Chief
05-27-2008, 05:02 AM
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1211858717191390.xml&coll=7
Congestion - A resolution backed by three Metro councilors reflects concern that a new bridge would just add traffic, sprawl
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
DYLAN RIVERA
The Oregonian Staff
Three of seven Metro councilors are scheduled today to oppose a proposed Interstate 5 bridge over the Columbia River, a potentially significant blow to a federally backed $4.2 billion effort to untangle congestion in one of the West Coast's worst bottlenecks.
The resolution calls for charging tolls on the current bridge between Portland and Vancouver, generating money to earthquake-proof the structure, make on-ramps safer and boost mass transit. The tolls would discourage use of the bridge at rush hour, relieving some congestion. Then in a few years, officials would consider a new bridge with additional lanes for cars and trucks.
"That would give us the information we don't have right now, which is how would people react to having to pay for the project?" said Carlotta Collette, one of the three councilors opposing a new bridge. Councilors Robert Liberty and Carl Hosticka also signed the resolution.
The resolution reflects growing concern that a new bridge -- by increasing capacity -- would eventually create new congestion and promote sprawling development. Until now, Liberty appeared to be the only elected official calling for a dramatically different solution.
The Columbia River Crossing, as the proposed span is known, is intended to relieve congestion and improve safety and mass transit on the five-mile stretch of highway that connects Oregon and Washington. Unblocking the bottleneck is especially vital to Clark County commuters and to truckers, who move vast amounts of freight up and down the West Coast on I-5.
Oregon and Washington have pitched five alternative bridge solutions, all up for review. One is to do nothing. But the most widely favored plan would replace the existing six-lane bridge with a new 12-lane span, a light-rail extension to Vancouver and renovation of six highway interchanges. That plan would significantly increase highway capacity.
The resolution is scheduled to be presented at a Metro Council work session at 2 p.m. today at the Metro Regional Center, 600 N.E. Grand Ave. A vote on the resolution is not anticipated until June 5, and final decisions on the bridge project are still weeks away.
But today's resolution calls into question the long-standing perception that the project was sure to win majority support of all eight public agencies in Oregon and Washington that have veto power over the project. Supporters, including Gov. Ted Kulongoski and the Portland Business Alliance, may have a tougher fight on their hands than was expected.
Bridge backers outraged
The move has sparked outrage among bridge supporters.
Corky Collier, executive director of the Columbia Corridor Association, which represents freight and neighborhood interests in North Portland, said the proposal flies in the face of a delicate political balance. Oregon leaders rightly want light rail extended to Clark County, he said, but leaders in southwest Washington won't accept rail without more lanes for freight and automobiles.
"For Oregon to say Clark County needs light rail and not a bridge is just a little bit on the arrogant side," Collier said. "This is teamwork. We're trying to put this project together as a group."
However, the resolution was encouraging to Jill Fuglister, co-director of the Coalition for a Livable Future, a group that was an early opponent of the bridge project. The councilors' proposal calls for a phased-in approach similar to what the coalition and other critics have been calling for.
The coalition has argued that worrisome information about climate change and a recent trend of motorists driving less in the face of high gas prices have diminished the need for a new bridge.
"We actually have to pause and think of a different approach," Fuglister said. "So that's good news that there are folks that have the power to make a different approach happen."
A 60-day public comment period on the bridge project's environmental impact statement ends July 1. The coalition and 12 other groups last week asked for a 60-day extension of the comment period.
Liberty and Hosticka were out of the country at a conference late last week. But Collette has been receiving phone calls from concerned business owners about the trio's proposal.
"They saw the resolution as an anti-bridge resolution, and I understand how they could," she said. "From my perspective, it's a resolution about having a better conversation and a bigger conversation, and how we as Metro respond to the people who have environmental concerns about this project."
The resolution also calls for building a small bridge to connect North Portland to Hayden Island.
