Current CRC from Vancouver. Photo by Daniel Ronan.

PDXppl is a series of profiles of Portlanders and area residents and what they do.

The CRC, or Columbia River Crossing is perhaps one of the largest and most controversial public projects ever proposed in the  Portland Metropolitan Area (PMA). The project’s goal, to replace the two aging I-5 bridges across the Columbia River, has presented Portland with a test of its environmental values and resolve for sustainability.

The project includes many stakeholders, including the cities of Portland and Vancouver, Metro, Oregon and Washington state governments, two port authorities and the federal government. Many non-profits, including the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (BTA), not to mention the citizens of the PMA, have also taken interest in the project.

In an attempt to learn more about the project costing the region over $65 million in planning and another $30 million more as of last week, I decided to contact Mayor Royce Pollard's office in Vancouver. Matt Ransom, Vancouver's Transportation Manager, was kind enough to respond.

Below is the email of Matt Ransom's questions and responses. Perhaps as a community we can together ask for clarifications on this project.

Note: this email was written on August 12. It has taken me a while to post this, but the debate around the CRC is still alive and well.

I have been asked by Mayor Pollard to assist you with your questions at this point. I have served as on the City’s primary project managers for this effort and can serve as a main point of contact at this point.

I will attempt to answer your questions in brief below and then you can follow-up with clarifications.

PDXme: What would be the ideal Columbia River bridge for the City of Vancouver?

The City of Vancouver’s Comprehensive Plan anticipates that and is built upon the assumption that a new and updated Columbia River bridge will be built to serve the community and region’s future mobility needs.  The City’s basic vision of this project is that it will be: multi-modal with the inclusion of light-rail transit; that the pedestrian and bicycle corridor will be updated to sufficient size and that is strive to meet world class standards for these modes of travel, that the adjacent interchange and new bridge serve freight truck traffic in a safe and efficient manner, the implementation of the project will achieve sustainability goals in terms of construction methods, materials selection and operations and maintenance practices, and that the funding plan is equitable and sustainable.  These broad objectives have been laid out in our adopted policy plans and were stipulated in the City Council’s resolution of support for a locally preferred alternative in July of 2008.

PDXme: The $4.1 billion dollar price tag for the proposed span has lifted a lot of eyebrows and with a $65 million price tag for planning alone, many have criticized the feasibility of the bridge. How does Vancouver view the currently proposed bridge?

Broadly speaking, the City’s policy plans (Comprehensive Plan and City Center Vision plan) recognize the importance of this bridge infrastructure, both in terms of its inherent value for community circulation and economic well being, coupled with the direct benefits and effects that is places upon downtown Vancouver in particular.  For the vibrancy and future well being of our downtown, the Council has laid out a vision where a bridge should be re-built to ensure downtown multi-modal access, and done in a manner which allows for future growth while delicately inserting the re-built infrastructure in direct adjacency to our downtown core and historic reserve.

Updating this infrastructure to meet our community’s future needs, is a very important task and a myriad of important and inter-connected issues relate to this effort.  In our view the project efforts to date have been thoughtful and detailed in their study and with that effort costs result.  That is to be expected for such and important regional decision.  Based upon the reports we have seen, it is our understanding that the costs incurred to date are within the norm of other similarly sized and complex projects and are in line with preliminary estimates which were developed at the outset of the project.

PDXme: Specifically, light rail to Vancouver has been a major goal of Portland leaders for quite some time. How do you view light rail, as well as other amenities for pedestrians and bicycles affecting downtown Vancouver’s development?

The City Center Vision Plan for downtown Vancouver, which was updated in 2007, calls for significant increases in mass transit to support downtown’s growth and development.  At a minimum, the Plan proposes that to sustain our downtown environment and to support housing and employment growth, over 35% of future commute trips into downtown need to occur in non SOV (single occupancy vehicle) modes.  With the adoption of that general policy direction several efforts are now underway to enhance our transportation networks to support this goal.  Significant expansion of our bike networks and bike parking facilities are underway and the linkage to a new bridge corridor will provide a significant increase in safety and capacity for that mode in particular.  The regional transportation planning agency, the Southwest Regional Transportation Council, recently wrapped up a multi-year planning effort to design the broad plan for expanding mass transit, and specifically bus-rapid transit systems, to serve greater Clark County.  Each of the proposed rapid transit lines would feed downtown Vancouver, which would result in a significant infusion of peak-hour commute trip supply.  Finally, the proposed extension of light-rail transit north into downtown Vancouver would be a significant addition of bi-state transportation supply into downtown which would support an increasingly important bi-state reverse commute, as the downtown Vancouver employment market expands into the future.  Bottom line; our plans are reliant upon the expansion of mass transit and bike systems into downtown and current initiatives will go a long way towards providing us the infrastructure systems to support of growth and development objectives.

