“In my view, the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) debate is less about building a bridge and more about debating a right-sized project that is multi-modal, that won’t bankrupt our transportation funds, and won’t promote sprawl by increasing auto use. In addition, for cyclists, it’s about creating a world-class bicycle and pedestrian facility.”
That’s the opening paragraph of a blog post just published by Bicycle Transportation Alliance executive director Scott Bricker.
(Photos © J. Maus)
In the post, titled In My View – CRC Advocacy Strategy, Bricker attempts to clarify his organization’s stance on the Columbia River Crossing project. The BTA has come under criticism by some for not doing more to oppose the current direction of the project.
The project has admittedly been a difficult one for the BTA. In a story about their attempt to find the right path in the project, Bricker acknowledged that the BTA was “having a hard time stating our positions.”
When they published their official position on the project last week, several commenters on this site still expressed some dissatisfaction with their stance — which is to support the CRC process and remain a working partner, while working to achieve their desired outcomes.
BikePortland.org reader Hank Sheppard commented that it, “Looks like the BTA is drinking the Kool Aid.” Another commenter, Peter Welte, wrote that, “any project that adds auto-lanes is just giving in to sprawl and not something the BTA should support.” Reader Wes Robinson put his feelings bluntly and wrote, “I don’t think I’ve ever been more disappointed in the BTA.”
Perhaps hoping to stem some of those criticisms, Bricker explained on their blog today that their stance on the project allows them to be influential in the process and that their position is, “based on principles”.
“The BTA has taken a course that allows us to be influential in shaping the project.”
— Scott Bricker
Then Bricker gets more specific and clearly states that the BTA opposes “the construction of a mega-bridge,” and instead favors a “smaller, multi-modal bridge” (an option with no real political support).
Bricker likens the BTA’s approach to the CRC issue as being similar to how they dealt with another controversy — the fallout with the Portland Police Bureau following the death of Brett Jarolimek. Bricker says they received “intense pressure” to come out against the PPB’s handling of the fatality but instead they took six weeks to develop a strategy.
That “methodical” approach, says Bricker, resulted in positive changes at the PPB and what he refers to as “the most open and productive relationship with the police” in his 10 year BTA career.
On the CRC, Bricker writes that he believes, “our next steps are to target the Portland City Council and demand local control, ensure that any project moving forward adopts a very strict set of project guidelines, and ensure that local funds won’t be depleted.”
While he doesn’t come out and say it, Bricker seems to be open to joining a coalition of advocacy groups that would more strongly oppose the CRC project. He writes that, “Changing the paradigm even further would take a very strong coalition” and that, “So far… I have not heard this vision clearly articulated in a way that can successfully penetrate the project.”
The CRC project is clearly the largest issue Bricker has led the BTA through since he took over leadership of the organization back in October of 2007. Prior to this role, he was the BTA’s full-time lobbyist down in Salem, a position he seemed very comfortable in. His “methodical” and calculated style of advocacy — contrasting with a more aggressive, saber-rattling approach — is surely rooted in that same persona.
As a bicycle advocacy organization, many would assume that the only approach is to be the antagonist, always looking to lash out at signs of disrespect or discrimination against people who ride. But Bricker has put the BTA on a different course, a more conservative and deliberate one that he is convinced will bring positive results.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Ahh triangulation. Someone ask Hillary how well that worked out? Ask Scotty how his wonderful alliance with the police has helped any of the cyclists killed/maimed on our streets recently.
How about asking how it is helping Rev. Phil out? I will admit that Scotty appears to be doing well. Always dressed so nicely. Keep those BTA memberships going folks. Scotty needs a new pair of shoes!
Scotty seems to think the BTA needs to become the system to change it. Trouble is, you wake up and you ARE the system. Dependent upon it, and unable/unwilling to change it. Or in the BTA\’s case, you are beholden to it for continued access and funds. If the BTA is not representing the views of it\’s members, then who are they representing?
He sure looks good driving his car though. Is he wearing make-up?
