Clark County because of problems with Oregon schools and a scarcity of decent starter homes for families. If that doesn’t work, plead “mea culpa” or deftly switch the conversation to another topic.
8)