BTA Position on Columbia River Crossing
Posted by: EmilyApr 24 2008, 3:42 pm
The Columbia River Crossing (CRC) project has raised considerable debate within the community at large, and the membership of the BTA. On the one hand, the current I-5 bridge is dangerous and congested for car and freight traffic. The bridge is not up to seismic standards and there are no convenient options for public transportation between Vancouver and Portland. The bicycle and pedestrian facility is disconnected, sub-standard, and has been identified by cyclists in the region as a significant barrier that needs to be fixed.
On the other hand, the plan to build a new, 10-12 lane bridge with light rail, tolling and “world class bike/ped facilities†has drawn criticism from many groups who are concerned about the economic and environmental impacts of the project. They assert that adding lanes for car travel will only encourage and increase the amount of congestion and negative air quality impacts along the corridor. They question the current funding plan which projects that Oregon, Washington and the federal government will split the bill three ways. A project of this magnitude, somewhere in the range of $2-$4 billion, could potentially drain the region of financial resources for the next 20 years. Instead of a new highway bridge, they suggest tolling now to raise funds for building a transit/bike/ped bridge first. Once that is complete they believe there will be no need for a new highway bridge.
As citizens we have to ask ourselves if building this bridge is the right decision. As cyclists, we have to ask ourselves if a world-class bike facility is the ‘spoonful of sugar’ that makes the whole project worthwhile?
BTA RECOMMENDATIONS:
Given our experience throughout the region with exponential growth in cycling, and facility design for high volume cycling traffic, we know that large facilities are imperative for safety. Furthermore, a new bridge should be built to handle the expected growth in cycling in the next 50 years. The bike facility must be 20 feet on both sides of the new bridge.
Residents of Vancouver commuting to Portland for work cause the primary traffic and congestion on the bridge. For this reason Washington and the federal government should supply the majority of the funds for the project.
There are currently 100s of projects throughout the region and the state that are waiting for funds to begin building. Those projects must not suffer due to a diversion of funds to the CRC project.
We strongly encourage the CRC to consider an 8-lane facility over the current 10-12 lane proposal. We fear that the 10-12 lane proposal will direct far too many automobiles onto North Portland surface streets.
On Friday, May 2, the Columbia River Crossing project will release its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for public review and comment.
The document will be available online at the project Web site. Also on May 2, the web site will provide information on where to view a printed copy of the Draft EIS and how to submit comments during the 60-day public comment period. The public comment period is May 2 through July 1, 2008.
The Draft EIS will contain an analysis of the potential environmental and community effects associated with the five alternatives and allow community members to make comparisons and provide feedback. The project accepts comments at anytime. Comments received during the formal public comment period will be formally responded to in the Final EIS. All comments received will be considered by project sponsors to aid in their selection of one alternative this summer.
During the comment period, public hearings and open houses will be held on May 28 in Vancouver and May 29 in Portland. We hope you are able to attend one of these events to discuss the Draft EIS with project staff. Oral and written comments will be received at both events. Additional information for both events is available on the project Web site.
The Draft EIS will be available on CD at no charge. Printed copies may be purchased for a fee. Contact the CRC project office at 866-396-2726 or by email to request a copy of the document.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
And don't forget to look here!
http://smarterbridge.org/?q=node/27
April 25th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Two 20-foot paths seem pretty wasteful for a bridge that will never carry twice the amount of bikes as on the Hawthorne Bridge. Because of where people live and work, the new bridge probably won't ever carry more than 10% of what the Hawthorne Bridge has.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:02 am
I used to commute to Vancouver by bike every day and found the current route circuitous but manageable. Vancouver should have gotten that yellow line max when they had the chance. Is expanding the light rail options part of the plan?
April 25th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Yes, expanding light rail into Vancouver is part of the plan. And most of the stakeholders have said the project is dead unless it does.
April 26th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Bikeboy … you're probably right, but we need a wide and separate bike facility. Although it is highly unlikely the government will want 1/3 of a bridge serving interstate traffic (4 10-foot lanes for cars and 1 20-foot lane for bikes) to be devoted to bikes, we got to start big or we won't get anything at all … even if not many bikes use the bridge.
April 26th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
I luv it! My only concern is if bikes would have to pay to cross the bridge. If the bike bridge is one third of the big bridge, the bike bridge would cost over $1 billion. Would we have to pay a toll to ride across it? I hope not.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
In the age of Global Warming I hate to see the BTA hitch its wagon the the CRC dinasour, even if BTA's surrender is conditional. A better option? tolls now to pay for safety and seismic updates to the existing bridges and a new bridge for light rail, bikes & peds and even some local motor vehicle trips.
Why save the Sauvie Island bridge only to tear down two historic Interstate Bridges? Cost: $5Million to save the former, but $4.2 Billion to replace the latter. Its time to Reuse, Restore and Reduce, not Replace.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
The existing bridges should be brought up to seismic standards. A new bridge should be built if and when light rail goes to Vancouver, and bike/ped facilities attached to that bridge.
Peak Oil is a reality that the City of Portland has already acknowledged. Oil prices are the highest they've ever been, and gas and diesel prices are following in its wake. There are no substitutes ready in the short-term to deal with the problem, so conservation is the only effective action. Transit and bicycle use are at record levels in Portland, and as prices continue to rise, people will take fewer trips in cars, and more via transit, bike, and by foot. Since these modes all take less space than the personal automobile, this means that the current infrastructure is sufficient for near to mid-term needs. Current transportation does not take these factors into account and instead focuses on continued growth.
Continued growth is not sustainable, nor is it likely until the issues of fossil fuel consumption and throughput are addressed.
As a BTA member, I object to the BTA's official stated position and encourage the Executive Director and the Board of Directors to closely examine the mission and purpose of the BTA and how they relate to the CRC project. I don't believe that supporting an expensive, unsustainable and ultimately unnecessary expansion of current capacity is in the best interest of the BTA or its membership.
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:51 am
With all due respect to a bunch of good people who are working hard to help create a livable community and one of the most bicycle friendly places in America, Scott and company, you are on the wrong side of this one.
Having watched it roll out to this point, I truly believe the BTA is being played, or is out playing themselves. I read and hear and get fed the same mantra repeated about the CRC - it's a complex issue and it's going to happen in some form so we should get a seat at the table and make it the best we can for bikes.
The best thing for cyclists and the entire community should be changing our transportation habits and saving 4 billion dollars in the bargain. I think the BTA should do an about face, kick that seat at the table to the floor, admit they've been played and have the courage to go Braveheart and help kill this project cold, dead and buried.
It's time for the Bicycle Transportation Alliance to take a good look at their mission and come out swinging.
BTW Rex, you're on the wrong side of this as well. But I like your work on a lot of other stuff.
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:49 pm
The Columbia River Crossing is a bad idea. There are already too many people in this area. Our economy is unsustainable with energy prices increasing. Any solution that accommodates population growth is wrong.
We must question these politicians who think they know best how to spend our money. Bridge repairs should be paid for by the people who use the bridge. Period. And if we stopped forcing taxpayers to fund new road construction, then the MAX system would be profitable to fund its own expansion.
For its part, the BTA should stop forcing its city-wide bike lane network onto the people. The best strategy is to achieve critical mass at ONE INTERSECTION then expand the bicycle culture outward from there.