It's been several months since I last chimed in on the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) project.

Somehow, despite many lingering questions — especially around its funding plan — the $3.5 billion project which has been a roller-coaster of controversy and stops and starts over last several years — seems to have gained a bit of momentum. Or, as noted local architecture critic Brian Libby puts it, the "Frankenstein lurches closer to life."

On September 8th, Metro council (led by ardent CRC supporter Tom Hughes) voted 5-0 in support of the CRC's Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). To give you an idea of the importance and context of that vote, here's a snip of reporting on it from The Columbian:

"The agency is the last of the six local entities that must approve the CRC’s Final Environmental Impact Statement; the move means the document will now go to the federal government for approval.

If it passes federal muster — which planners hope will happen by December — the CRC then can begin seeking funding for its $3.1 billion to $3.5 billion bridge, highway and light rail project on Interstate 5...

Project critics had been hoping Metro’s concerns would cause them to block the FEIS from going forward.

But Metro President Tom Hughes said the CRC had addressed enough of their worries that they were comfortable giving it the go-ahead... “I think that we’re ready to go,” Hughes said. “This project has to happen..."

Down in Salem, the newly formed Legislative Oversight on Columbia River Crossing committee had its first meeting today. ODOT Director Matt Garrett and CRC project staff gave lawmakers a progress report on the project. The committee is made up of 10 state lawmakers (four in the Senate and six in the House) including Senator Ginny Burdick (D-Portland) and House Rep (and Co-Chair) Tobias Read (D-Beaverton). Many project watchers hope key questions about the project can be raised and vetted in that committee.

With its clear sense of momentum, activists who oppose the project have begun to wonder how best to move forward. At this point, there doesn't seem to be a cohesive, coordinated effort to stop the project. Instead, there are several individuals (like economist Joe Cortright and a smattering of neighborhood activists) who continue to show up and make passionate speeches against it; but given the political muscle behind this project, it will take much more than that to stop it.

Grassroots group Stop The CRC, hasn't been active all year. At this point, Coalition for Livable Future seems to be the main opposition.

For a project of this size, and for one that's likely to have huge impacts on our community and our pocketbooks, the relative silence of opposition groups is quite surprising.

On the political side of things, there's a sense that some new blood in key seats might help stymie the project (or at least improve it significantly). Bob Stacey, who narrowly lost the Metro president spot to Hughes, is running again — this time for the District 6 councilor position.

Stacey has endeared himself to anti-CRC activists for his opposition to the project and his proposed solutions.

Another political bright spot for those who want a different outcome with this project are candidates in the race to replace Portland Mayor Sam Adams.

Jefferson Smith is firmly opposed to the project. "It’s no secret that I have been a critic of the Columbia River Crossing," Smith writes on his campaign website, "Going forward, we need projects that match our values and that we can afford."

Joining Smith in opposition to the project is Charlie Hales, who told the Willamette Week back in June that he wouldn't support the project in its current form.

Eileen Brady, the other mayoral front-runner, has expressed mixed feelings about the project; but hasn't come out clearly against it yet.

As for bicycle elements of the project, the CRC's Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee met only once in the past year. Back in July, a planner from PBOT who's working with ODOT on the project said they're spending about $10 million on new bikeways.

According to chapter two of the FEIS, that money will pay for:

"... new facilities such as the multi-use pathway across the Columbia River and connections to existing and future pathways, street improvements around the rebuilt interchanges, and new facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians around the new light rail stations and park and rides."

The latest plans for bikeways on the bridge are to have a bike lane on the west side of the local bridge to Hayden Island and a 16-foot wide shared-use path on the east side.

I'll try to delve into more bike elements of the project in the coming days.

How are you feeling about the CRC project?

— For a great roundup of news coverage over the past few months, check out this post on BlueOregon by Evan Manvel.

Rolling with momentum in recent weeks from national and statewide elected officials, the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) project will be the focus of a public forum in Northeast Portland tonight.

The event is being hosted by the Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods, an umbrella non-profit that represents 12 neighborhoods in North and Northeast Portland. At tonight's forum, residents will be able to share their opinion about the project with local leaders including Metro President Tom Hughes, Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder, and state representatives Tina Kotek, Lew Frederick and Chip Shields.

The CRC is a vast, multi-billion dollar highway widening project. It would include widening of I-5 and several new and wider interchanges and a new bridge over the Columbia River. The project has already cost well over $100 million just in planning costs and it has been dogged by controversy for several years.

However, just as the design was recently shot down by a panel of experts and governors of Washington and Oregon were told to go back to the drawing board, the project has managed to actually gain momentum thanks to some high-profile nods in recent weeks.