I approve of the BTA\’s attempt to remain constructive. However, no one seems to want to confront the pink elephant sitting in the corner of the room: the CRC proposals will grossly increase the carbon footprint of the river crossing without addressing the underlying need to \”efficiently move people and goods\” (quote from the Vancouver BC equivalent of Metro).
What part of the CRC proposal ensures that any capacity generated by the project is not swallowed up by increased demand and hence increased CO2 emissions?
I am uncomfortable with Scott\’s current position which seems to imply it\’s OK if we destroy the climate and pollute the planet as long as bicyclists and pedestrians get our pork project.
Part of the advocacy for bicycling (unfortunately) requires removing the artificial incentives that government and Big Business have placed for people to use automobiles for private personal transport, and it seems to me all of the CRC proposals include those kinds of anti-bicycling incentives.
I take exception to Bricker taking credit for the changes made by the PPB in the wake of Brett\’s death. There\’s no doubt they were at the table but most of the pressure came from the grass roots and not from the BTA. It\’s at least as plausible that the pressure was responsible for the changes instead of the BTA\’s dithering.
They\’re running the same risk here. At least they\’ve finally taken a stance.
Those positive changes at PPB were on display the other night.
Lip service does not equal equality or change, and there is only so long that we can remain on the sidelines with out flexing our muscle.
At some point, the BTA will have to make some noise or walk away, otherwise they will start to lose any credibility as a political machine.
If there stance is continually to sit and watch, occasionally making a comment, then they are not really accomplishing anything.
Don\’t get me wrong, I love the BTA and the people working for it. I just wish they had more guts.
I\’m glad Scott finally came out and said that they oppose “the construction of a mega-bridge,”. There might be hope after all.
If we don\’t get a world class bike facility and proper multi modal transport while limiting the SOV lanes, then I will speak out against the BTA. Until then they are working within a flawed system to do the best they can with the situation. I support that.
I also take exception to Scott\’s comments regarding PPB changes – As one of organizers of the wearealltrafficrally, which in short, short order put 500 plus cyclists together for a ride and rally in the names of Brett, Tracy, Tim and other cyclists now gone, and we did it to shine a media spotlight on the issues of enforcement, education and infrastructure and demanded, with PPB Chief Rosie S present, that changes in the way investigations take place and police interact with cyclists, and callled for Kroger\’s transfer from his position- maybe all that taking to the streets did nothing, but it\’s not the feedback that I\’ve received from folks within the police department.
Following up on that I worked rather diligently with Chris Heaps aka, A.O to readers of this blog, and his near Herculean efforts to issue citation hearings and put pressure on the system i.e police department, to carry out their duties as officers.
At any rate, I personally feel that this, coupled with efforts by the BTA, made the difference. I\’m not looking for kudos, I\’m pointing this out because I think the BTA has taken a weak position on the CRC. I\’ll say it again, with all respect for what the BTA does on many bike issues, they have been played by the auto, big business, and transportation industries. Their current stance on the CRC is reactionary, doesn\’t look at the bigger picture of greenhouse gases, peak oil, livability issues and should get strongly behin that of a no build – carpooling, tolling and refitting the current bridge for earthquake, lightrail option – and if the powers that be go ahead and build this mistake in the form they are gunning for, then the BTA should sue if necessary to get these world class bike facilities on it – if the transportation department was foolish enough not to provide them in future plans. This is the path I support – be an advocate for a community to reduce sprawl, bottlenecks in downtown portland, make the good people of vancouver vote for lightrail and start carpooling like they mean it and start riding biccycles. By endorsing 8 or 10 lanes and build options, I feel this gives the powers working to push the big bridge option lots of ammo – it let\’s them say \”Look, even the bicycling community wants a bigger bridge than we have right now.\” It\’s a safe position, this one the BTA has staked out, but no one is safe from peak oil and everyone pushing these 4.2 billion dollar size options is going to feel ridiculous in years to come. It\’s not our right to fight only for world class bike facilities on a flawed, misguided project. Lipstick will not pretty up this pig. If the BTA is not going to be the group that joins forces with CLF and wearealltraffic or better yet, takes a courageous stance to say, we were wrong to back this and gets out in front, opposes this and pulls in coalition, then I\’ll be proud to stand with them. Right now, I stand proud of many other things the BTA is doing, but on this issue, I have nothing but dissappointment.
