Talks over a possible new I-5 bridge between Vancouver and Portland have heated up a bit, according to this article from The Oregonian:
Portland and Vancouver squared off Friday on the size of a new Interstate 5 bridge, with Vancouver officials aiming for a high-capacity span and Portland insisting that a smaller, more environmentally friendly alternative could suffice.
The article quotes new Portland Mayor Sam Adams as saying he could possibly support a ten lane bridge, and then David Bragdon, who heads Metro, weighs in along the same lines:
Metro Council President David Bragdon sided with Adams, saying he could agree to 10 lanes. But that support would be based on charging high tolls to encourage mass transit use and discourage rush-hour commuting.
On the Washington side, both Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard and the city council member challenging him, Tim Leavitt, didn’t seem to like the idea of a smaller eight lane bridge, with Leavitt immediately playing to the peanut gallery by saying
“I’m not really interested in compromising on issues related to safety and congestion and the economy of our region,” said Leavitt, chair of the board of C-Tran, Clark County’s mass transit agency.
I’ve always found sanctimony to be the best possible political strategy, which could explain why I never ran for office. But I digress.
More than a few things strike me as interesting here.
It’s been discussed many times before, but the continued focus on how many lanes a new structure will have is somewhat misleading. Project staff have repeatedly said that all of the six additional lanes in their proposal will function to reduce “mixing,” the lane changing that occurs near freeway exits and entrances and causes so many accidents. (If you know the area, think about all the little cruddy on and off ramps between Fourth Plain on the north side of the river and say, Alberta on the south side. The bridge project would not just build a bridge, it is intended to fix these dangerous, sub-standard situations.)
Now Adams, the Portland mayor, is complaining one of these lanes might be too long. Well, okay, but it doesn’t make much sense to deliberately end a mixing lane just because a politician doesn’t like it.
In the wake of a short but serious disruption of I-5 in Lewis County due to flooding, here we once again find politicians throwing up (ahem) roadblocks to solving problems on the transportation artery that supplies the West Coast. The tensions are, of course, based on real political factors.
In the case of Portland, there is a vocal element of bridge opponents that dismisses the needs of Clark County residents out of hand, frequently with a sneer and a flip comment about McMansions and Hummers. Then they drive down to the bicycle shop and purchase bike wheels that cost more than a hybrid.
On the Clark County side of the river, there is a vocal element that attacks the transit component of the bridge effort, especially light rail, frequently with a sneer and a flip comment about “socialism.” Then they complain about a lack of snow removal and demand more equipment and cooperation.
Being human beings, we’re all hypocrites to one degree or another, but while the elected officials on both sides have done a fairly decent job of working on this project, the two communities have some issues to work out.
For starters, while generalizing is how people try to make sense of the world, everyone in Clark County is not a commuter, nor does everyone in Clark County live on 5 acres and vote Republican. There are plenty of people more than willing to take light rail if it comes over the river. In addition to the commuters that, for some reason, draw the undying enmity of certain factions in Portland, there are non-commuters who have legitimate reasons to travel to Portland, such as medical patients. It’s kind of hard to hop on a bike and peddle home in a January rain when you’re an 87 year old woman undergoing chemotherapy, for example.
And in Oregon, not everyone is an extremist like the bridge haters. In fact, there are tons and tons of Hummers and other evil vehicles in Oregon.
My main critique of Bragdon’s continued insistence on what is known in transportation circles as “Transportation Demand Management,” in this instance tolls, is that nobody is talking about applying these tolls to Oregon residents driving vehicles into the city on the Sunset or the Banfield, or from I-5 to the south, but only on Clark County residents. There will almost certainly need to be tolls to finance the project, but very few members of the public in Clark County are going to see TDM as anything but an arbitrary punishment unless TDM tolls are applied evenly throughout the metro area. (Note: I realize there are aspects to TDM other than tolls, including things like parking, positive incentives to use transit, land use policy, etc. My focus here is on tolling for TDM.)
Essentially Oregon is demanding that elected officials in Clark County take a position that will guarantee a huge public backlash.
The good news in all this is that discussions are still happening, and that there are some fairly impressive individuals involved, especially the two mayors.
Uh, the reason they are talking about tolls is to pay for a new multi-billion dollar bridge. It’s the same reason we are talking about tolls across Lake Washington. This isn’t political persecution. There’s really no other way to come up with the needed funding.
In paying for the new bridge, however, there is a way to get an added benefit — use variable tolls to increase effective capacity — so everyone wins, even if you’re grumpy about having to pay the toll.
@1
It seemed to me that the issue around tolling its self, but of having Washington State residents paying the lions share of the tolls.
Jon,
Has the light rail to Vancouver issue been solved?
Pull up the drawbridge!! Keep those foreigners out of Oregon!!
You made a comment I find troublesome. You talk of some Portlanders who dismiss Clark County “with a sneer and a flip comment” and then “drive down to the bicycle shop and purchase bike wheels that cost more than a hybrid.” I suppose if I tried really hard and went for all the space age composite materials, I could manage to spend a couple thousand dollars on a bicycle wheel set, but the mainstream of that market is much much less. I think you’d have a hard time finding a hybrid for even a couple of thousand that didn’t have major issues.
