Two sides clearly divided on bridge

PORTLAND — A high-level meeting of elected officials did little Monday to reach consensus on how many lanes should be built on a new replacement Interstate 5 bridge.

The Portland City Council and the Metro Council, in a rare joint work session, spent close to two hours in a wide-ranging discussion of the lane issue, bridge tolls and projected effects on greenhouse gas emissions and urban development.

The meeting, however, only underscored the division between Washington and Oregon on a bridge-freeway-transit project that could cost $3.5 billion or more.

There was plenty to fuel suspicions that some Oregon officials want to nail Clark County commuters by jacking up bridge tolls and slashing bridge lanes.

Bridge tolls are projected to cost $2.56 each way during rush hour, which would cost a commuter to a weekday job in Portland more than $1,000 annually.

Nevertheless, Metro Councilor Carl Hosticka questioned if such a toll would be too low.

Experience has shown that drivers are willing to pay higher tolls than what most economists predict, he said. The issue, he said, comes down to one of political will to influence behavior, not economics.

Metro Councilor Carlotta Collette embraced an eight-lane bridge, saying that it would result in the fewest vehicles on Interstate 5, the fewest river crossings on both the I-5 and Interstate 205 bridges and the highest transit ridership.

“It’s not just a question of greenhouse gas emissions,” Collette said. “It’s how you set your priorities.”

Columbia River Crossing officials say the project would reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared with the “no build” option, which essentially would be doing nothing and allowing congestion to get progressively worse.

Metro Councilor Robert Liberty, an ardent foe of the project, pointed out that that does not mean building a new bridge would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from present levels.

“It’s less of an increase,” Liberty said. “It’s not a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.”

The Portland Sustainable Development Commission has raised similar concerns. In a Jan. 22 letter to the Portland City Council, the commission said the project would increase greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent over present levels, which is counter to Portland’s commitment to reduce emissions.

“Simply put, we believe this is just not good enough for a 21st century infrastructure project,” the letter says.

Portland City Commissioner Randy Leonard was the only person to argue for a 12-lane bridge Monday, even if it means building the crossing for that size but striping it for fewer lanes until they are needed.

Leonard asked if some of his colleagues were staking out positions based on politics and perceptions, not facts.

“I am convinced that at some point … future generations will appreciate that we did not make a political decision but rather a fact-based decision,” he said.

Crossing officials have come up with a matrix showing the different implications of an eight-, 10- or 12-lane bridge.

A 12-lane bridge would result in less congestion, fewer accidents and less traffic diverting to the I-205 bridge than the other alternatives. A 12-lane bridge, unlike the other two options, would not create unsafe “hot spots” at freeway interchanges or cause clogged freeway traffic to spill over onto local streets.

On the downside, a 12-lane bridge would cost $100 million more than a 10-lane project and $180 million more than an eight-lane option.

Metro Council President David Bragdon said officials agree on a number of issues, including the need to replace the bridge and to extend light rail into Vancouver. On the day a light-rail line opens connecting Portland and Vancouver, it would have the highest ridership of any route in the Portland-Vancouver area, he said.

“This is a very important project to do,” he said. “And it’s a very important project to do it right.”

For Bragdon, doing the project right means making sure there are no “unintended consequences,” namely triggering more sprawl by building a bridge with twice as many lanes as the current crossing.

“If we build more schools, people don’t have more kids,” he said. “But people do change their driving habits.”

Atlanta added more traffic lanes on a per capita basis than any other major city, only to watch its traffic congestion become worse, he said.

Columbia River Crossing officials have said a new bridge won’t cause the same type of growth because the project covers only a five-mile stretch of freeway, far from outlying areas where additional sprawl could be “induced” by building lanes.

Crossing officials have relied on Metro’s computer model to reach many of their conclusions about growth and traffic.

But Bragdon said there is reason to be skeptical about some of those findings because they were based in an era prior to the use of tolling as a way to manage traffic.

“It’s not a reflection on staff,” Bragdon said. “It’s a reflection of how primitive that science is.”

Despite comments made during Monday’s meeting, Vancouver City Councilman Tim Leavitt said afterward that he believes the two cities and two states are not that far apart on the crossing project.

“They have drawn some lines in the sand,” he said. “But there are more areas of agreement in this project than disagreement.”

Jeffrey Mize: 360-735-4542 or jeff.mize@columbian.com.