In my view, the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) debate is less about building a bridge and more about debating a right-sized project that is multi-modal, that won’t bankrupt our transportation funds, and won’t promote sprawl by increasing auto use. In addition, for cyclists, it’s about creating a world-class bicycle and pedestrian facility.
The BTA has taken a course that allows us to be influential in shaping the project and address the above-listed concerns and needs. Our position is based on principles, and therefore we can support a smaller multi-modal bridge (which currently has no institutional champion) and oppose the construction of a mega-bridge.
Our advocacy approach on the CRC project has similarities to another hard example of advancements — the events that followed the death of Brett Jarolimek. In October the BTA received intense pressure to make strong statements against the Portland Police Department. This pressure and feedback gave us energy to crank harder on the issue and your vocal nature was very influential on the development of BTA positions. However I assure you that the BTA’s approach is methodical. It took us six weeks to develop a clear set of actions that we delivered to the Portland Police, and I am proud to say that some of these actions have been accomplished and today we have the most open and productive relationship with Portland police and police departments statewide in my 10-year tenure at the BTA. This relationship will also help us solve today’s and future enforcement concerns.
As reported by Jonathan Maus on May 21, the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) project has truly conflicted the BTA. More than two years ago I met with senior project staff and agreed to remain neutral to supportive of the project if they delivered a multimodal bridge option with world-class bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The BTA reserved judgment to review the full scale and scope of the project; we avoided involvement in high-level project committees. I testified once to the project Task Force calling for the consideration of multimodal options, including a new supplemental arterial bridge.
In the last year, the BTA has worked more intensely to secure a world-class bike and pedestrian facility. In addition to attending the CRC Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee, we heard a wide range of views at our members-forum. In the last two months we met with primary advocates and regional leaders to craft a strategic set of conditions under which we could support the continuation of the planning and engineering of a bridge and a multi-modal corridor.
And the information keeps coming. Just yesterday, an advocate explained to me that even if a new bridge project dies of it’s own weight, cost, and future mounted opposition (a definite possibility), we’d have to take many steps back in the process to resurface other solutions, such as a smaller arterial bridge.
I believe that our next steps are to target the Portland City Council and demand local control, ensure that any project moving forward adopts a very strict set of project guidelines, and ensure that local funds won’t be depleted. Changing the paradigm even further would take a very strong coalition – Coalition for Livable Future, 1000 Friends of Oregon, Oregon Environmental Council, Sierra Club, Environment Oregon, and others – activating around a reasonable but hard-hitting advocacy position. So far, in my many phone calls and meetings, I have not heard this vision clearly articulated in a way that can successfully penetrate the project.
The BTA’s advocacy team believes that our stated principles are sound and that we have already impacted the project. We will also continue to search for the most successful advocacy strategies and coalitions.
Please stay tuned for our calls to action. The Portland City Council is scheduled to hold a hearing on this in early July.
The BTA has taken a course that allows us to be influential in shaping the project…. our position is based on principles, and therefore we can support a smaller multi-modal bridge (which currently has no institutional champion)….
So, you’ve been so influential as to support an alternative that has no champion? Glad to see the muscles being flexed.
And you’ve got principles that, if honestly followed, force you to oppose the bridge. No one thinks that the bridge won’t impact the funding for other transportation projects (the federal funding could go elsewhere, as could the regional and state). Or are you advocating a $8 toll?
You’re focused on the project being “world class” that I think you’re missing the land use impacts on the region being “world class” when it comes to biking.
You sound just like the Governor and Portland City Council who give lip service to climate change and then bend to the freight lobby and Clark County sprawl just so you can be friends with the highway builders. Sometimes influence is gained through calling a dog of a project a dog of a project, instead of claiming it could become a cat.
I approve of the BTA’s attempt to remain constructive. However, no one seems to want to confront the pink elephant sitting in the corner of the room: the CRC proposals will grossly increase the carbon footprint of the river crossing without addressing the underlying need to “efficiently move people and goods” (quote from the Vancouver BC equivalent of Metro).
What part of the CRC proposal ensures that any capacity generated by the project is not swallowed up by increased demand and hence increased CO2 emissions?
I am uncomfortable with Scott’s current position which seems to imply it’s OK if we destroy the climate and pollute the planet as long as bicyclists and pedestrians get our pork project.
Part of the advocacy for bicycling (unfortunately) requires removing the artificial incentives that government and Big Business have placed for people to use automobiles for private personal transport, and it seems to me all of the CRC proposals include those kinds of anti-bicycling incentives.
I am deeply disappointed by the BTA’s stand on the CRC. Here’s the mission:
Putting a few bike lanes to cross the river is making the region healthier and more sustainable? I realize it is adding some bike lanes, but the core of the mission is not biking, it is health and sustainability THROUGH biking.
I agree with Darcy that your mission and principles demand you oppose the bridge. Burkholder gave in but Et, tu Brute? I know that the BTA is often focused on finding the middle ground with biking issues, and I think that compromise is commendable. Because of this the BTA is in a great position to make a strong statement for what is right. If the BTA took a strong position on this critical issue, people would notice and it could make a difference.
