BTA responds to Oregonian editorial
Posted by: MichelleMar 27 2009, 12:59 pm
In today's Oregonian, the Editorial Board criticized the BTA for opposing the Columbia River Crossing and its massive Interstate 5 freeway expansion.
In case you're having trouble picturing a 12-lane freeway, this is what it looks like.
Here is a brief response, submitted to the Oregonian for publication in the Letters section this weekend.
To the Editors,
The Oregonian's March 27th editorial criticizing the Bicycle Transportation Alliance's opposition to the expansion of the Interstate 5 freeway revealed a lack of understanding of what makes communities safe for bicycling.
The BTA's mission is to develop healthy, sustainable communities by making bicycling safer, more convenient and more accessible. While they agree that the I-5 bridge needs fixing, our 5,000 members in Portland, Vancouver, and around the state of Oregon overwhelmingly oppose the widening of I-5.
Doubling the width of the bridge means more auto traffic crossing the river. Those cars don't come out of nowhere – they use local and commercial streets in Portland and in Clark County to get to and from the freeway. More traffic, faster traffic, and wider roads – nothing could be less conducive to safe bicycling and walking.
A better bicycling and walking path between the two cities would be wonderful, but it could not possibly undo the enormous damage done to bicycle safety by the rest of the project. BTA staff have been working with the Columbia River Crossing on bike path designs for nearly 2 years, but we cannot get behind the overall project if it contains such an enormous freeway expansion. For bicycling conditions alone, this would truly be "One step forward…ten steps back."
Michelle Poyourow
Bicycle Transportation Alliance
The BTA will engage our members and allies over the next few months to suggest how they might make their concerns about the I-5 expansion known to their elected officials – you can start by contacting your state legislators and telling them what kind of Columbia River Crossing you would support.
(Wondering what kind of a bridge the BTA will support? It's not so different from the one we laid out last summer in our formal comments on the CRC. Also see coverage of our testimony on the width of the bridge.)
The BTA is encouraging anyone who is concerned about this project and interested in alternatives to join us and other organizations at the Build Less Bridge Rally, at 12:00 pm on Sunday, April 5th beneath the Morrison Bridge just north of the Hawthorne Bridge in Waterfront Park. Confirmed speakers so far include Former Oregon Secretary of State (and possible 2010 gubernatorial candidate) Bill Bradbury, Portland City Commissioner Amanda Fritz and Metro Councilor Robert Liberty.
Thank you guys so much for coming around on this! A little late, to be sure, but I think we can still stop the 12-lane I-5 before one yard of concrete gets poured.
I hadn't even considered it before, but after seeing the Oregonian cower in fear of you guys, I think I just might join!
Don't back down an inch! Six lanes or nothing!
(Also nice try on the Idaho stop thing. Keep em guessing!)
Michelle:
Please publicize the revised location – since Parks wouldn't let us trample on the grass, the best I could get was under the Morrison Bridge, a few hundred yards north of the field adjacent to the Hawthorne Bridge.
Anyway, everyone: be there at noon on April 5th!
peejay
Stop the bridge! Thank you, BTA.
We need this bridge. It is structurally unsound, a major hindrance to interstate freight and traffic, and an absolute necessity to the thousands of people who travel on it twice a day or more.
That said, yes–the current plan does still need some work. 12 lanes does seem like too many for a bridge linking two communities that claim to be looking to the future. We do need to find compromises, and people on both sides of the argument need to be willing to actually engage in conversation to find SOLUTIONS, not toe the party line at the exclusion of all other views.
I am a BTA member who moved from Portland to Vancouver. Not, as some delightful assholes on your board have claimed, to avoid income taxes or to make more love to my car, but because I worked here and wanted to shorten my commute, make it more feasible to bike, and–frankly–avoid the preachy, self-righteous bullshit from people on the south side of the river. It makes me sick to read the comments on this blog and others in which supposedly liberal, open-minded people go out of their way to slag people who aren't just like them.
On the other hand, the arguments from the Vancouver side can be equally ridiculous. The opposition to light rail is insane and we're working to change it. The marriage to wide, paved lanes is equally short-sighted and we're working there, too.
But we can only do it together. This is a fucking BRIDGE, people. The symbolism is so obvious it's hard to even call it symbolism. "Us" vs. "Them" won't make anything happen, and it'll only deepen the rifts.