Number of lanes an issue
A major issue is how many lanes are necessary on the bridge.
Highway engineers on the project have proposed three lanes in each direction that would carry traffic through the bridge area, about the same as the existing six-lane bridge and in line with a regional policy of having no more than six total through lanes on area highways. They also have planned for three auxiliary lanes in each direction -- relatively short lanes of less than a mile long that are intended to carry traffic from one on-ramp to a nearby off-ramp.
Critics have called the 12-lane plan a recipe for more driving and sprawling growth in Clark County. State highway engineers say they add minimal capacity, and they would cut down on merging and weaving of traffic, which increases the accident rate in the area.
Some bridge supporters, such as Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder, have called for more information on whether the auxiliary lanes would provide so much congestion relief that they would promote sprawl.
In a memo to the council, Richard Brandman, Metro deputy planning director, said the number of lanes is among several issues that are scheduled to be decided after this summer's votes on the project's need, alignment and mass transit option. Those issues include tolling rates, bicycle and pedestrian path design and designs of the six highway interchange renovations.
Burkholder has proposed his own resolution, which would endorse light rail and six total through lanes -- and call for the number of auxiliary lanes to be determined with local officials later.
The resolutions would direct Burkholder on how to vote in his role as a member of a 39-member Columbia River Crossing Task Force, which has been advising the Oregon and Washington transportation departments on what to do about the corridor for about two years.
The task force is expected to vote June 24 on which of the five alternatives should be the locally preferred option. Subsequent votes are expected this summer by the Portland and Vancouver city councils, transit agencies from both areas, regional planning agencies for both areas and the Oregon and Washington transportation departments.
Dylan Rivera: 503-221-8532; dylanrivera@news.oregonian.com For environment news, go to: oregonlive.com/environment
Some of these Metro people are late to the table with their ideas. Where were they when this was supposedly hashed out by the Task Force??
This extremely hostile attitude from Metro is almost guaranteed to shut this project down cold. Metro is a prime signatory on the agreement, and if they veto the project, it is done.
Developing...
Congestion - A resolution backed by three Metro councilors reflects concern that a new bridge would just add traffic, sprawl
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
DYLAN RIVERA
The Oregonian Staff
Three of seven Metro councilors are scheduled today to oppose a proposed Interstate 5 bridge over the Columbia River, a potentially significant blow to a federally backed $4.2 billion effort to untangle congestion in one of the West Coast's worst bottlenecks.
The resolution calls for charging tolls on the current bridge between Portland and Vancouver, generating money to earthquake-proof the structure, make on-ramps safer and boost mass transit. The tolls would discourage use of the bridge at rush hour, relieving some congestion. Then in a few years, officials would consider a new bridge with additional lanes for cars and trucks.
"That would give us the information we don't have right now, which is how would people react to having to pay for the project?" said Carlotta Collette, one of the three councilors opposing a new bridge. Councilors Robert Liberty and Carl Hosticka also signed the resolution.
The resolution reflects growing concern that a new bridge -- by increasing capacity -- would eventually create new congestion and promote sprawling development. Until now, Liberty appeared to be the only elected official calling for a dramatically different solution.
The Columbia River Crossing, as the proposed span is known, is intended to relieve congestion and improve safety and mass transit on the five-mile stretch of highway that connects Oregon and Washington. Unblocking the bottleneck is especially vital to Clark County commuters and to truckers, who move vast amounts of freight up and down the West Coast on I-5.
Oregon and Washington have pitched five alternative bridge solutions, all up for review. One is to do nothing. But the most widely favored plan would replace the existing six-lane bridge with a new 12-lane span, a light-rail extension to Vancouver and renovation of six highway interchanges. That plan would significantly increase highway capacity.
The resolution is scheduled to be presented at a Metro Council work session at 2 p.m. today at the Metro Regional Center, 600 N.E. Grand Ave. A vote on the resolution is not anticipated until June 5, and final decisions on the bridge project are still weeks away.
