Reporting from Vancouver, Wash.
They had different reasons for being there, but one common message – the Columbia River Crossing is the wrong project at the wrong time.
Standing in the shadow of the Interstate Bridge, a motley crew of about 15 anti-CRC activists braved the frigid January sunshine to push legislators in Oregon to kill the proposed $3.2 billion Interstate 5 bridge. The press conference was emceed by Metro Councilor Carl Hosticka, who cast votes against the CRC in 2011.
The Metro Council is likely to have another Columbia River Crossing vote early this year, after the Oregon Court of Appeals rejected part of the land use decision Metro used to OK the CRC.
But with uncertainty about whether to fund the project, Hosticka said at Thursday's press conference that it's time to halt engineering work.
"At a time when the Oregon Department of Transportation is laying off people, saying that they cannot maintain the current highway system and have virtually no money for new projects, it is a bad idea to keep spending more than $1 million a month on a project that may never get built," Hosticka said. "While I believe that the need for better transportation alternatives for crossing the Columbia River is clear, there are serious questions about the current locally preferred alternative."
Why the attention? The Oregon legislative committee tasked with finding CRC funding is meeting next week; meanwhile, in Olympia, Gov. Chris Gregoire said the CRC is her state's top funding priority.
With the federal government signed off on the project's concept, the onus is now on legislators to find cash for construction. Meanwhile, pre-construction research continues.
"We're close to getting stuck," said Plaid Pantry president Chris Girard, a staunch CRC opponent. "My fear is we get to a point of no return and somebody says 'Well, we spent so much we have to press on.' But we're not there yet. "
Oregon Rep. Mitch Greenlick, D-Portland, said the Columbia River Crossing's proposal "cannot possibly happen… this is a bridge project to nowhere." He called for Oregon and Washington to study alternatives to the CRC proposal, something that was already done in the environmental study process.
The pre-construction work on the CRC has been an easy target for critics of the project, who point to the $130-plus million that's been spent on environmental review, engineering, design, public involvement and project management, without a yard of concrete being poured on a new bridge.
Those costs, and the project's estimated pre-construction budget of around $200 million, are in line with industry averages for megaprojects.
Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder, a supporter of the CRC, said in an interview Thursday afternoon that Oregon isn't that far off from finding funding for the project.
"The Oregon side would be a $20 million investment a year for 20-25 years, something that is dwarfed by ODOT's $1 billion a year budget," Burkholder said. "It's not like it's impossible to do. Tolling itself – even at the low rates we have – can raise quite a bit of money over a 20 year timeframe."
Costs weren't the only concerns for speakers. Oregon Rep. Lew Frederick, D-Portland, wasn't specifically opposing the CRC, but was questioning the quality of life impacts for people in his district. He wanted to make sure the CRC would not affect health because of pollution and particulates from the freeway.
"If it's not done well we're going to end up with more traffic and more pollution in my community, and that's not OK," Frederick said. "I want some answers on how we're going to deal with that particular issue, as well as how we get freight and other traffic back and forth and across this river."
John Charles, CEO of the Cascade Policy Institute, was on hand to oppose the light rail portion of the project. He said C-Tran's express buses to downtown Portland take 18 minutes during rush hour, compared to a forecasted 38 minute trip on MAX from downtown Vancouver to the Portland city center.
"If the goal here is to enhance transit, this does the exact opposite, at a cost far more than any other train ever built in the history of this state," Charles said.
Sharon Nasset, an advocate for building a new downstream Columbia River Bridge and an Interstate 305 across Metro's Smith and Bybee Wetlands, said her pet project would encourage job growth.
"Imagine Portland without 405 – ugly, just ugly," she said. "We do not have to put up with congestion. It's a drain on the economy, and it's damagement to our environment, our health. Imagine 405 with a 305 – wow! How wonderful! A 305, a bypass going into our ports and industrial areas, and avoiding our neighborhoods and providing us with a 21st Century economy-driven freeway."
Nasset was one of a few speakers proposing new bridges. One speaker called for a replacement to the BNSF Railway bridge just downstream, one that could handle cars and high speed rail. Another pushed for more commuter rail from Vancouver to Portland.
In short, the speakers couldn't agree on what to do with the congestion on the main road linking Portland and Vancouver, but they certainly didn't like the proposal that's already been approved.