That bridge needs to be replaced. It WILL be replaced. The way to make it happen is to work together and compromise. I disagree with BTA on some of their stances on this issue–I am not one of the 5,000 members who is solidly behind their statements here. But I do appreciate the tenacity and persistence and relative professionalism they have shown during this long process. Hopefully the rest of the membership can follow the example.
Exactly how the 12-lane bridge will negatively affect bike safety is not clear from your letter to the Oregonian, nor am I sure BTA has enough detail available to fully understand all the ramifications and tradeoffs. Although a BTA member who biked over 8000 miles last year in the greater Portland/Vancouver area (more miles than registered on my car odometer), and a person greatly concerned about bike safety, my general feeling is that the overall advantages of a wider bridge will likely trump the more narrow concerns of those, like the BTA, with only a single-interest focus.
I am in agreement with Temple and Jerry Smith. This is a bridge that not only connects communities but equally if not more important countries. I am a Vancouver cyclist of 40 yrs. and look forward to safer bike lanes as well as light rail. HEADS UP: 3-1/2 yrs. ago I was hit head-on by another cyclist as I approached the curved tunnel under Marine Drive. He was exiting the tunnel at hi speed & in my lane. Trauma compression fracture of two vertebra – I am shorter today and still uncomfortable but thankful to be walking & riding.
I am concerned that the BTA is stretching its charter and outside the spirit of opening minds and roads to bicycling.
The CRC press release points on climate change, spewage of pollutants, solving regional congestion / environmental problems and improving the general level of Vancouver-Portland transportation are far extrapolated from the BTA Mission and Vision.
For ref; BTA Mission and Vision: The BTA creates healthy, sustainable communities by making bicycling safer, more convenient and more accessible.
This BTA mindset appears again on BikePortland 3/23 “the BTA will only support a bridge that “moves in a direction of creating healthy and sustainable communities,”. What about bicycling? Where did “by making bicycling safer, more convenient and more accessible” go?
The press release points regarding more traffic and tremendous damage, while possible relevant, come off as unfounded and simply emotional.
In the end, good points are made regarding funding, but they are lost because I’m just another one of those emotional and irreverent Portland bike freaks blathering against the establishment on every political topic…
Even today’s newsletter reinforces an irrational and dramatic characterization that’s easy to dismiss.
“Nothing could be less conducive to safe bicycling and walking” …expanding a freeway???
“… enormous damage done to bicycle safety” …a better bicycling and walking path???
“BTA staff have been working with the Columbia River Crossing on bike path designs for nearly 2 years, but we cannot get behind the overall project if it contains such an enormous freeway expansion” …you want a bike path – but don’t want to acknowledge that the bridge is overcrowded???
"One step forward…ten steps back." Augh!!!
BTA, stick to making bicycling safer, more convenient and more accessible – with a rational, “we can help make things better” and “opening minds” spirit.
Respectfully,
– Shawn
Thanks Michelle & BTA! Keep up the good work.
-p
It would be superb if there was a way for everyone to be happy. However, that is likely not going to happen. However, a nice alternative is to make sure that everyone has their voice heard, and that everyone feels that a decision of this magnitude was made with their input, even if it resulted in a decision that was not (exactly) theirs.
I have read through these comments and have enjoyed the thoughtful discussion throughout this whole CRC process, here and through other media. Certain statements within these comments resonate with me.
The idea of bringing the two cities together is one of worth, maybe a Vanport 2, the utopian years. Another, the comment that summarizes many people's thoughts on Portland being filled with self-righteous people; it was clear within months of moving to Portland, that there was a Vancouver v. Portland thing going, both in attitudes and even the pet names people of both cities have for the other (Vantuckey, Hipsterville). Lastly, the idea that the bridge will be built, but can it be built with both a nod toward reducing sprawl, but at the same time planning for the future?
I was really disappointed that the BTA has chosen to fight the Bridge expansion. A more positive approach would be to continue to work toward the goals of getting the best possible experience when using the new bridge. Your up coming ride puts all bike riders in a negative light as just fighting the system and not being supportive. I agree with the Oregonian article and think you should change your plans to a more supportive role. I am a long time member but you are loosing me on this one.