But today's resolution calls into question the long-standing perception that the project was sure to win majority support of all eight public agencies in Oregon and Washington that have veto power over the project. Supporters, including Gov. Ted Kulongoski and the Portland Business Alliance, may have a tougher fight on their hands than was expected.
Bridge backers outraged
The move has sparked outrage among bridge supporters.
Corky Collier, executive director of the Columbia Corridor Association, which represents freight and neighborhood interests in North Portland, said the proposal flies in the face of a delicate political balance. Oregon leaders rightly want light rail extended to Clark County, he said, but leaders in southwest Washington won't accept rail without more lanes for freight and automobiles.
"For Oregon to say Clark County needs light rail and not a bridge is just a little bit on the arrogant side," Collier said. "This is teamwork. We're trying to put this project together as a group."
However, the resolution was encouraging to Jill Fuglister, co-director of the Coalition for a Livable Future, a group that was an early opponent of the bridge project. The councilors' proposal calls for a phased-in approach similar to what the coalition and other critics have been calling for.
The coalition has argued that worrisome information about climate change and a recent trend of motorists driving less in the face of high gas prices have diminished the need for a new bridge.
"We actually have to pause and think of a different approach," Fuglister said. "So that's good news that there are folks that have the power to make a different approach happen."
A 60-day public comment period on the bridge project's environmental impact statement ends July 1. The coalition and 12 other groups last week asked for a 60-day extension of the comment period.
Liberty and Hosticka were out of the country at a conference late last week. But Collette has been receiving phone calls from concerned business owners about the trio's proposal.
"They saw the resolution as an anti-bridge resolution, and I understand how they could," she said. "From my perspective, it's a resolution about having a better conversation and a bigger conversation, and how we as Metro respond to the people who have environmental concerns about this project."
The resolution also calls for building a small bridge to connect North Portland to Hayden Island.
Number of lanes an issue
A major issue is how many lanes are necessary on the bridge.
Highway engineers on the project have proposed three lanes in each direction that would carry traffic through the bridge area, about the same as the existing six-lane bridge and in line with a regional policy of having no more than six total through lanes on area highways. They also have planned for three auxiliary lanes in each direction -- relatively short lanes of less than a mile long that are intended to carry traffic from one on-ramp to a nearby off-ramp.
Critics have called the 12-lane plan a recipe for more driving and sprawling growth in Clark County. State highway engineers say they add minimal capacity, and they would cut down on merging and weaving of traffic, which increases the accident rate in the area.
Some bridge supporters, such as Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder, have called for more information on whether the auxiliary lanes would provide so much congestion relief that they would promote sprawl.
In a memo to the council, Richard Brandman, Metro deputy planning director, said the number of lanes is among several issues that are scheduled to be decided after this summer's votes on the project's need, alignment and mass transit option. Those issues include tolling rates, bicycle and pedestrian path design and designs of the six highway interchange renovations.
Burkholder has proposed his own resolution, which would endorse light rail and six total through lanes -- and call for the number of auxiliary lanes to be determined with local officials later.
The resolutions would direct Burkholder on how to vote in his role as a member of a 39-member Columbia River Crossing Task Force, which has been advising the Oregon and Washington transportation departments on what to do about the corridor for about two years.
The task force is expected to vote June 24 on which of the five alternatives should be the locally preferred option. Subsequent votes are expected this summer by the Portland and Vancouver city councils, transit agencies from both areas, regional planning agencies for both areas and the Oregon and Washington transportation departments.
Dylan Rivera: 503-221-8532; dylanrivera@news.oregonian.com For environment news, go to: oregonlive.com/environment
Some of these Metro people are late to the table with their ideas. Where were they when this was supposedly hashed out by the Task Force??
This extremely hostile attitude from Metro is almost guaranteed to shut this project down cold. Metro is a prime signatory on the agreement, and if they veto the project, it is done.
Developing...