I don’t believe an opportunity to shape our regions transportation in such a major way will be coming up again soon.
Scott, you should make it clear that the CRC is just plain unacceptable, even to the level-headed folks at the BTA.
I am also deeply disappointed that the BTA is supporting the CRC. This project will result in a massive investment in infrastructure that will only deepen our dependence on the automobile. Bike lanes or no bike lanes, this project is a step in the wrong direction. Fortunately there have been individuals with the vision and gumption to fight this project. It’s too bad the BTA won’t be joining them.
Darcy
I think that this project, if built with eight lanes and serious congestion pricing, will only minimally impact the transportation land use connection. If that were not the case, do you think that land use groups, like 1000 Friends of Oregon would have been out front? In fact, yes I advocate for $8 tolls, and why not? I believe that a new bridge with congestion pricing that could reach $8 will have fewer trips, especially when congestion is worse.
Dave
I agree that perhaps the ideal scenario would have been a transit and bike / ped only bridge, a project that could cost up to $1 billion. But there are no champions for this project. Even if the BTA championed it, I do not believe that ODOT, WSDOT, City of Vancouver and many others would have supported it. For skeptics at the City of Portland, perhaps they prefer the Sellwood Bridge in the first place. (By the way, I encourage you to lobby Portland City Hall.)
Considering sustainability, I believe what’s truly not sustainable is the shaky funding model. (Ten to 12 lanes is too, but we don’t support that). At the end of the day, I question whether we can afford this bridge or are willing to pay. If we can’t, right now there won’t be a second alternative. The BTA hasn’t prioritized this project in such a way to champion an option with no virtually no support. If someone effectively does that, please phone me.
Norman
If petrol as we know it disappears, at least this bridge might be empty. I believed eight lanes with significant tolls would actually lessen the dependence and turn more people to MAX and even bicycling. A ye ole question, should the BTA spend it’s time really trying to champion a good idea like congestion pricing? What’s your answer?
The BTA’s position on the CRC certainly provided a fine intro for the Oregonian’s endorsement of the big bridge…the so-called “Emerald Gate.” Sad, sad sad.
Lots of good points here. While I have some sympathy for the BTA’s struggle on the CRC, today’s Oregonian suggests to me that they need to revise there position soon.
It was very disappointing to see the Oregonian use the BTA’s position as a justification for the new freeway bridge option in today’s newspaper.
The prospect of a 12-lane bridge will have a huge land-use impact that will significantly affect the bikability of Clark County. Dave Sohigian point is right on. The BTA’s core mission is about fostering a healthy and sustainable community through biking. That should mean taking a position on the CRC that looks at the entire impact on biking in the region including both the opportunity costs of the bridge and the land use impacts.
The fact that 1000 Friends has not been out front on the CRC should not be a reason to discount the land-use issue. CLF and other organizations who have been lead advocates in regional growth management have opposed the new bridge for this reason. Moreover, 1000 Friends is a lead co-founder of CLF.
I realize that opponents are not all behind one alternative to the so-called “alternatives” presented in the DEIS. But there are alternatives. The arterial bridge proposal by AORTA or Robert Liberty’s proposals to toll the existing bridge should have been taken more seriously by the BTA. Both of these proposals would have benefited from the BTA’s support and that might have made big difference even if WSDOT, ODOT, and the City of Vancouver were never persuaded.
It is most unfortunate that the BTA’s position is now instead adding fuel to the new freeway bridge option.
Jim Labbe
Yes, clearly the Oregonian played their spin on our position, so have other bike advocates. I have felt like we have clearly stated that our position that includes:.
OPPOSE:
- 10-12 lane mega bridge
- Mega-interchanges
- Gutting regional / local transportation funds
SUPPORT
- Light-rail (which requires a new $1 billion bridge)
- World-class bike and pedestrian facilities
- Congestion Pricing today.
This position is actually very similar to many that I have seen, including the Coalition for Livable Future’s Climate Smart – which is an excellent position, is more comprehensive and clearly states no-new lanes/VMT increase and we support that.
I have not actually heard that other advocacy groups outright oppose a new bridge. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I believe that a new bridge with congestion pricing that could reach $8 will have fewer trips, especially when congestion is worse.
Explain that. How does congestion get worse with fewer trips? The political reality is that Washington is not going to agree to set a limit on the number of trips across the bridge. At best, congestion pricing will spread trips out over the day from peak periods. And that will happen only so long as it has no significant impact on real estate development in Clark County.
Yes, clearly the Oregonian played their spin on our position,
And it was totally predictable. You are trying to have it both ways, appealing to political realism as a defense, while ignoring the political reality your position has moved the region much closer to approval of the project you claim to oppose.
I guess I don’t see this as a policy mistake, so much as a betrayal of the principles I thought BTA stood for in order to stay in the good graces of certain local politicians.