The BTA probably needs to avoid saber-rattling, but that doesn\’t mean that the people of Portland shouldn\’t pile on the intense political pressure and be very visible and audible in their opposition.
The BTA will have a lot more leverage to push for changes when we have a huge grassroots movement also pushing for changes.
Start talking to your friends, neighbors, and co-workers, people!
Is it the BTA\’s job to fight the CRC?
Perhaps there\’s been some confusion regarding the scope of the BTA\’s efforts. That is, I\’m not sure that fighting the CRC project falls within the spirit of their [our] mission statement.
However, with something like the CRC on the table, you want to be influential for inclusion of world-class ped and cycling facilities.
I won\’t repeat comments I\’ve made elsewhere, but as pertains to the BTA\’s position, it certainly doesn\’t reflect my view as a member. For so many reasons, the CRC project is a huge mistake; and as a BTA member I would encourage our leadership to join the coalition against the building of this monstrosity that is so out of touch with the times … headed by a task force that maintains a [likely] distorted view of the future.
It is sad to see Rex Burkholder in this group – Robert Liberty is my new hero.
Now we need to take it to City Hall – did someone say Sam Adams backs the CRC?
The Coalition for a Livable Future (CLF) is \”at the table\” about the CRC, and they\’ve publicly come out and said that the thing is awful. As for joining a \”coalition of advocacy groups that would more strongly oppose the CRC project\”, that is what the CLF tried to get the BTA to do, join them to fight this thing. In fact, a lot of other groups have already joined that coalition and are opposing the CRC, but the BTA seems to be still sitting on the sidelines…
I think Metal Cowboy sums it up perfectly. Regarding the project in general, much to my astonishment I\’m hearing my coworkers talk more and more about buying a smaller car or even dusting off their bikes, with every single passing day as gas$$ climb. I think this project might burn itself out.
Koin TV reports that the ridership on C-TRAN express routes from vancouver to portland is up 23% since November! Think what would happen if we added tolls and increased the frequency of the buses.
Bjorn
CRC is completely unnecessary and a waste of public money. I\’m all in favor of commerce, but this bridge hurts freight movement by adding so many cars to the road network as to overwhelm it and slow down traffic even more in other places. There\’s definitely some kool-aid being drunk to think this $4.2 billion will solve all our problems. I think the BTA needs to come out against this project and soon. Rex Burkholder also needs to wake up and smell the car exhaust. I\’ve never been more disappointed in an elected official as I am in Rex.
#8 Bill: \”Is it the BTA\’s job to fight the CRC?\”
I believe so.
The CRC mega-bridge will, by increasing auto capacity, dump many more cars into Portland and Vancouver. That makes it a bad deal for cyclists because the more cars on the road, the more car-exclusive infrastructure gets built.
Also, the more two-ton bullets there are on the road, the more cyclists are likely to die.
Then there\’s the fact that the big-bridge option will make sprawl more appealing than ever, which will in turn transform the region into more and more of the kind of suburban landscape that so discourages cycling.
Remember, that\’s why this new crossing is being proposed in the first place: the old bridge fed sprawling development, which now is now demanding more automotive capacity.
All of this is a result of a situation which seems natural to us modern Americans, but which, when you step back from it, is a remarkable state of affairs only recently seen in human history: people live vast distances from the places they work and shop. It seemed to make sense for about 40 or 50 years, but now, with global climate change looming, it\’s proving to be an insane way to live.
What we need is more of the relatively dense suburbs-circa-1910 that spawned the inner Portland neighborhoods that have proven so appealing to cyclists. Those are the neighborhoods where you find bike boulevards, and for good reason: the density of, and relatively calm car traffic in those neighborhoods makes them perfect for bike travel.