PDXme: In terms of economic development for Vancouver, the installation of I-5 in the 1950s hampered much of downtown’s economic vitality. In your view, what effect would the proposed bridge design have on Vancouver’s downtown economy?

Downtown Vancouver prosperity has, from its outset, been reliant upon the river and the bi-state infrastructure systems.  Early river ferry traffic and the initial Interstate bridge fed downtown with activity and most of the commerce of those early days lined Main Street to support and take advantage of the cross river activity.  The same is true today.  Multi-hour congestion on I-5 and SR-14 at the doorstep of downtown Vancouver currently stifles downtown access and economic activity in many ways.  A new bridge which provides multiple net new enhancements to transportation infrastructure supply (light-rail, bikes, etc) with efficiency upgrades (auto and freight) feeding downtown Vancouver will help foster additional economic growth within this important regional center.

Quotes that strike chords in Matt's responses in reference to the CRC project include the mention of "a myriad of important and inter-connected issues relate[d] to this effort" and  "inherent value for community circulation and economic well being." To me, the CRC is more than just a circulator for getting across the river and back, and I believe Matt Ransom and his colleagues share this sentiment. Additionally, I see the tangential issues of the bridge as being "inter-connected." The discrepancy I see in this project, however, is the lip service paid to the concerns of global warming and community building, while effectively (and ironically enough) ignoring the economic impacts of a 12-lane bridge.

Yes, people need to get across the river, and in a timely manner, but will a twelve-lane bridge design really help solve this recurring issue? Will a bridge inspired by 1960s design, with its inhuman scale and propensity to induce demand for single occupancy vehicles really aid the economic and community issues of automobile congestion and pollution? If both Portland and Vancouver intend to grow responsibly and "sustainably" as two cities of a common region, shouldn't the one link between them be rebuilt (or not built at all) to reflect the desires of its visionary planners and citizens?

Something is not right in the Rose City. "Sustainability" seems to have become a buzz-word for a project that has frustrated stakeholders like the BTA, which wiped its hands clean of the public process surrounding the bridge design. With the City of Portland, Metro, the State of Oregon, and Oregon's congressional delegation all on board or eerily silent about this project, one can't help but think of the fitting parallel to the Mt. Hood Expressway, a freeway never built, but which would have sliced through SE Portland, destroying Ladd's Addition and 1% of all Portland's housing at the time.

As with every large project, I believe there is a door of opportunity, to paraphrase the often-recanted phrase. When citizens of Portland didn't want a freeway, they stood up against their elected officials to successfully derail the project by laying down the rails of our now extensive MAX system. I ask Portlanders, Vancouverites and other citizens of the region: are we going to sit idly by while our values and quality of life are at stake? Could over $4 billion in the middle of an economic recession perhaps be better spent on a longer-term solution to our region's connectivity, including improvements and upgrades to the existing 1-5 bridges and significant investments in high-speed rail?

I believe that the CRC could be successfully geared towards increased regional thinking by focusing not only on the regional benefits of a new bridge, but also on north-south connectivity issues of the entire Pacific Northwest. The Obama administration's dedication of $8 billion dollars for high-speed rail shows a commitment to passenger rail, and a large local investment by the state of Oregon (with what would have been borrowed CRC money anyway) would work to provide a cleaner myriad of cross-Columbia transportation options. I liken these transportation options to Matt's, "myriad of important and inter-connected issues relate[d] to this effort."

The sheer amount of money needed to build this super bridge, which will become obsolete with the onset of the effects of global warming, is not merely one of many inter-connected issues; it is the issue. If Portland is pledging to meet its climate goal of 80% of 1990 emission levels by 2050, we cannot afford to spend over 4 billion dollars on a project that will hamper our efforts to meet this goal. The prospect of borrowed money represents another burden for future generations in addition to increased environmental harm. For $4.3 billion, according to Metro cost estimates, we could build MAX lines from Portland to Gresham along Powell, from Portland to Sherwood along Barbur, and from Clackamas Town Center to Oregon City along I-205. These three projects are at the top of list of high capacity transit corridors for future MAX line expansions, showing just how far $4 billion dollars could go if "sustainability" were treated as more than just a buzz-word.

Regardless of the way you talk about the CRC project, we must define our priorities as a city and as a region. The task at hand is to find a more sustainable alternative to the proposed Columbia River Crossing. Contact your legislators and elected officials. Get involved with the citizen campaign and read additional information here and here in opposition to the bridge proposal. For the Facebook inclined, I couldn't find a group addressing this issue, so I went ahead and started one, Citizens for a Better Bridge - NO to the Columbia River Crossing. Together we can find better solutions for Portland and regional transportation needs.

