Rex for Metro

In light of the inconclusive meeting of the Project Steering Group for the Columbia River Crossing last week, I think it’s time to step back and put this project in perspective. First, the key facts as I see them:

• Tens of thousands of jobs in this region depend on I-5
• The bridge is seismically unstable. In fact, it’s built on sixty foot Douglas Fir timbers buried in sand, if you can believe that.
• It’s a drawbridge. What’s a drawbridge doing on an interstate highway, stopping traffic every time a large vessel passes underneath? Good question.
• Even when the bridge is down, it routinely creates traffic jams that slow commutes to a crawl and spew pollution into the air.
• And perhaps most stunning of all considering our forward-thinking region, it offers lousy, intimidating options for anyone wanting to cross the river except in a car. I know: I’ve biked it.

So when Metro and 37 other community leaders from both sides of the river were invited by Oregon and Washington’s transportation agencies to study the issue, we (and I) overwhelmingly recommended the obvious:

Now, people can (and will) argue about what form that new or improved bridge should take, and that’s a good thing. But if the discussion doesn’t start from this fact — that the bridge has to be fixed — what you’re hearing is politics, not leadership.

So what IS the responsible way to tackle this huge project?

In the year and a half since ODOT and WDOT incorporated our recommendations into their bridge proposal, the nation’s economic outlook has changed. It’s forced all of us to tighten our belts. One thing’s for sure: we can’t afford a $4.2 billion bridge, if we ever could.

So it’s clear we’ve got to be more modest and practical in our scope. Where we can’t compromise is on the other half of our Task Force recommendation: we’ve got to build this bridge in line with our region’s goals of sustainability and responsible growth.

“Sustainability” has become a buzzword, but what it means to me is this:

In this case, it means finding a solution that will not only address our immediate necessities, but those we’re sure to face down the road, too: climate change, energy security, runaway growth, and the long-term livability of our region in general.

That’s why the Task Force strongly recommended that the bridge include light rail, as well as world-class bicycle and pedestrian facilities, to give people alternatives to driving alone. It’s also why we strongly recommended tolling, both to help offset the cost of the bridge (doesn’t it make sense for those who use the bridge to help pay for it?) and to shape traffic flow. You can download our reccs here (PDF).

And while we’re on the subject, let’s clear the air about what the Task Force didn’t recommend: a 12-lane bridge. We suggested (page 2, #1) “three through lanes northbound and southbound as the preferred option” – that is, 6 lanes – and then “further study and analysis to determine the appropriate number of auxiliary lanes, necessary for safety and functionality in the project area, and consistent with minimizing impacts” (page 4, bullet 3). Neither the Task Force nor I have ever recommended a 12-lane bridge.

By incorporating light rail, world-class bike and pedestrian facilities, and strategic tolling, we get:

• fewer people driving and a more streamlined commute for those who do, reducing greenhouse emissions and beginning the process of weaning ourselves from dependence on foreign oil.
• more people biking and walking, reducing emissions and overall healthcare costs from obesity and heart disease.
• light rail, expanding our network of non-auto options so that getting around without a car gets easier and easier.
• a system that fosters smarter development, protecting our farms and forests throughout the region.
• the fair deal that those who use the bridge to help pay for it, even as those moderate tolls inspire people to re-think the smartest way to get over the river for shopping or work.

Sound reasonable? It did to me, too. And it still does today as I focus my efforts on tackling climate change, bringing family wage jobs to the region, protecting our working farms, and creating transportation choices that protect our quality of life.

So let’s be clear. I believe:

• We must fix the I-5 Columbia River Bridge. Anything less would be irresponsible.
• We must do this affordably, bringing the scope of the project back to earth while asking commuters who benefit from it to chip in. Anything less would be unfair.
• We must provide better choices for travel, and that means light rail and smooth, safe options for bicyclists and pedestrians. Anything less would be living in the past — and that’s not where our future lies.