How we steer a CRC to produce development more like that and less like suburban sprawl, I have no idea. I just don\’t think a mega-bridge and its resultant increase in automotive capacity is going to make it happen.
And the inclusion of bike lanes on this monster, no matter how world-class those bike lanes may be, will not offset the damage it does to our region, its livability, and its bikeability.
Anybody have an idea of where I can get a copy of the DEIS? I\’ve got the law degree, I\’ve got the Certificate in Environmental and Natural Resources Law, so no time like the present to put them to work, I suppose. All I need is to get my hands on a copy….
\”…But Bricker has put the BTA on a different course, a more conservative and deliberate one that he is convinced will bring positive results.\”
Jon, your choice of the word conservative in this statement comes off as either ambiguous or loaded. I believe that the BTA is being very deliberate as well as strategic.
For the last 10 years I have supported the BTA because they have been a key player in making Portland a great and safer city to commute by bike. They are a bicycling advocacy group not an anti-car evangelical. Nor is the BTA an environmental advocacy group, although their mission has a positive effect on the environment.
It’s not the BTA’s role (nor do they really have the responsibility) to thwart the CRC because it represents a transportation planning boondoggle, poses a regional financial fiasco, or may contribute to increased CO2 emmissions. Whatever bridge comes out of this process, the cycling community needs to be well served. In order to do this the BTA needs to continue to be deliberate and strategic with its efforts.
Having safe, accessible, and convenient cycling options enables all of us to do our part to save the world- new mega bridge or not.
Rixter (#14) – go to their website, http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org
There\’s a list of libraries and public offices with paper copies. You can also download the DEIS if you have a good internet connection (it\’s huge). They will also send you a CD of the DEIS if you call them.
I think your (the collected you who are making them) comments about the BTA (In this post and others) and Scott Bricker in particular are both wrong and offensive. To me, it shows that \’you\’ have a child\’s understanding of how to work well with others. Whining and screaming doesn\’t accomplish doodly squat. But sitting down and talking like adults does.
You may think BTA is a sellout. I think the BTA is courageous. One of the reasons they have become such a powerful and effective advocacy group is because they have learned to be part of the process and to create change from the inside – which honestly is almost always where it happens. You can remain on the fringes – there is always a need for that element. But just know that – you are fringe, and sitting at the little kids table, while the real work is being done by the big boys and girls at the adult table.
PS. This comment has nothing to do with the CRC. Nothing. It has everything to do with BTA and their approach as an advocacy organization.
Zachary Horowitz #17
I think your comments about the ongoing debate on Jonathan\’s blog are belittling and offensive in itself.
There is nothing fringe about advocating to keep all options open. A large number of mainstream advocacy groups, as well as 3 out of 7 Metro Council commissioners have expressed major concerns about the current direction of the CRC and have made a call to keep all options on the table – including the no-build option. If those 3 commissioners happened to be Burkholder, Bragdon, and Harrington, it would be a safe bet that the BTA would align with them. Unfortunately, as with any project this size, there are some major political, business and financial interests at stake here, as recently outlined by Nigel Jaquiss in WW http://wweek.com/editorial/3428/11009/ and the BTA leadership seems to have made the choice to follow the lead of the \”big boys and girls\” they have the best connections with. I don\’t see that as a choice based on principles (as Bricker claims), but rather a safe (an hopefully smart) political play.
Maybe it will work out and the BTA – and the bike community – will get rewarded for it at a future time, when other transportation issues are on the agenda. But I can also see it not pan out the way they hope and this project could easily spin out of control (think OHSU tram x 10), with the BTA ending up with some serious buyer\’s remorse, all while having alienated a lot of people among their membership and in the bike community at large.
\”Jon, your choice of the word conservative in this statement comes off as either ambiguous or loaded.\”
zuckerdog,
my use of that word was meant to imply that the general style of the BTA has become more conservative over the years.
this is not only evident in the way they do their advocacy but by looking at the makeup of their Board (which has a major influence on how they set their strategies).
the BTA board is conservative and when combined with the style of their two top staffers (Karl Rohde and Scott Bricker), I think it\’s fair to say the organization is more conservative than they have been in the past.
by no means do i think that is a bad thing. they are also, as you say, quite strategic and their approach is very valuable and necessary for the movement in general.
i hope that makes my word choice a bit more clear. if not, let me know.