I am a Vancouver resident and BTA member. I can not logically support a 12 lane bridge for several reasons: 1) it does not matter who wide the bridge is if the I-5 bottle necks North or South of the bridge are still there. 2) Induced traffic is a real prooblem that has not been addressed. 3) The CRC projections on the impact of the bridge were based on faulty premises, namely holding property zoning constant and limited assement of neighborhood impacts 4) bigger bridges only result in a stop gap solution to a larger and more complex transportation problem while a real solution for transportation is needed.
Logic and reason should guide the design of the new bridge, not riverside politics.
As I long time member, I greatly appreciate the BTA's recent advocacy surrounding the Columbia River Crossing.
This 12-lane freeway bridge is going to so huge, steep, and arching, it cannot provide "world-class" bike and pedestrian facilities. Moreover, it has been proposed without a substantive analysis of it's impacts on the climate and land-use in the region. The decision to build a replacement bridge hinged on a credible analysis on the health and environmental impacts before determining then number of lanes. That analysis has not happened. Instead the CRC staff has merely pushed the biggest, widest option proposed. The BTA is right to join the opposition to the 12-lane freeway bridge proposal.
We need smarter, more human-scale connection between Vancouver and Portland. The early opponents of the replacement freeway bridge option- folks like Jim Howell, Fred Nussbaum, and Lenny Anderson- originally proposed an arterial bridge option that combined rail, bike and pedestrian facilities, and street-level vehicle traffic on a span that would complement the current freeway bridge. Sadly this proposal was brushed aside by the freeway-builders at ODOT and WSDOT who appear to have wanted the 12-lane option all along.
We should bring the arterial bridge proposal back. It would be safer for people (cyclists and pedestrians), lighter on the planet and it would genuinely foster healthy human-scale connection between Vancouver, Hayden Island, North Portland neighborhoods.
Jim
Folks,
We should have made clearer in this post that the BTA does indeed want to see the Portland-Vancouver crossing improved – and not just for bike traffic.
BTA members – look for an email from us later this week on what alternative solutions we would heartily support, as well as background on induced demand in roadway expansions, which is the not-obvious phenomenon that would cause a widened I-5 to degrade biking conditions all up and down the corridor.
We appreciate all these comments – and as always, don't hesitate to write me with more at michelle[at]bta4bikes[dot]org.
I'm a North Portland resident and I strongly oppose the current plan to install a 12-lane Columbia River Bridge crossing to replace the I-5 bridge. The bridge is overbuilt, will induce sprawl in Clark County, and will suck up all available funding sources for transportation for the foreseeable future. The project has done a pathetic and disingenuous job of analyzing the true environmental and land-use impacts of the bridge. Now is a time for fiscal prudence and environmental stewardship, not building like it's 1959.
I live about 2 short blocks from Interstate 5. For my whole life I've opposed any "plans" that promote cars with just one passenger. This is not an issue in my backyard even though it is my backyard. Portland will be destroyed by this bridge and the replacement should be simply called the freeway town between Seattle and LA.
The bOREgonian is a trash newspaper. They want to distort things. They try to say that anyone who says no to a 12 lane freeway and bridge is opposed to "progress"
Well there are 99 other ways to solve the bottle neck problems of the "old" bridge. Most important is that you have to look at the problem. THe problem is that the real traffic is caused by all the one person cars.
Here's an idea. Add one lane to Interstate 5 to bring the total lanes to 4, and at the same time make a totally new concept mandatory.
What is this high tech solution?
The left most 3 lanes should be called HOV transit lanes. The right most lane will be your normal lane. The right most lane is the only place a car with just one person can drive. Cops would give huge citations to any car with one person found in any transit lane in rush hour. Single passenger cars should be prohibited from 2 out of every 3 on ramps. The real transit needs will know to avoid the on ramps hogged by the single passenger cars in rush hour.
Let's call it a HOV highway.
There are 98 other solutions, but if you follow the Oregonian there is only one way your mind can go, and that is down their narrow minded road backwards.
PS: Look at the online Oregonian, it's a total joke in the news and journalism community. No separation of news and opinion, the primary rule of journalism.