You should follow PDXme on twitter @djronan!

Amtrak ticket stubs for round trip train reservations and bike reservations.

This past weekend I took a trip up to Portland from Eugene with my bike. I really appreciate the fact that I can bring my bike on the train, as it gives me the choice to do whatever I like when I arrive at Union Station. Upon arrival, one can bike to the nearest bus line to get home, go to Powell's for the newest read, or relax at a nearby café. At any rate, the fact that Amtrak permits bikes on board does wonders for a visitor's experience in the Rose City.

As a pretty much monthly visitor to Portland, surprisingly enough, this past weekend marks the first time I have brought a bike on board. Accordingly, I've given some thought to how bikes on Amtrak trains fit the Portland goal of diverse travel options. In short, "choices." If you offer citizens choices in terms of their travel options, the more likely they will make a different choice than insisting on riding alone in their cars. Be it train, light rail, bus or bike, Portlanders get around. Amtrak's inclusion of bicycles on board increases the number of choices people can make upon arriving to town as to where and when they want to go. Accordingly, I've written a brief list of ideas and suggestions in light of my trip that might make arriving "from train with bike" that much more desirable and convenient.

1. Improve ticketing of bicycles upon purchase. The decision to bring my bike from Eugene to Portland came after I had already bought my ticket north. For me to add my bike to my reservation, I had to cancel my previous ticket and be charged an extra $10 dollars on top of the ticket price to bring my bike roundtrip. Days after, I was reimbursed for the initial transaction. The easier we make it easy for “leisure riders” to make reservations for their bikes on the fly, without needing reimbursement of previous Amtrak fares, the more accessible trains will be and the more popular the prospect of riding one’s bike at one’s destination.
2. Standardize bike boarding information, waver forms and tagging. On Saturday morning, I arrived at Eugene Station to wait in line for the appropriate ticketing to bring my bike on board. To bring your bike you need to sign a form acknowledging that Amtrak has no liability for potential damage that may occur on your trip. After signing, I received a carbon copy of the form explaining the terms of agreement along with a tag for my bike. On the return from Portland, I was given a perforated form to perform the same task. The text was easier to read and more intuitive as it looked like it was printed off the same printing system as my tickets. The tag ripped off the form to be hung on my handlebars. Regardless of the differences in waver forms and bike tags, the actual round tickets, four in all (two for the fare and two for the bikes) looked the same. It would great to bring this sort of standardization to the bikes on board. Lastly, at the end of my ride to Portland, I wasn’t required to give proof that my bike belonged to me, whereas after arriving in Eugene I was required to give the other part of the ticket I received before boarding. To sum it up, Amtrak needs to be better with making a more seamless system for transporting bikes, especially when it comes to showing proof that a bike belongs to a certain individual.
3. Increase the capacity for bicycles on board. A quick call to Amtrak revealed that trains the Amtrak Cascade line only have capacity for six bikes, that is, six bike hooks to hang bikes if they are not already taken. I imagine more bikes could be accommodated if brought in boxes, but boxing your bike for less than a two-day stint in Portland doesn’t make sense. If Amtrak and Portland got together to find away to accommodate more bike hooks on trains, this could potential decrease the demand for rental cars, taking more cars of the road and encouraging visitors to see Portland and its neighborhoods on two wheels. To put this point into perspective, if I wanted to come to Portland with a group of friends to participate in the Bridge Pedal this coming weekend, and we all brought our bikes, then everyone else would be sweet out of luck. If we started off in Vancouver B.C., we would essentially take up all available bike parking for passengers boarding in Washington.

So there you have it. It would be great if people could suggest ways to make some of these suggestions happen. I was sure to send in these comments on the cards that were provided on the train, but more people pushing for better access to Amtrak's trains with bikes will surely make for a better case. You can leave your comments online here. And if you are post prone, (word on the street is you can get a ticket for a free drink on Cascade trains if you send them a comment) you can send your comments to:

Washington State
Department of Transportation
Rail Office
P.O. Box 47407
Olympia, WA 98599-7407

With the coming Winter Olympics in Vancouver, not to mention the fact that people just want to bring their bikes on board, it's important that we work to increase bike capacity on Amtrak as well as streamline current policies towards our two-wheeled friends. I also see this as a potential improvement that could come of Washington and Oregon's application for stimulus funds to update the Cascade line's crossings and aging infrastructure. If we're set on making the riding the train a viable transportation option, it's important that we make it viable for all users, those with and sans vélo. The more bikes at Union Station, the more money in the Portland's, and not to mention the Pacific Northwest's economy.