CRC backers rejoiced when President Obama announced he would set aside $400 million for the project in his budget proposal back in February. Then, just last week, Obama's Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood also added his stamp of approval to the project, saying it stands as a "national model".

At a hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in Vancouver last month, much of the discussion was dominated by the CRC, with many key elected officials and much of the public showing their support of the project.

This unexpected federal attention helped give Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber the political breathing room to announce in a speech last week that he was ready to move forward on the CRC. "I'm glad to report we have an opportunity to get all project approvals this year," said Kitzhaber, "complete engineering in 2012, and break ground in 2013."

As official momentum seems to be on the project's side, CRC critics are sharpening their arguments. Last week, two local transportation and public health activists made their voices heard in the opinion pages of The Oregonian. Mara Gross of Coalition for a Livable Future and Mel Rader from Upstream Public Health said now's the time for Governor Kitzhaber not to move forward, but to "back away" from the "mega-project." "His choice" they wrote, "-- either an overpriced tribute to the 1950s or a strategic, targeted solution -- will be our legacy."

To share your thoughts on the CRC project, consider attending the public forum tonight at Concordia University's Luther Hall (2811 NE Holman St., Room 121). If you can't attend, CRC project staff are hosting a public "listening session" this Thursday from 12:00 to 2:00 pm at the Portland Expo Center (2060 N Marine Drive).

The poster is a handmade, two-color linocut and letterpress print on 175 lbs. fine art paper. It stands 25x13 inches and is available via suggested donation of $5 - $50. All proceeds from a limited first-run of these handmade posters will help fund a larger, professional print run.

Scene from the Anti 12-lane CRC
ride in June 2009.
(Photo © J. Maus)

According to Stop the CRC volunteer Adriane Ackerman, they'll use the posters to cover some basic costs of their efforts (which have included rides and other actions, a rally, poster making, petition gathering, tabling at community events, and so on), but the main idea behind them is to recruit volunteers and gain a broader public identity for CRC opposition.

"The posters will be used in a two-part campaign to gain more visibility and get more volunteers. We plan to take them to businesses and hang them in their windows. We'll also have another poster with a less abrasive image and wording for businesses that want to say, 'We support Stop the CRC' but don't necessarily want a giant corporate snake on their window."

Ackerman says with posters up in shop windows around town, they hope to "more formally solidify" the number of people and businesses that are against the project. She also foresees CRC momentum picking up in 2011 and hopes the posters help build up their member base in preparation.

The posters can be purchased at several business locations around Portland, including: The Star E Rose Cafe (2403 NE Alberta) and the Red and Black Cafe (400 SE 12th Ave). Stop the CRC has volunteers that will hand deliver the poster by bicycle to supporters anywhere in the Portland metro area.

Learn more at StoptheCRC.org.

Boomhower says he put out his latest video on the CRC project because he wanted people to know more about the project in advance of a crucial vote for Metro President. One candidate in that race, Tom Hughes, supports the project. The other, Bob Stacey, opposes it (the two were separated by only a few percentage points in the primary).

In the ten minute video (watch it below), Boomhower puts the costs ($3.6 billion according to project staff and over twice that much according to a recent analysis) and scope of the project into easily understandable, visual terms. He also takes a look at the significant savings that would come from some alternative proposals and asks, "Can we think outside the box?". "We can't afford not to," is his answer.

Boomhower presented a similar video at the recent CRC Alternatives Panel hosted by Metro Councilor Robert Liberty, but the video below has been significantly updated.

This video is highly recommended for everyone that lives in Oregon and Washington...

The Columbia River Crossing: A Boatload of Questions from Spencer Boomhower on Vimeo.

CRC project staff and Departments of Transportation in both Oregon and Washington have been putting the estimated cost of the new I-5 bridge and highway expansion project at about $3.6 billion; but a new study shows that the the project could end up costing as much as $10 billion.

The report was commissioned by Plaid Pantry CEO Chris Girard and the research was done by economist Joe Cortright for Impresa, Inc. Here's an excerpt by Girard taken from the report's cover letter (emphasis mine):

The report documents the unfortunate fact that the proposed CRC project’s real costs are more than double the widely-accepted figure of $3.6 billion. In reality the current design for the project will cost in the range of $8 billion to $10 billion, or more, and there is no available source of revenue to pay for it. The financing plan is a guess at best, and the revenue projections are significantly flawed with bad assumptions and unacceptable risk at every step. The numbers and analysis underpinning this project simply do not add up to a happy ending.

The Portland Mercury has a must-read Q & A about the study with Cortright that lays out all the details into plain English.