Maybe the CRC can be stopped, but I for one doubt it. If it can\’t, then what? I think this is the realistic position the BTA is facing. Let\’s be shrewd, calculating, vocal, and determined to make sure that when a new bridge IS built, it serves the Portland/Vancouver area well. Tolls? yes. Lightrail? check. Awesome bike/pedestrian facilities? absolutely. 12 lanes? Unnecessary and harmful. It\’s a razor\’s edge the BTA is walking but I see the wisdom in their positioning to make sure they have influence in what the final product looks like. Call me a cynic, but the CRC is coming like a freight train and putting your hand up and saying \”stop\” isn\’t going to get you a seat on board.
Is that why my table is so small and painted with butterflies and elephants? Damn, and what\’s with someone else always cutting up my food for me…
Come on Zachery, are you really going to use one from the current administration\’s play book, the one that says if you engage in thoughtful debate, take an opposing position and speak your mind about very serious subjects with long term consequences, then we will marginalize you, we will call you names, we will use whatever \”facts\” we can create, and if you are still around we will say you are a trader, unpatriotic and ask you to \”sit at a little table\”.
I have stated my position regarding Scott\’s position for an organization I hold in high regard. I did no name calling, I stated what I see as the growing hubris and mission creep for the bta, the reactionary stance on the crc and the pitfalls of the BTA supporting building a bridge that adds lanes instead of spending those funds on exisiting transportation repairs and focusing their time and energy on bicycle projects in the region. I think they should not be one of the supporters of a massive transportation build project in any form beyond retrofit for safety, lightrail and tolling to reduce the sov\’s – when peak oil is going to change the entire playing field – we have a clear difference of opinion, I think this is called lively civil debate – in Amercia we still have the right to voice our opinion – but at the end of the day, we all have to live with our choices, regardless of your attempts to marginalize and peg us as fringe. Oh, and pass the applesauce, I\’m still waiting for my big boy teeth to come in.
I was a BTA member for many years, but stopped my membership when I judged that their advocacy too often strayed beyond their collective expertise; when they started advocating for things not supported by the facts; and when it seemed they were picking fights that didn\’t need fighting. Every year or so, I reevaluate all the organizations seeking my participation and financial support using these criteria. BTA will get my financial support and membership again when it is focussed, well-reasoned and well-supported by the facts, and doesn\’t pick fights not worth fighting.
With regard to big transportation projects, I prefer that BTA focus on the bicycle component, not on trying to save the entire world. That\’s just my preference and philosophy on supporting organizations.
And, by the way, if the CRC project dies, what will be the implications for the region? Will we simply have more Portland employees living in Yamhill and Marion Counties, instead of Clark County, and commuting the same distances? What will be the impact on bicyclists there? How will bicyclists be accommodated on projects that support their commute?
While a bit strongly worded, Zachary #17\’s post is actually pretty accurate. The point is that you are welcome to disagree with BTA\’s position, and may well be correct to do so. But to b*tch and moan on a blog, criticizing those who are doing more than anyone for cyclists is not just unproductive, it\’s counter-productive. To assemble a parallel advocacy group which supports BTA but take the cause further, where you clearly want BTA to go, would actually be effective.
If this is the only \”advocacy\” you are accomplishing, you are harming your cause more than you help it. Thus Z\’s use of the term \”fringe\”.
We democrats have a way of (repeatedly) losing wars because we can\’t agree on the details of the battle. We\’d be a lot more effective if we supported and complemented each other.
It\’s pretty clear to me that Scott understands this situation, including the real possibility that an overly zealous BTA attack now could backfire on BTA\’s long-term credibility (and the CRC process is a long-term project). If you are missing this, you only have part of the puzzle complete.
