Last night's bridge forum
Last night I attended a forum in Portland about The Columbia River Crossing project, the effort to do something about the current I-5 bridge between Portland and Vancouver. I say "do something" rather than "build a new bridge," because after attending the forum it's pretty clear to me there is nothing even remotely approaching consensus on what to do.
The forum was sponsored by Coalition for a Livable Future, Environmental Justice Action Group, Friends of Clark County and the Columbia Group of the Sierra Club.
The most interesting part was the panel discussion, which was moderated by Ethan Seltzer, a professor of Urban Studies and Planning at Portland State. Seltzer has a lively wit and did an admirable job of keeping the discussion focused, especially during the question and answer period.
The main thing I'm taking away from the event is that there are some legitimate concerns about narrowing options so much.
CRC staff gave a presentation outlining their proposal to move forward with three basic options: a required "no-build" option, a new freeway bridge with light rail or a new freeway bridge with bus rapid transit. So basically you've got "do nothing," which the federal government requires to establish a base line for comparison, and building a fairly expensive new bridge with transit.
Task force members representing "stakeholders," ie state and local governments and interested citizens and groups, could vote on this proposal as early as February, which would move the process forward to a draft environmental impact statement (or "DEIS.")
Reading between the lines, I wonder if political pressure will build to come up with a "medium cost" option.
Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart likes to note that one should avoid presenting people with a choice like "buy a Porsche or walk," alluding to the likely $2 billion cost of a new project that has been circulating in the media.
One audience member noted that the public and task force members are being asked to narrow options before cost analysis has been completed.
The explanation given by CRC staff last night seems to be that the DEIS process is lengthy and expensive, so there's a desire to winnow options. Which may be true but is somewhat problematic in terms of getting community acceptance.
The event was fairly well attended. One organizer reported there were 54 people.
Topics discussed by the panel and audience included health effects like asthma, the idea suggested by an economist that putting tolls on the current bridge might obviate the need for a new bridge, and some discussion centered around accepting the fact that I-5 is only going to have so much capacity "downstream" no matter what is done to the I-5 bridge.
One of the panelists was activist and blogger Chris Smith, who writes the blog Portland Transport. Check it out if you have the chance, he has a lot of interesting things to say about regional transportation issues.
The forum was sponsored by Coalition for a Livable Future, Environmental Justice Action Group, Friends of Clark County and the Columbia Group of the Sierra Club.
The most interesting part was the panel discussion, which was moderated by Ethan Seltzer, a professor of Urban Studies and Planning at Portland State. Seltzer has a lively wit and did an admirable job of keeping the discussion focused, especially during the question and answer period.
The main thing I'm taking away from the event is that there are some legitimate concerns about narrowing options so much.
CRC staff gave a presentation outlining their proposal to move forward with three basic options: a required "no-build" option, a new freeway bridge with light rail or a new freeway bridge with bus rapid transit. So basically you've got "do nothing," which the federal government requires to establish a base line for comparison, and building a fairly expensive new bridge with transit.
Task force members representing "stakeholders," ie state and local governments and interested citizens and groups, could vote on this proposal as early as February, which would move the process forward to a draft environmental impact statement (or "DEIS.")
Reading between the lines, I wonder if political pressure will build to come up with a "medium cost" option.
Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart likes to note that one should avoid presenting people with a choice like "buy a Porsche or walk," alluding to the likely $2 billion cost of a new project that has been circulating in the media.
One audience member noted that the public and task force members are being asked to narrow options before cost analysis has been completed.
The explanation given by CRC staff last night seems to be that the DEIS process is lengthy and expensive, so there's a desire to winnow options. Which may be true but is somewhat problematic in terms of getting community acceptance.
The event was fairly well attended. One organizer reported there were 54 people.
Topics discussed by the panel and audience included health effects like asthma, the idea suggested by an economist that putting tolls on the current bridge might obviate the need for a new bridge, and some discussion centered around accepting the fact that I-5 is only going to have so much capacity "downstream" no matter what is done to the I-5 bridge.
One of the panelists was activist and blogger Chris Smith, who writes the blog Portland Transport. Check it out if you have the chance, he has a lot of interesting things to say about regional transportation issues.
