CRCHAYDENISLAND0025_18527403.JPG
The Interstate Bridge from Hayden Island looking north to Washington. Proponents of the Columbia River Crossing say the current bridge is a bottleneck, critics of the project say the proposal to replace it would have negative environmental impacts.
(Jamie Francis/The Oregonian)
Oregon lawmakers are considering reviving the once-dead Columbia River Crossing in a special session later this month.
They’re looking to barrel ahead on a
that relies heavily on tolls, cutting interchanges in Washington out after that state’s lawmakers bailed on a plan this summer to kick in $450 million.
Supporters, including business and labor groups, say building the bridge is still critical.
“The circumstances and the details might need to change, but the need to address the problems in that area hasn’t changed,” said
.
The political landscape has changed significantly since the Oregon Legislature overwhelmingly approved $450 million in state highway bonds for the project. That funding disappeared Sept.30, however, because the bill required that Washington pay its share.
Supporters now must overcome three hurdles to build support for an Oregon-led project in what would be the second special session this fall. Legislators met Sept. 30 to Oct. 2 to approve a package of legislation on PERS, taxes and genetically modified agriculture.
Financial risk
Some lawmakers were always wary of the original CRC project because it relied heavily on federal funding and toll revenues.
Three main sources of money would fund the revised project:
- An $850 million grant from the Federal Transit Administration would pay to extend light rail from North Portland to Vancouver.
- Oregon would spend $450 million in bonds backed by gas tax revenue and federal funds.
- And tolls would generate $1.3 billion.
In addition, $107.8 million already spent by Oregon and Washington count toward the financing plan.
to make up for the proposed bridge’s shorter 116-foot clearance has yet to be funded.
According to an analysis by Oregon Treasurer Ted Wheeler’s office, the project would pencil out if interest rates stayed relatively stable and if the federal government approved a $900 million loan to Oregon providing cash as tolls rolled in over the next 35 years.
“It is all doable, but it is very much threading a needle to make it all come together,” said Laura Lockwood-McCall, Wheeler’s director of debt management.
If something were to go awry after the project broke ground next year, the state could have to fill the gaps with general obligation bonds or other state funds. With Washington no longer involved in funding, the financial burden would fall squarely on the Oregon Legislature.
That has already turned off some lawmakers.
, who voted for the bridge earlier this year, said in a September newsletter that without Washington’s skin in the game, the project doesn’t make sense.
“The financial risk to Oregon citizens is too great,” Richardson said.
Commitments from Washington state
Washington agencies, under Gov. Jay Inslee, would still play a role.
The Oregon Department of Transportation would need agreements with its Washington counterpart to oversee construction. TriMet would lead construction of the light-rail extension.
During construction, Oregon would need to collect tolls on the existing Interstate 5 bridge to help pay for the project.
Tolls are expected to range between $1.50 and $4.00 each way, depending on time of day. Oregon would set the rate. But Washington officials would have to enforce the tolls by punishing Washington drivers who refuse to pay.
A flurry of memos from Oregon and Washington attorneys last month argued that the plan is legally defensible. Whether it’s politically palatable is another matter.
U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Wash., said it was “alarming” that Washington would let Oregon unilaterally set tolls.
“When traffic projections fall short and the project encounters cost overruns, southwest Washington residents should not give up their seat at the table when decisions get made about how to make up the difference,” Herrera Beutler said.
Washington opinion matters. Oregon Senate
, has said he wants a stronger message of support from Inslee before the project moves forward.
Unbowed opposition
Conservatives who oppose light rail and environmentalists who oppose the size of the 10-lane bridge have been attacking the project for years.
“It seems to me on the Washington side of the river, Vancouver and Clark County, wants to get itself out from under the shadow of Portland and develop more autonomously,” said Sy Adler, professor of urban studies and planning at Portland State University.
Environmental groups, led by 1000 Friends of Oregon, sent a letter to Gov. John Kitzhaber calling the project “irresponsible.” And a lawsuit against the project led by the Coalition for a Livable Future, a sustainability non-profit, is wending its way through federal court.
Joe Cortright, a consultant for project opponent Plaid Pantries, said data from a study by CRC contractor CDM Smith shows that thousands of drivers would avoid I-5 tolls by crossing the Columbia on I-205 instead. That would leave 78,400 daily trips across the I-5 bridge -- far fewer than the 123,900 average that the Oregon Transportation Department recorded in 2011 and well below estimates from the project’s federal environmental impact statement, Cortright said.
“CRC has never corrected the factual errors in the (impact statement), never added any post-2005 traffic data, and never has updated its projections to reflect actual conditions,” Cortright said in an email.
Mandy Putney, a CRC spokeswoman, said the data Cortright used was gathered to show that the bridge would collect enough tolls to pay for the project, not to estimate traffic.
“We know right now that we have a corridor that’s very congested, especially at peak hours,” Putney said. “We know we have all of these problems today and they will continue to get worse if nothing is done.”
--Christian Gaston