While reading about the report, I recalled another local bridge project where budget concerns loomed large. Back in May 2008, during a heated campaign for Mayor, then Transportation Commissioner (now Mayor) Sam Adams pulled the plug on a project that would have re-used the Sauvie Island Bridge and turned it into a biking and walking-only bridge over I-405 in downtown Portland at Flanders Street.

Amid rising controversy, Adams decided to scrap the project the day before it was set to go in front of City Council for a vote, telling BikePortland that he decided he couldn't go forward with it because he couldn't "provide reasonable assurance" that the project could be completed within the budget ceiling of $5.5 million he had guaranteed.

I realize the Sauvie/Flanders Bridge project is not even in the same league as the CRC; but I wonder... if Cortright's analysis proves to be solid (and I suspect we'll hear a response about it from the DOTs soon), will politicians who are on the fence about it be able to use budget concerns as a convenient way to pull support? Time will tell.

Download the study and read the interview with Cortright on The Portland Mercury website.

Tomorrow, Metro councilor Robert Liberty will host a panel discussion on alternatives to the currently proposed Columbia River Crossing project. In announcing the event, Liberty said that given the "serious financial and political challenges" the project currently faces, it might be feasible to come up with some alternatives to the $2.6 to $3.6 billion proposal that's currently on the table.

Detail of Spencer Boomhower's proposal

With that in mind, Liberty's office gave us a sneak peek at some of the proposals they'll be discussing tomorrow. There are 14 alternative proposals in all and they run the gamut from full design proposals to ideas about how else our region could spend billions of dollars on transportation.

Among the recommendations of citizen activist Spencer Boomhower (whom you might recall as the guy who created the popular animation of the Idaho Stop Law and who has contributed to BikePortland in the past) are to just fix the existing I-5 bridge (not replace it), get rid of the Hayden Island interchange (it causes "turbulence", which leads to congestion), and demolish the big box stores at Jantzen Beach Supercenter.

Architect George Crandall of Crandall-Arambula will give a presentation at the event. He calls his proposal the "Future Worthy Alternative." Like Boomhower, Crandall also calls for fixing the current span and bringing it up to current earthquake standards. In addition, he'd build a new bridge solely for light rail as well as a new rail bridge near existing BNSF rail bridge that's west of I-5.

Detail of Will Macht's proposal

Bob Durgan of Andersen Construction has a proposal called the Bi-State Industrial Corridor. He wants state officials to take the opportunity to rebuild the CRC and combine it with the need to replace the BNSF railroad bridge. In its place, Durgan would build a multi-modal bridge that would work better for freight and trains, while having additional capacity for cars, trucks, BRT, and biking and walking.

These are just some of the proposals that will be discussed tomorrow. In case you're wondering, Liberty's office says the panelists at tomorrow's event "will not endorse a particular proposal but illuminate the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative and its elements." Sounds interesting.

I'll update this post after the event with a PDF so you can view more details on all the alternative proposals. Check the event details below:

Panel Discussion on Alternatives to the Current CRC Proposal
7 to 9 PM - Tuesday September 14, 2010
Portland Building auditorium (1120 SW Fifth Ave)
The event is free and open to the public. Space is limited.

— Browse all our Columbia River Crossing headlines, here.

Metro Councilor Robert Liberty, the man who likened the new I-5 bridge proposed by the Columbia River Crossing Project to a "monster project" that we should leave behind in favor of "smarter, cheapter, greener solutions," is putting action behind those words.

On Friday Liberty announced that he would convene a panel discussion to come up with alternative solutions to the current CRC proposal. The statement from Liberty's office about the event said:

"The Columbia River Crossing project in its current form is facing very serious financial and political challenges.

Metro Councilor Robert Liberty believes it is important to begin a community discussion of some alternatives to the current proposal, in the event it is infeasible.

Over the last several months he has solicited suggestions of alternative approaches to the problems which the current CRC is supposed to address. He has asked a panel of experts and community leaders to gather for a group discussion of the merits of these proposals."

One of the draft concept designs for the CRC.

Among the panelists are: Gary Toth, Senior Director, Transportation Initiatives with the Project for Public Spaces & former Director, Project Planning and Development, New Jersey Department of Transportation; Mary Nolan, Oregon House Majority Leader; Chris Girard, President/CEO of Plaid Pantry; Keith Lawton, transportation consultant and a former Transportation Planner for Metro.

Last week, the CRC project took a step forward when the Project Sponsors Council came together to support a 10-lane bridge and major changes to the Hayden Island Interchange. However, the project is far from moving full steam ahead. Major issues like bridge design, management authority, and where the estimated $3.6 billion will come from to pay for it, still remain.

