Toes are finally tagged on Columbia River Crossing

Posted

The Oregon Department of Transportation officially pulled the plug on the Columbia River Crossing Project in a press release issued on March 7. The project will be shut down completely by May 31.

“On March 7, the Oregon Legislature adjourned without reinstating construction funds for the CRC I-5 Bridge Replacement project,’’ the release stated. “As identified in Governor Kitzhaber’s January 27, 2014 letter to legislative leadership, the project will begin the process of orderly archival and closeout.’’

Obviously, the project died in reality long ago, and certainly it did on this side of the Columbia River a while back as well. Still, the official end of the CRC was likely met with a collective sigh of relief to the majority of residents in Clark County, who opposed the project from the very beginning. I, like the majority of residents in Clark County, have no interest in light rail jumping across that wide river that separates the two bordering states.

I ask this question to area historians. Is the CRC the biggest boondoggle in the history of Clark County? And by boondoggle, I mean, has more money ever been wasted on a worse idea? And, if you don’t recognize it was a bad idea, talk to the approximate 70 percent of county residents who disagree with you.

Consider these staggering facts, provided by State Rep. Liz Pike recently on her Facebook page:

• The CRC has spent $180 million on a $50 million “maximum’’ contract design a replacement bridge. That $180 million could have built almost half the Interstate 205 bridge today. (The I-205 bridge cost $170 million in 1982, or $400 million in today’s dollars.)

• CRC’s own documents predicted 3 percent of less of bridge users would ride light rail; the cost of light rail represented a third of the total project cost – over $1 billion.

• Last year, Washington legislators were being asked to allocate $450 toward a $3.5 billion mega project.



• Southwest Washington commuter tolling would have paid for a large portion of Oregon interchanges (more than $200 million), which had been allocated toward bridge costs.

• Had light rail been accepted by Washington legislators, area residents would have been financially tied to Tri-Met, which has a $1.1 billion deficit in its retirement/pension obligations. Tri-Met’s own 2012 Annual Report said the agency was not worthy of any additional taxpayer investment until it gets its financial house in order.

• The CRC plan included $3.3 billion in tolls. Since a high percentage (some estimates were up to 70 percent) of traffic using the I-5 bridge are residents of Southwest Washington, it seems unfair that $2.3 billion )70 percent) would come from the pockets of Washington families.

Pike went on to point out that the Interstate 35 bridge in Minneapolis, MN collapsed in August 2007. Thirteen months later, a $234 million replacement bridge was opened. That’s efficiency. The CRC project was the model of inefficiency.

I believe we need a third bridge crossing the Columbia River, or a replacement for the I-5 bridge, which is said to have about 60 years of life left in it. Many believe it should be in the area of 192nd Ave. in Vancouver, east of the I-205 bridge. I’m not convinced that’s the answer, yet, but it could be.

Let’s just hope that a lesson has been learned from the CRC project. I believe that lesson is for our leaders to not try to out-think the room. If 70 percent of area residents are opposed to a project that involves light rail, then move on and look at another solution.

Ken Vance

Editor