BTA has courageously stepped forward to just say no to the bridge currently on the table. I admire that moxie. The attitude that it is too late and that nothing can be done has rendered too many of our advocacy groups silent. I am not sure what can be done, but we must be critical of the process and the result in this case. Would we be talking 12 lanes if Adams still had pull? Probably not. This is all about big business interests wanting to get their freight around with more ease, and about Clark County's desire to improve rush hour flow for their commuters. This is not about Portland, yet will have a great impact on our air and our community. Thanks BTA for speaking up.
Everyone who is concerned, and wants to help promote constructive alternatives to the current 12-Lane project, please plan to attend the rally on April 5th at Noon. Now is the time!
BTA: Keep up the fight for a world class bike facility over the Columbia. As a traffic engineer and bicyclist, I understand how frustrating this process can be but as Obama mentioned in one of his latest speeches, persistance pays off.
I am a disappoited but not surprised by your possition on the number of lanes. Mistrust of transportation professionals is very common by alt trans advocates. Be carefull not to compromise your credibility by blanket opposition without doing the hard work to point out specific problems with a 12 lane bridge vs less. At some point we need to build something and trust the system.
Ouch.
I'm a BTA member. I've read your email, "Take action to stop costly CRC freeway widening" that was sent out on Saturday; I've read "Betting on the wrong bridge" by the editors of the Oregonian in the 3-26-09 edition; and I've read the first 15 comments posted above on the BTA site. That's about 19 minutes and thirty seconds more than an average reader (e.g., my mother-in-law) might spend thinking about the issue. Based on what I've read so far, there is *absolutely no way possible* that your statements regarding your position will win over an otherwise reachable audience. I'm concerned that even if the BTA's position is one that I might ultimately agree with, then you haven't done a good job of explaining your position.
You feel the bridge is too big. The original press release reads, "Building bigger freeways is not the solution to the congestion or environmental problems the region is facing. Improving transportation between Vancouver and Portland doesn’t require expanding the freeway. Expanding the freeway and constructing six new massive
interchanges will do tremendous damage to the bike friendliness of communities around the project."
Jim Labbe's comment above, might provide a better explanation of the BTA's position, but I'm not sure. It reads, "This 12-lane freeway bridge is going to [be] so huge, steep, and arching, it cannot provide "world-class" bike and pedestrian facilities."
I'm afraid you haven't connected dots. I've spent a lot of time riding along the I-90 bridge in Seattle. It's not world-class by any stretch of the imagination–in fact, it's often probably the worst part of the ride because of all the noise. The current bridge between Portland and Vancouver is comparable–nothing famous, but it gets the job done. The Golden Gate Bridge is "huge, steep, and arching", but I didn't care about that when I rode across it. Anyone who has done the Seattle-to-Portland ride knows that one of the worst parts is the bridge over the Columbia from Kelso-Longview. The expansion joints were so out of alignment that they gave me a flat tire last year, and it's just (pardon the pun) flat out dangerous.
I'm not cycling on these bridges looking for an optimal cycling experience *while I'm on the bridge*. I want to be able to ride on a bridge that's safe and won't give me a flat tire. I want a bridge to serve as the gateway to more places to ride.
Here's the point: By opposing the CRC just because it's "too big," I think you've alienated the average reader/viewer/commuter/voter. You've given me the impression that the BTA will oppose any design unless it's a world-class cycling experience that's so nice we cyclists just want to ride back and forth on the bridge all day. We want to ride across the bridge; compare wheels and headsets; ride across the bridge; check the bottom bracket; ride across the bridge; complain about motorists; ride across the bridge; complain about the lack of funding from federal/state/local government for cycling-specific projects; ride across the bridge; call it a day. Nice ride! As if it's just so nice that when we ride on our bridge of dreams one of our legs starts to shake like a dog who's getting his belly rubbed. Okay, maybe my sarcasm won't win you over, but hopefully you get the point.
You've ignored the larger reality that the US economy is on the verge of collapse, our infrastructure is quite literally collapsing (e.g., the bridge in Minnesota), and there is political will on both sides of the aisle to do something about it. These days when I see no one working on an infrastructure problem in obvious need of attention, it ticks me off (to put it mildly). We're creating an army of unemployed people who are "shovel ready", and I have no tolerance for anyone who opposes a "shovel ready" project right now. Quite frankly, at this point in time, I'd be thrilled to see someone get healthcare coverage while they work on an otherwise "wasteful" project.