Panel Discussion on Alternatives to the Current CRC Proposal
7 to 9 PM - Tuesday September 14, 2010
Portland Building auditorium (1120 SW Fifth Ave)

A key group of elected officials and transportation bigwigs from Oregon and Washington convened this morning and agreed to adopt a major set of recommendations that will move the Columbia River Crossing project forward. The Project Sponsors Council unanimously agreed to push ahead on a 10-lane bridge and also agreed on significant changes to the Hayden Island interchange.

With Portland Mayor Sam Adams and Metro President David Bragdon saying they support a 10-lane bridge and a recent report by the Independent Review Panel calling for something to be done "sooner than later," momentum seems to be surging for the project. But while Project Sponsors Council members congratulated each other today for making headway and healing some of the wounds of controversy that have plagued the project in the past, a coalition of environmental, public health, and bicycling advocates issued a statement making it clear they are still not happy with the direction of the project.

In a statement, the coalition -- which includes the Bicycle Transportation Alliance -- says the CRC "megaproject" is "overly expensive and completely out of line with Oregon's vision for reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

At today's meeting, BTA advocacy manager Gerik Kransky sat in the crowd and listened to experts rattle off a host of benefits that would come with building a new 10-12 lane bridge.

Counter to what the BTA and other land-use and health groups have been saying for years, a recent modeling exercise done by Metro showed that building a 12-lane bridge with light rail and a $2 peak-period toll would not result in sprawl. (With tolls, the study found that Clark County would have a negligible increase in household growth compared to 0.7% growth without tolls.)

Signs outside today's meeting.

Katy Brooks from the Port of Portland shared details on an analysis of travel times and number of accidents with and without a new bridge. Currently, traveling north during the evening commute from the Morrison Bridge exit in Portland to 99th Street in Vancouver would take over 45 minutes. With a new 10-12 bridge, by 2030, the estimated travel time would be around 20 minutes -- less than half of what it is today. Brooks also said that, given expected growth, there would be about 750 crashes along the project corridor by 2030 if no new bridge was built, but with a new bridge that number would drop to just 240 crashes.

After hearing these numbers and despite Mayor Adams supporting a 10-lane bridge, the BTA remains unconvinced that it's necessary. The BTA's Kranksy wrote via Twitter during the meeting that while he appreciates Adams' desire for a smaller bridge, "a 10-lane permanent bridge is still massive." (Note: Adams has said he's still interested in discussing an 8-lane option, but hasn't had time to do the full analysis.)

As momentum builds around the project, the BTA will have to lobby and build resistance from outside the process. Last August, former BTA staffer Michelle Poyourow decided to walk away from the project after feeling their concerns were not being taken seriously. Kransky told me today they have no intention of officially re-engaging with the project and that they'll be looking to publish op-eds in The Oregonian and issue a more detailed position statement later this month.

The BTA and other advocacy groups will have plenty of time to mount their campaigns against the current direction of the CRC. While there was significant progress and agreement at the meeting today, major hurdles -- such as binding decisions on the bridge's design, how it will be governed and who will pick up the estimated $3.6 billion tab -- remain elusive.

-- Read our past CRC coverage here.

Metro Councilor Robert Liberty has just taken his opposition to the Columbia River Crossing project up a notch.

In a statement released today, Liberty urges people to send in their bridge design proposals. He writes that it's "Time to leave the monster project behind and find some smarter, cheaper, greener solutions." Liberty calls a recent project review panel appointed by DOTs from Washington and Oregon as nothing more than an "embarrassing... exercise in rubber-stamping" and a "waste of public funds on opinion management."

Liberty says he wants to collect design proposals for the bridge that haven't been given a fair look by the state DOTs:

"Many such proposals have been offered by thoughtful citizens in Oregon and Washington, including interesting mixes of upgrades or repurposing the existing bridges, supplemental lanes for local or freeway traffic, pricing to pre-pay for improvements and reduce congestion immediately, improvements to the downstream rail bridge to enhance barge movement and perhaps allow for commuter rail connections, and many, many others."

As for what Liberty intends to do with the proposals he receives, "We need to show you don't need $90 million, a huge staff and hundreds of pages of paper to come up with solutions that are smarter, cheaper and greener."

View the full statement here.

The video tells their version of the recent history of the project. It features a July 2008 Portland City Council exchange between Oregon Department of Transporation (ODOT) Director Matt Garrett and Portland Mayor Sam Adams where Garrett promises that the DOTs would not move forward without consensus.

Then, after showing a recent letter by the governors of Oregon and Washington that said, "We value your advisory role... We feel strongly this project must move forward without delay," the narrator of the video says, "We're getting rolled... The DOTs have not kept their word and it's time to push back."

Watch the video below: