CRC- Oregon Head Wants To Go It Alone

I think this is as bad an idea that has ever come up in this state since PERS. With the history of cost overruns, the knowledge that a toll on I-5 will necessitate a toll on I-205 and the fact the WA state legislature rejected the project with it's tolls makes this unbelievable to me. Politics at its worst.

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/...n-led_columbia_river_cros.html#incart_m-rpt-2

An Oregon-only plan to snatch the Columbia River Crossing from the jaws of defeat will boost risks for state taxpayers, on the hook for any cost overruns or funding shortfalls. And opponents won't like it any more than the first proposal.

But officials say a single-state highway, light-rail and bridge replacement project could be easier and more efficient to run.

Kris Strickler, de facto director of the project since the departure of his Washington counterpart, described the retooled proposal in detail Tuesday during an interview with The Oregonian that also included Patricia McCaig, CRC head of intergovernmental affairs and government relations.

What's striking is how closely the $2.75 billion project resembles the original $3.4 billion plan to link Portland and Vancouver, replacing the Interstate 5 Bridge. The duo said the re envisioned project could start construction next year on schedule. It could finish within eight years, even including the Washington highway improvements spiked when Olympia legislators failed to appropriate their state's share of the original project in June.

No matter what, they Strickler and McCaig said, the bridge would include light rail, because that form of mass transit is integral to traffic projections, repeatedly approved by local governments and inseparable from the project being considered by federal officials.

"A bridge without the light rail element is not part of this project," Strickler said. As for the CRC as a whole, he said, "Every day that goes by, the need gets greater. The project sitting in front of us is not going to get cheaper."

But Strickler and McCaig, who have been briefing local political leaders on the new plan, admitted they don't yet have all the answers -- for example, concerning who covers a projected $2 million to $3 million annual light-rail operating loss.

And they said the project would go forward only if forthcoming financial projections convince Gov. John Kitzhaber, House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, and other legislators that the increased risks are reasonable. A special session of the Legislature would be necessary to secure financing before Sept. 30, when Oregon's $450 million commitment is set to expire in the absence of Washington's matching money.

State Treasurer Ted Wheeler, briefed on the project last week, must also vet a preliminary investment-grade analysis of the project's finances, expected later this month, several weeks late. A spokesman for Wheeler, who said the treasurer was "not around" this week to be interviewed, released a statement on his behalf.

"The Oregon-only proposal raises some new and complex questions that would need to be carefully considered because it implies that there will be a higher level of financial risk for Oregon taxpayers," the statement said. "He will take as long as it takes to have confidence that this proposal will not expose Oregonians to undue risks."

CRC managers still expect annual toll revenues ranging between $1.1 billion and $1.5 billion, all of which would now go to Oregon. Tolling the Glenn Jackson Bridge on I-205 is not part of the current project, but could arise separately, Strickler said.

Under the original CRC plan, Washington and Oregon would have split costs and liabilities. Under the new proposal, Oregon would be on the hook for any cost overruns and funding shortfalls.

Strickler and McCaig itemized the $2.75 billion pricetag:

-- $1.2 billion for a bridge-landing "touchdown element" tying the span to Washington state Route 14.

-- $850 million in transit capital costs for light rail.

-- $450 million for Oregon highway improvements including interchanges at Hayden Island and Marine Drive.

-- Up to $140 million in improvements to Washington state Route 14.

-- $110 million for development costs, engineering and interim borrowing for transit funding, which will be outpaced by light rail construction.

Washington could end up improving its interchanges north of the bridge as originally scheduled, they said, without being a project partner.

More
Continuing coverage of the Columbia River Crossing and the money behind it.
Although Oregon has yet to ask, Washington could possibly contribute to mitigation costs, still being negotiated with Thompson Metal Fab Inc., for three upriver companies that make products too large to fit beneath the planned 116-foot bridge clearance.

Strickler said he was confident the CRC would get the full $850 million in federal transit funding, despite worries that the appropriation will never make it through the House.

"This project is still a national priority and has been for some time," he said.

The Oregon constitution prohibits auto-generated funds such as gas taxes and tolls from being spent on transit projects. But Strickler said such revenues could be spent on the bridge because the span would carry vehicles as well as trains.

Planners are being conservative, McCaig said, by not including further potential revenues such as $400 million from the Federal Highway Administration, which the managers will seek. Oregon managers find that while having sole responsibility for the project increases the state's exposure, it also provides an additional beneficial level of control that could appeal to bond buyers, McCaig and Strickler said.

Coast Guard approval of a bridge permit remains a wild card as CRC managers respond to questions the agency received during public hearings. That decision could occur by Sept. 30.

Another wild card, for McCaig personally, is an ongoing investigation of two ethics complaints accusing her of failing to register as a lobbyist in Salem. The complaints were filed by two CRC opponents, she said: Mitchell Copp, an Oregon City real estate agent, and Christina Mayer, of Forest Grove.

 

peoples opinion has little value...woot

 

When one considers studies show the CRC is not necessary (the old bridge still has many decades left in it and for about $10 million can be well refurbished), will worsen traffic issues due to tolling, will create unwanted tolls on both I-5 and I-205 (inevitable) that will exceed $200 per month for commuters and much of the money for it comes out of the general funds for ALL counties in Oregon reducing monies for schools, food programs, senior & disabled programs... I cannot understand why this is being pushed so hard. The Washington voters and legislation have said "no".

I just don't get it.

 

Saying that a bridge "has many decades left in it" doesn't really mean piss. The problem is that growth projections for the region are going to make it obsolete due to lack of utility before it hits its structural end-of-life. The other issue of kicking the can down the road is that when it is no longer avoidable to build the bridge it will be that much more of an impediment to traffic and bond rates aren't likely to be lower than they are now.

Bottom line: This is where most of the people in Oregon live, this is a vital interstate commerce chokepoint and postponing the replacement of the I-5 crossing for twenty or thirty years doesn't accomplish anything except punting a problem for the next generation to deal with.

Still don't get it?

 

One thing I don't understand, why don't they build a third bridge, and reroute I-5 to the new bridge and keep the current for local traffic?

 

They could, but I'm having hard time figuring out where they would put it.

 

Hmm yeah, you'd piss off a lot of people and have to buy their property, i'm thinking that airfield in Vancouver and the Dog tracks in Portland.

 

OOOH I like that idea! It seems like the land would be relatively cheap too.

 

That's a not a terrible idea. I'd do that in addition to revamping the CRC at the I-5 cross. That structure impedes road traffic when it has to be lifted, and because it has to be lifted it impedes commercial development further up river.

 

Oregon voters didn't want the Max in Oregon either when it was first proposed. As for why you might want something like that? If you have one chance to build in the infrastructure and provide a public good when bond rates are cheap, maybe you provide another avenue for helping to alleviate congestion before it becomes completely intractable and much more expensive as a retrofit or new construction project.

Peak oil and its inevitable impacts on personal mobility are only going to get worse, not magically better and that train option is going to start looking a lot more attractive.

 

With or without Max, I don't really care. I was just offering the reason to do Max with the crossing project now rather than later. And as much as people bitch about tolls, they work just fine in other places and they're fairer because they burden the actual people who will be using the system.

 

No because I think you're wrong.

The studies are clear that with about $150 million the bridge will be god for 100 years.

Also, before we have a new tax and also take from the general funds of all Oregon counties I think the CRC needs a popular vote- not a handful of politicians giving money to unions for a project not needed.

Lastly, and I know you don't care, but there are many many people in Vancouver who cannot afford $250+ in new taxes per month and, like me,will lose their house and be forced to move. But the Oregon dems don't get it or care. The WA dems did.

 

big picture

what they want to build does not do anything for traffic count, per say, but rather is a way to make light rail the focus

 

Wouldn't it be cheaper to give state tax subsidies to flying car factories?

 

only if they are battery powered

 

Subsidize swimming lessons?

Before bridges there were thousands of paddling Indians. Are they unemployed now? Do they need jobs?

Blow up the bridge so that private industry can take over. Government should keep its dirty hands out of roads and bridges.