On the other hand you say some Clark County residents dismiss the bridge “with a sneer and a flip comment about ‘socialism'” and then “complain about a lack of snow removal”, which is something we’ve seen recently in Seattle.
I realize you’re just using a compare and contrast rhetorical device, but in one case your stereotype has some truth and in the other it’s wildly exaggerated. Which to me says “bias”. If I wanted Fox News style analysis, I’d just watch Fox News.
I worked on the CRC project for awhile and think you’ve nailed it. When we did outreach work in Portland, many individuals brought up Vancouver stereotypes that were pretty obnoxious. The ‘Couv residents we spoke with were a bit more diverse, actually: you had the old timers who often did espouse anti-Portland stereotypes, but you also had the younger crowd who supported light rail. Many of them actually moved from Portland to Vancouver to start families, both because of Clark County’s lower housing costs and its (relatively) stronger public schools.
I do think tolling is perceived as an unfair issue by Vancouverites, especially because many of them *don’t* have a choice about going to Portland for work, health care, etc. It’s great to suggest that everyone take light rail, but a lot of these individuals live out in Battle Ground or even Longview (no, really) and have to commute to Portland…a short hop on light rail from downtown Vancouver doesn’t really solve their problems, and I don’t see how it’s fair to expect them to drive, park, wait for light rail, take it in, and then transfer lines to reach their destinations.
I’m starting to ramble, but all I really meant to say is that I think tolling only works if you toll both bridges (I-5 and 205) both ways, while also implementing measures that ensure Oregon splits the cost.
@6 I thought most people move to Vancouver so they can pay Washington income taxes and Oregon sales taxes.
I’m a Portlander and like many of my fellow Portlanders, use the Interstate Bridge less than five times a year. I have nothing against paying my fair share for regional infrastructure, but paying a few billion dollars for a gold plated bridge isn’t going to fly down here. I think the common sentiment is, if the Couvites want 12 lanes then let them pay for it. Not our fault that the Clark County hasn’t had a balanced development policy, leading many Clark County residents to commute to Portland. Granted Portland can’t live without I-5 goes without saying, outside of the business/ freight hauling community you don’t hear a lot of Portlanders talking about how bad traffic is on the Interstate Bridge.
Comparing the CRC to the Banfield or the Sunset is apple to oranges. Whenever the folks in Washington County start talking about building a 10 or 12 lane Sunset, I’m pretty sure tolling will come up pretty soon. Transportation dollars, even with Obama coming in, are relatively scarce. Until the Portland region(including Vancouver) gets on the same page on the CRC, the likelihood of the new bridge getting Federal funding is pretty much nil.
The only way this project is going to happen is if there are tolls. There have been tolls on the bridge before so it’s not like its historically unprecedented.
Clark County residents who work in Oregon pay a significant amount of taxes to Oregon and receive little, or nothing in the way of services in return.
If all those workers quit working in Oregon the Oregon state budget would take a hell of a hit and loads of people working for the Portland police bureau, fire bureau and any other number of government offices would leave those depatrments looking like empty shells.
Additionally it is Portland’s Mayor Adams who is trying to build a beautiful bridge. Something the city of Portland can be proud of. Of course if they put up enough superstructure then the birds will have a lovely place to roost and crap all over it. Then someone will have to pay the maintenance bill.
“In the case of Portland, there is a vocal element of bridge opponents that dismisses the needs of Clark County residents out of hand, frequently with a sneer and a flip comment about McMansions and Hummers. Then they drive down to the bicycle shop and purchase bike wheels that cost more than a hybrid.”
Sounds like the type of thing people say about Seattle.
I don’t think that inserting tribalism into this is very productive.
“Clark County residents who work in Oregon pay a significant amount of taxes to Oregon and receive little, or nothing in the way of services in return.”
Yeah, aside from the the thousands of job they have in Portland. Lets not forget that Clark Country benefits from being close to a major economic center.
@10 Clark county residents receive little or no government services from Oregon for all the taxes they pay.
@7
Washington residents who work in Oregon do in fact pay Oregon income taxes.
On the other hand they tend to try to avoid Washington sales and gas taxes whenever possible.
In any case I’ve got no problem with putting tolls in on the I-5 and I-205 bridges. Like the 520 replacement I don’t see there being enough money to do the project otherwise.
Also any attempt to remove the transit portion of the CRC would be penny-wise and pound foolish as the Feds even under Bush made a transit component of the project a condition of their participation.
@ 12 Chris as i recall there are at least three Walmart stores in Clark County plus a lot of other ones, so someone is buying locally and paying those sales taxes in the process.
BTW Chris there is a Westfieled Mall with a Macy’s a J.C. Penny, a Nordstrom, a Sears. plenty of Safeways, Albertsons, and a slew of other store from what I recall in the county. So might I suggest don’t treat the people of Clark County rudely. They pay plenty of taxes to the state of Washington and most likely it is the well to do who can afford to run across the state lines to buy stuff. Not the poor.
Fact of the matter is many of them pay taxes to both Washington in the form of sales taxes and Oregon in the form of income taxes. They may pay a lot more than most Washingtonian do in taxes, but I’ll let you confirm this.