You’re reviving a mega-project that failed to secure funding a decade ago. Do you go back and re-examine the original assumptions? Absolutely not! You double down! Here’s a step-by-step guide.
“This bridge is going to collapse into the river in an earthquake, you have to fund this project to replace it”.
Absolutely do not discuss options for seismic remediation of current structures. And definitely don’t mention that most of the five miles of this project are on dry land.
And let’s not bring up the other several thousand bridges in the two states that also need seismic upgrading.
“We have to meet Federal deadlines!”
Never list specific programs or deadline dates. But make it clear that if we want to reexamine the Purpose and Need for the project (because of course, nothing important has changed since we drafted the last Purpose and Need 15 years ago) it will add a year or two to the project.
“We have to start environmental analysis now because IIJA just passed.” Don’t mention that no agencies have published notices of available funding yet, much less indicated deadlines for application.
Wield the Purpose and Need as a cudgel
“I understand you think seismic resilience is the highest priority, but the Purpose and Need says we also have to deal with congestion. If we don’t check all the boxes we have to go back and start over.” (see “Rush Them!”)
Veneer is more important than substance
Hire a Climate Officer and and an Equity Officer, but don’t put climate and equity on par with the other goals. (See “Wield the Purpose and Need…”)
Learn to filibuster
Time your presentation to take up most of the meeting, leave as little time for Q&A as possible.
Monoliths are your friend
The traditional response of funders worried about “fiscal constraints” (i.e., a reluctance to fund your whole project) is project phasing. You can insulate yourself from this kind of fiscal responsibility by designing your project as a single large structure.
Options are Bad
Remember, your goal is not to give decision makers choices, because they could choose the option you don’t like. Make sure at the end of the day they only have one choice to make: pay for it or not. (And dare them not to pay for it. See “Scare Them!”)
As the clock ticks down toward the self-imposed deadline for the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program to select a “locally preferred alternative”, a number of elected officials are concerned they aren’t being given access to the information they’ll need to sign off on a project design.
As soon as next month, the project team will be presenting one draft alternative, which will include a recommendation on the number of lanes the project will have, what interchanges at Marine Drive and Hayden Island will look like and what type of transit we should expect. So far, however, the advisory groups charged with providing feedback have been given very few details on different alternatives being considered and the trade-offs between them.
“Candidly, I must tell you that I’m pretty disappointed in the discussion here… I don’t think I’ve learned anything in the presentation yet today.” -Mary Nolan, Metro Councilor
It has been months since three options were presented for the primary segment of highway over the Columbia River, all of which are slated to expand I-5 over the Columbia River to ten lanes. After those were put on the table, the IBR team did agree to analyze what might happen to the highway’s design if transit use and congestion pricing were fully utilized in the project design, but so far we haven’t seen any evidence that alternative options will be presented.
At the project’s Executive Steering Group meeting last week, Metro President Lynn Peterson signaled there could be problems ahead given the lack of details that have been presented to the group so far.
“I’m concerned that if we’re just going to get one recommendation based on a series of assumptions that it’s not actually going to allow us to see how the three components…play out in different ways,” Peterson said. She said she wants the group to be presented three different scenarios that they can examine more closely. “I think it’s going to be a shock to the system if there’s just one recommendation without a narrowing down.”
Program staff have been guiding officials toward just one preferred alternative for several months. “One of the concerns with bringing multiple things forward is, it complicates the next step in the process,” Program Administrator Greg Johnson said, alluding to the supplemental environmental impact statement process the project will head into next. “What we’re doing is trying to get into the stadium, and there’s a lot of decisions within that stadium.”
The 2011 final environmental impact statement for the failed Columbia River Crossing project actually included two different alternatives for the Hayden Island/Marine Drive interchanges, pointing toward a false urgency to narrow things down completely at this stage. So far, most of the options being considered look very similar to the preferred alternative from that project, with proposals like an immersed tube tunnel (in use regionally in places like Vancouver, B.C) having been discarded last year by the project team.
Portland Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty also pushed back on being presented one concept that’s moving forward.
“You’re telling me you’re doing all this work, but I don’t see it…and you’re telling me this is a major decision point, but it’s not that important because it’s going to change later.” she said. “I don’t delegate decision-making to my staff.”
She also raised the issue of having to get approval from other Portland City Council members when they are busy with work on the budget in May. “I think you’re putting unrealistic expectations on me,” she said of the current timeline. “If I’m this confused about the decision that you’re asking me to make in July…can you imagine how confused my colleagues are going to be.”
Washington State Department of Transportation Secretary Roger Millar described the locally preferred alternative as a starting point before the project is put through the “meat grinder” that is federal environmental policy review. “The decision we’re being asked to make this summer is not to pick an alternative to build. It is to pick an alternative to test,” he said. Right now in Seattle, Sound Transit, the regional transit agency on whose board Millar serves, is currently seeking comment on a draft environmental review of a planned light rail line; along a key segment of that line Sound Transit has selected no preferred alternative but is studying a whole slew of options.
At a Metro Council work session on the project earlier this month, Councilor Mary Nolan, the only council member who voted against advancing funding for the project earlier this year, also expressed frustration with a lack of information.
“Candidly, I must tell you that I’m pretty disappointed in the discussion here. I had come to this conversation hoping that we would have a lot more detail from the project team than we seem to have. I don’t think I’ve learned anything in the presentation yet today,” Nolan said near the end of the work session.
If those details are to be fully fleshed out, they will only have a few meetings to do so before the self-imposed deadline to select a locally preferred alternative. The question is whether the rush to meet that deadline will leave any important considerations left unexamined. If any elected leaders are feeling pressured to make a decision they aren’t ready to make, things could get complicated, fast.