Global Warming Pollution
Global warming is the most critical issue of our time. There is a 90% likelihood the Earth's surface temperature will increase 9 degrees in 90 years unless action is taken to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. This is why Oregon set a goal of reducing its global warming pollution 75% below 1990 levels by 2050 and Washington set a goal of reducing emissions 50% below 1990 levels by 2050.
Oregon now requires Metro - the regional transportation council for the Portland region - to meet a 2035 target toward the state goals through their transportation and land use planning, funding, and regulations. In addition, Washington also now requires the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council (RTC) to meet the state goals through a reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
But the CRC Mega-Bridge would take the Portland-Vancouver region in the wrong direction. Between 1990 and 2007, Oregon's global warming pollution has already increased 41%. The CRC staff's own analysis finds that the CRC Mega-Bridge will increase the corridor's emissions by another 32% by 2030. Based on Environment Oregon's analysis, this emissions increase would make it impossible for Metro and RTC to meet the states' climate laws.
No Congestion Relief
The explicit reason for building the CRC Mega-Bridge is to reduce the corridor's congestion for the sake of greater freight mobility and reduced commute times. However, the CRC staff's analysis finds that the additional 12 lanes, with the incorporation of congestion pricing and high capacity transit (both necessary elements to the project), would result in merely 3,000 less trips across the I-5 and I-205 bridges in 2030. This is less than 1 percent of total trips in 2030.
But at the same time, the I-5 and I-205 bridges would have 40% more trips than today, a gigantic increase in traffic and congestion from today. So, the CRC would spend $4.2 billion to eliminate merely 3,000 projected commute trips, and yet the traffic would be 40% worse than today.
The CRC staff recognized that increasing capacity on the I-5 bridge would increase the number of vehicle trips. In order to decrease the number of trips and reduce congestion, the CRC staff relied upon congestion pricing and increased high capacity transit. Both congestion pricing and transit can be done without expanding the I-5 bridge, thereby reducing congestion and eliminating the need to expand the bridge.
Lost Opportunities to Build Livable Communities
The CRC Mega-Bridge would be the largest transportation project in Oregon's history. When considering such an investment, it's useful to consider what this money could be used for instead. For example:
- The City of Portland expects 9.2 new miles of bike boulevards to cost $786,000 and a new cycle track to cost $47,000.
- The new MAX Green Line cost $547 million and the light rail to Milwaukie (which includes a bridge, more miles, and more right-of-way issues) is expected to cost $1.4 billion.
- The Portland Eastside Streetcar will cost $147 million.
- A 1999 paper reported that the Washington DOT estimated cost for getting passenger trains to reach 125 mph in the Eugene to Vancouver BC corridor was $1.865 billion (many of those necessary improvements are now being made with federal stimulus funds).
If the CRC were simply downsized to a package of congestion pricing, a railroad bridge realignment, a light rail and bike/ped bridge, and seismic upgrades, the cost would probably be less than $2 billion. Unfortunately, the CRC staff have failed to adequately analyze such an alternative project.
The Dead Weight & Delayed Job Creation of a Deadlocked Process
So far the CRC staff and consultants have spent more than $72 million studying their mega-bridge project. However, it is clear that a 12-lane mega-bridge and the current process is not supported by numerous politicians or the public. This is a substantial lost amount of energy and resources that could have been - and should be - dedicated towards an independent study that reflects the region's shared values of reducing global warming pollution, fostering livable communities, and growing our economy. And the sooner we start planning and building a project that reflects the region's shared values, the sooner we can put Oregonians and Washington's to work.
Portland Mayor Sam Adams and Metro Council President David Bragdon have called for a smaller project. Of the 2010 candidates for Metro President, Rex Burkholder has called for a right-sizing of the bridge and Bob Stacy has been a leading voice against the CRC mega-bridge. Oregon Congressmen Peter DeFazio (D) is skeptical about the project, and the silence from the rest of Oregon’s federal delegation speaks volumes about largest public works project in the region’s history. Numerous Oregon legislators from around the state, most notably Representatives Jules Kopel Bailey (D), Cliff Bentz (R), and Brian Clem (D), either question or oppose the CRC.
To the north, Washington State Senator Don Benton (R) opposes the CRC Mega-Bridge and Vancouver Mayor-elect Tim Leavitt opposes tolling, a crucial element to manage traffic congestion as well as financing the bridge.
While all of these leaders support reducing congestion and providing economic opportunity on both sides of the river, the current plan – whether 10 or 12 lanes – is not a political reality. Continuing to spend millions studying a CRC mega-bridge represents a huge waste of money and delays putting Oregonians and Washingtonians to work.
