Really setting the record straight on the CRC

Posted

On February 29, 2012, I read, in The Reflector, Vancouver Mayor Leavitt’s response to Jon Haugen’s article regarding the Columbia River Crossing Project. Mayor Leavitt’s article was more fiction, than fact. Because Portland’s light rail project will be so economically and geographically impacting, it is important to know the entire story – the real story.

Political facts: The Columbia River Crossing I-5 Light rail/Bridge project runs along party lines. The locally elected Republicans do not want this project, but prefer a better bridge project. They want another bridge built east or west that will truly reduce I-5 congestion, move freight, and leave a smaller footprint. Most locally elected Democrats strongly support the destruction of the I-5 Bridge, acquisition and/or impact of hundreds of properties, and strongly support the introduction of Portland’s light rail into Clark County. We are not sure where Tim Probst stands on this project.

Bridge facts: The existing I-5 Bridge, according the Corps of Engineers Report, has 40 years of life left in it. That same report indicated that the steel in the I-5 Bridge was thicker than what the specs called for. Also, we can retrofit the I-5 Bridge to a 500 year earthquake event for $250 million. Did you know that the current I-5 Bridge has a higher safety rating than Portland’s Marquam Bridge, and 29 other bridges in the Oregon highway system, and that it has less accidents occurring on it than the Marquam Bridge? Speaking of the Marquam Bridge, that bridge also does not have shoulders. However, we don’t see anyone “storming the Bastille” to get rid of the Marquam Bridge. You have to ask yourself, “Why?”

Railroad Bridge facts: If we realign the BNSF Bridge so that its high point matches the current I-5 Bridge high point, we will reduce I-5 Bridge lifts by 95 percent to a level of about seven bridge lifts per month.

New Bridge facts: The new light rail bridge will have three through lanes--exactly what we have, now. It will not reduce morning congestion. Approximately one third of the cost of this bridge is due directly to light rail construction. Other millions are being spent to reconfigure entrance/exit ramps to accommodate the light rail portion of the project. In fact, the driving force behind this light rail/bridge project is the light rail. Please note: The Oregon Supreme Court said, “The massive Interstate 5 bridge and freeway project is a “political necessity” to persuade Clark County residents to accept something they previously didn’t want, a MAX light-rail line from Portland to Vancouver. (Feb. 16, 2012 Oregon Supreme Court decision regarding the Columbia River Crossing Project.)



Financial Facts: Mr. Leavitt knows very well that this project will not bring in 20,000 jobs. It was surprising when he quoted that figure. Although the 20,000 job figure has been touted by Ed Barnes for years, what analysis showed was that the CRC was using a 2,000 job increase over ten years. 2,000 x 10 years = 20,000. More accurate analysis showed that there will be an increase of about 1,150 temporary jobs. Also, what Mr. Leavitt failed to mention, is that we will be losing about 950 permanent jobs. For union folks, a third bridge either east or west of the existing bridge will bring in jobs, too, but without the loss of local, small businesses and permanent jobs. The tolls from this project will pull out $818,000,000 out of the economy per year. This is the discretionary money that people use to buy lattes, upscale tennis shoes, movie tickets, nail designs, home remodels, yard projects. Actually, at $100-$300 per month, this is the money people use to pay their heat, electric, and utility bills. Folks will be forced to choose between working in Portland and down-scaling their lifestyle, moving to Portland to avoid the tolls, or giving up seniority, benefits, and perhaps a better paying job to work in Clark County.

Incompetency: This light rail/bridge project has been managed poorly, as evidenced in five glaring ways. 1. The original CRC chosen (and most expensive) box-web design was dismissed, by the Independent Review Panel because it had never been built to this scale, and for safety reasons. 2. The current design is too low, according to the Coast Guard. (Why didn’t CRC consult on that a year ago, after spending millions more of our tax dollars?) 3. The CRC financial forecast for revenue streams was off by $500,000,000 ($1/2 billion), according to Oregon State Treasurer Wheeler. 4. Their Record of Decision (ROD) is three years late from the original target date of 2008. 5. The original study budget of $80 million is off by about double that of $150 million plus.

Conclusion: The destruction/replacement and introduction of Portland’s light rail/bridge project is a poorly thought-out project, riddled with caveats, lacking transparency, and competent leadership, at all levels. To stop this project and get a better bridge built, I strongly recommend writing to elected officials. Tell them, “no light rail and. We want a county-wide up/down vote on bringing Portland’s light rail into Vancouver.”

Debbie Peterson

Vancouver