Rex for Metro

On Sightline, Roger Valdez logs a thoughtful post in which he “calls me out” about sustainability and the Columbia River Crossing project — the seismic, bike/ped, light rail and tolling components of which I’ve long supported. Roger believes that the project has to be based on political expediency, because “the best policy option would lead to reduced greenhouse gas emissions, better land-use, and healthier communities.”

Reasonable enough. So let’s take this thing apart and see what’s really going on — not in the easy buzzwords lobbed from the sidelines by my opponent, but in actual, real-world, roll-up-your-sleeves-and-work-with-others policy.

First, though, I need to add something to Roger’s list that he’s forgotten: safety. The existing 93 year old span is in dangerous condition (the other is 60 years old and also deteriorating) and environmentally harmful. Putting the region’s people and economy at risk is a failure to acknowledge physical reality–that steel rusts, concrete deteriorates, and the earth quakes. Even my opponent has acknowledged (somewhat grudgingly, I have to say) that the bridges need to be fixed.

The question is, then, how to turn an onerous responsibility -– replacing an expensive piece of critical equipment — into an opportunity. I worked 5 years to ensure this project will provide real transportation alternatives, use tolls to reduce traffic demand and move traffic quickly, and reduce impact on the environment and surrounding communities. The proposal adopted by the Task Force, the Metro Council and the Portland City Council does this. And, compared to doing nothing, reduces pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and encourages denser, more compact development on Hayden Island and in downtown Vancouver. Exactly what Roger calls for!

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has strong recommendations on major transportation investments which the proposal that I back includes: fix/replace infrastructure within the center of urban regions rather than build new on the edge (check), provide transportation alternatives (check), use tolling to reduce traffic demand and regulate flow to reduce emissions (check).

It’s true that it does take “political” will to spend 5 years at the table getting the best project possible for the environment, our economy and our communities–and then to do the work to get agreement from all levels of government, on both sides of the Columbia. I’ve done that and am proud to have fulfilled the responsibilities given to me by my constituents who voted for me and to my fellow Metro Councilors who entrusted me to represent them in this important discussion.

No project can be considered in isolation from other actions. Population growth will require that we build schools, houses, coffee shops and–yes–roads (!). All of these will cause increased GHG emissions. Does that mean we stop all construction, asking people to double up in their houses and tolerate 60 kids per classroom? Of course not. Just like with a project as daunting as the CRC, we will have to compensate by greener building techniques, reduction in carbon emissions in other sectors, making sure streets are complete streets with transit, bike and pedestrian facilities and maybe even tolls on our freeways.

Sounds a lot like the parts of the CRC proposal Metro President David Bragdon, Mayor Sam Adams, Vancouver Mayor Tim Leavitt and Clark County Chair Steve Stuart — and I — support: smart policy focused on sustainability but forged in the real world.

An email from a supporter:

I wanted to let you know that I heard the City Club debate yesterday and thought you did a great job with a tricky format and not much air time.

This is one of those rare elections where there really isn’t a bad candidate. I know Tom Hughes through my work on the Hillsboro 2020 project and Bob Stacey through planning circles, and respect them both.

However, their candidacies both have inherent biases given their respective political bases, and they can’t match your experience at Metro. I felt your response to Bob’s question in particular was very clear in acknowledging the balance and compromise that is required by this job. I think you have proven that fact in your years on Metro Council and in working for the better interests of the entire region.

I just wanted to congratulate you on your performance — and let you know that I continue to support your candidacy.

– Steven Ames

Thank you, Steven. That you know and respect all of us makes me feel even more honored by your support.

By the way, here’s a link to audio of the debate.

Willamette Week just posted an entry about an editing error they discovered in our Voter’s Pamphlet statement about my role in the early days of Cloudburst Recycling. Cloudburst was founded in 1975 by David and Michela McMahon. I worked with them for two years, from 1980-1981, during an important period in the development of the company.

Every young company requires a lot of teamwork, urgency and creativity. As one of the early employees at Cloudburst, I played many roles, working hard to help build the business, under the leadership of my friend David McMahon, who shares and embodies my commitment to marrying environmental sustainability and business opportunity.

I am proud of the contribution I provided to help grow Cloudburst and to furthering the great idea of recycling pickup. It wasn’t my intention to overstate my role with the company. In the rush to get a statement into the Voter’s Pamphlet I missed this. When I discovered my mistake, I called David immediately to apologize and made sure no other materials went out from my campaign with this incorrect statement.

My sincere apologies.