By not connecting the dots, you've alienated an otherwise reachable audience. Unfortunately, your stance on this issue hurts the BTA more than it helps, and it will negatively impact your ability to advance all other BTA initiatives.
When cyclist are licensed and help pay for our roadways, only then do I think they should have some special say in what is going to be built. But as things stand the BTA is being disengenuous. BTA members use the roads, have dedicated bike lanes and routes, bike boxes, and now want to slide through stop signs.
Then you tell us you also want to rally to stop the building of bridge lanes for cars so that your membership can have a "better experience." Can't you see how this sounds to the rest of us? – greedy.
Come winter with blowing, driving rain, I suspect the cyclists of summer will be in vehicles wanting to use the bridge along with the rest of us. Are they planning to stay off those extra lanes? Or is it their plan to use them to get to work or play as fast as the next guy?
This is a dumb protest. This king has no clothes.
Marilyn:
I pay more for my use of the roads in Oregon than you do. Since only about a third of the construction and upkeep of our road system comes from vehicle registration and fuel taxes, and the rest from the general fund (both county, state, and federal income taxes, as well as some property tax allocation), because I am a homeowner with a job (and a car I seldom drive), I pay a lot for roads I use but don't cause any wear or damage to. You may pay a little more through fuel taxes, but your car causes more damage to the roads than you can support.
If daily drivers had to pay for all the road upkeep themselves, in proportion to the amount they use the roads, I'd end up paying less than I do, and you'd end up paying more.
And since the roads are a public space that affects all citizens of the area, all citizens should have a stake in the planning of any future road project.
PS: I ride my bike right through winter, including all the snow we got this year. Not saying I'm some kind of hero; it's my choice. Hope you didn't drive all winter with studded tires, because you did a few hundred times more damage to the roads than a regular car, and many thousand times more than I did.
Tim E:
I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make. Most people here don't care so much about the bike lane on the bridge. It's nice if there is one, but a relatively small number of people would ride their bikes across the river no matter what the bike facility.
A bridge the size they're talking about will dramatically affect how we operate our bikes on both sides of the river, by creating the induced demand to put many more cars on the roads in both cities, with all the attendant pollution and safety issues that go along with them. In addition to the sprawl generation, it further strains all existing local roads, and puts political pressure to widen them as well. This is not conducive for good neighborhoods, the health of our children, or the quality of our environment.
Bike lanes are not the issue. The issue is the overall quality of life for bikers and non-bikers alike.
Tim E.
BTA has been quite consistent regarding the conditions for supporting a new replacement bridge:
http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/2008/07/02/bta-submits-formal-comments-on-crc/
http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/2008/06/09/bta-crc-deis-lpa-position/
http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/2008/06/12/in-my-view-crc-advocacy-strategy/
The question relating to the size of the bridge has always been tied to the land-use impacts, induced demand, and safety and the opportunity costs of over-building.
The BTA agreed to a replacement bridge under the condition that broader land-use impacts resulting from induced demand would be assessed and addressed in making the critical decision about the number of lanes. These concerns were shared by a wide range of other groups including 1000 Friends of Oregon, Audubon Society of Portland, and the Coalition for a Livable Future, some of which did not support the replacement bridge option. The BTA also joined others in raising the very valid concern regarding the opportunity costs of investing so much of our limited transportation funds into a single freeway bridge.
The land-use impacts and the related issues of vehicle miles traveled and green-house emissions, increasing low-density and car-dependent development in Clark County, and shifting car traffic and air quality impacts into residential North Portland- concerns that would hinge critically on the number of lanes of a replacement bridge- have not be addressed or even independently assessed by the CRC staff.
The BTA has been clear about its concerns and the conditions that would have to be met in order for the BTA to support the CRC project moving forward. Those concerns have not been addressed and the conditions not met.
I greatly appreciate the fact that the BTA has not focused narrowly on the question of the width and design of any new bicycle facilities and has considered the overall impact of the project on the region.
Jim
Thanks Jim!!! For spelling it out for those of us who DON'T know and consistently follow the BTA's meetings action.
You are correct in their consistency and response to their memberships concerns and my understanding of all the particulars of the impacts, costs and bureaucratic BS that goes on during this long process.
Regards. Thanks for taking the time to spell it out for people.