Unit,
Here\’s another piece of the puzzle. Mr. Zachary Horowitz is a staffer for the CRC project. His post fails to point this out.
For full disclosure: Zachary Horowitz is on the CRC staff and works on the bike/ped design, so I would expect him to be a little more respectful for the various well-articulated and level-headed opinions that have been posted on bikeportland, instead of belittling them as the whining & screaming of some fringe elements. At the other hand, I totally understand that his job – and that of the rest of the CRC staff – would be a lot easier, if everyone in the bike community would just get behind Bricker and Burkholder and move along.
Mmann (#20) – Getting a seat on-board doesn\’t guarantee that you will be heard, or listened to. It doesn\’t guarantee that you won\’t be shut out of the process. The BTA has the opportunity to raise their voice and have their opinion heard – they have weight in the community. They\’ve gained a lot of respect, and frankly, the CRC is possibly the most important and influential future boondoggle to come along since the Mount Hood Expressway.
This one project will suck up the funding for dozens of other projects, and the expected revenues on the federal end may never actually materialize. Does the BTA stand up now, and fight this, and possibly save dozens of other bike projects? I hope so. We should be agitating to kill this, and asking the important questions in front of reporters, to get the public thinking about the issue, and where the funding is coming from, who the project will ultimately serve, and whether it will actually do any good.
Zachary (#17) – I also take offense at your comments. Metal Cowboy isn\’t fringe. Elly Blue isn\’t fringe. Susie Kubota isn\’t fringe. And while Shift might be borderline, the members of Shift have influence in PDOT, the BTA, Alta Planning, Multnomah and Clackamas counties, Milwaukie, Tri-Met, and Metro. Many of them have talked to KOIN, KATU, KGW, the Oregonian, Tribune, Mercury, and other news outlets. The only thing stopping us from stopping the CRC is the fact that the CRC isn\’t performing traffic stings, tasering people, or joking about flopping on top of cyclists and killing them with the cars it will carry. If the CRC was a person, and it was cutting bike funding, throwing beer bottles at passing cyclists, or parking its 12-lane self in the bike lane, we\’d all unite against it and do something. But it\’s not a person, it\’s a huge, faceless, abstract, multi-billion dollar project with a dictionary tome for an environmental impact statement, and a juggernaut of agencies with vested interests promoting it.
The BTA has an awesome opportunity to take a leadership role here, and become more influential in public policy. To do that, they need to walk a fine line between working within the system and agitating the system from outside. Scott Bricker, the board and staff have done an admirable job with the former, and I hope they\’ll start doing an equally admirable job at the latter. I don\’t think they\’re there yet – but I\’ll admit that I don\’t have the whole picture.
As for me personally, as soon as Pedalpalooza and TCC are over, I intend to devote more time to the CRC and doing a little constructive agitating on my own. I didn\’t leave Detroit so we could recreate it here in my adopted hometown.
Unit (#23) – Zachary\’s post disregards the efforts of others and terms them \”fringe\”. I think it\’s appropriate to criticize an organization if one is a member and one feels that the organization isn\’t fulfilling its mission. Hopefully the criticism is constructive. I think that the BTA is an awesome organization, and I feel that they do a lot of great work. And if I\’m way out of line here, I feel pretty confident that Scott, or one or more BTA staffers are going to tell me that when I\’m next in their office.
And I disagree that we\’d be more effective if we supported and complemented each other. We\’d be more efficient, for sure, but that\’s not always the same thing. Debate and dialog are necessary facets of effectiveness. Or as a friend once told me, \”If you both agree on everything, then one of you isn\’t necessary\”.
Oh, and while the CRC is a long-term project, the window of opportunity to stop it is short.
I still fail to see how we as a region can spend $4.2 BILLION without serious asking whether our presumption of traffic growth is justified.
I am sure this has nothing to do with their \’safe roots to schools funding\’. That is their major cash cow, and it comes from federal transportation funds. The BTA does not represent its members. It represents the people funding it.
The BTA is simply making sure they all have jobs for the next 10 years. That is all they are folks. Suits looking for a hand out.