The Columbia River Crossing: A Highway Boondoggle in Disguise

Costing at least a cold $3 billion, the CRC project and its ten freeway lanes could bankrupt the Portland region's road budget while undermining its progress on sustainable transportation. Image: ## Boomhower##

The Columbia River Crossing is a mega-project by any standard. A bridge replacement, a highway widening, and light rail project wrapped into one, the CRC is a proposal to span the distance between Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington. With a $3.2 billion price tag — by conservative estimates — it would be the largest public works project the region has ever undertaken.

Any project of the CRC’s transformative scope raises a great many questions. For starters, is it worth the investment? Can the region afford it? Will it promote a healthy environment? Will it induce sprawl?

In the five years since project engineers began honing their plan, more and more local observers have become adamant that it fails on all counts. “It’s a disaster of a project, really,” said Jonathan Maus of Bike Portland. “It just doesn’t make any sense.” But while governors are killing worthy transit and rail projects left and right, this fantastically expensive sprawl generator still has a pulse.

The full length of the project is five miles. Image: ## Columbia River Crossing##

Planning efforts alone for the Columbia River Crossing have thus far consumed $110 million. After all that expense and all those meetings, local observers say there’s still little agreement about what form it should take — or whether it should move forward at all.

The project is intended to reduce congestion on Interstate 5 between Portland and suburban Vancouver, which, officials say, backs up for six hours daily. Their plan is to expand the interstate from six to 10 lanes, demolish the existing drawbridge and build a replacement.

But $3+ billion is a lot of money to spend on a five-mile stretch of roadway, particularly when the Portland region is facing a $6 billion road budget shortfall by 2030. And at least one analysis has said the actual fiscal damage could be a lot worse.

Financial questions aside, the project runs contrary to the values of sustainability and walkability on which Portland has built its reputation, says David Osborn of the grassroots opposition group Stop the CRC. According to Osborn, the CRC typifies the kind of single-occupancy-vehicle infrastructure that the region has expressly rejected.

“We’re known for and really value alternative transportation,” Osborn said. “That’s the kind of transportation solutions that our region is looking for — transportation infrastructure that favors small, walkable communities. Building freeways doesn’t create that kind of community.”

Earlier this year, Stop the CRC held a poster contest and invited the public to take part. A month prior to that, local activist Spencer Boomhower produced a powerful video arguing that the project is wasteful and ill-conceived.

Opponents point out that the majority of the cost is dedicated to increasing car capacity on I-5. Of the total cost, only about $800 million would be used for the bridge replacement, with another $600 million going to light rail. Much of the remaining $1.8 billion would be spent expanding interchanges.

“This is a freeway expansion project,” said Osborn. “It is often kind of guised as a bridge.”

And many recognize the CRC for what it is. The original plan was for expanding I-5 to 12 lanes, but planners pared it back following public outcry. Local bike advocates aren’t sold on it, even though the project is slated to include bike and pedestrian facilities under the new bridge. The regional Bicycle Transportation Alliance withdrew its support two years ago, accusing sponsors of “vastly overstating” the benefit to bicyclists and pedestrians.

Seen at a CRC opposition rally in 2009. Photo: ## Portland Transport##

Commissioners from Clark County refused to vote in favor of the design, despite the urging of supporters. The local paper summarized one commissioner’s position as such: You leave us out of this.

Maus is convinced the project will never see the light of day. “It’s so politically toxic,” he said. “There’s just no money for it and it’s too controversial.”

But Osborn is not as sanguine. After all, in his budget announcement last month, President Obama listed the project for potential New Starts funding. And just last week, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber stumped for the CRC in a speech to local civic leaders.

“There’s still a big push to try and make this happen,” Osborn said, despite the fact that “the project just continues to run into problem after problem.”

Mandy Putney, a spokesperson for the bi-state partnership that oversees the project, denies it is embattled. “There’s a regional agreement to move forward with a replacement bridge,” she said. “This region needs to move goods and people across the region. The region will grow by about one million people by 2030. Freight just is running out of the ability to move.”

Supporters say the CRC will create 20,000 jobs and reduce crashes by 70 percent. In addition, the bridge — which was built in 1917 and substantially renovated in 1958 — is in need of replacement, Putney said. Its pilings don’t go all the way to solid soil. Pedestrian and bike access is also “challenging,” she said.

A prominent critic of the CRC is economist Joseph Cortright of Portland-based urban consulting firm Impresa, Inc. Commissioned by a local business leader to do a study on the project, Cortright has compiled data that disprove arguments in its favor. He found that traffic projections being used to justify the CRC, for instance, are out of date and inaccurate. Those projections showed traffic steadily increasing over a a 25-year period, but as Cortright pointed out and as Streetsblog has reported, traffic has actually been declining regionally, a trend that preceded the recession.

That’s a big issue because project financing relies heavily on tolling, according to Cortright. CRC backers hope to generate about one-third of the project’s cost from tolls, and plan to borrow against those projections. If tolling revenues come up short, the project could leave Oregon and Washington residents on the hook for total costs closer to $10 billion, Cortright predicts.

The study highlights other financial shortcomings, according to Cortright. Project sponsors did not include the costs of debt financing in their projections, Cortright said. Also important, the two states were hoping the CRC would benefit from federal investment, but Congress has cooled to earmarks. It speaks volumes, Cortright said, that thus far nobody — not Washington, not Oregon, not the federal government — has committed any money to the project.

Cortright, like Maus, Osborn and others, said congestion on Interstate 5 could, and should, be mitigated through smaller-scale interventions. Boomhower says delays caused by the drawbridge could be remedied by making adjustments to a railroad bridge upriver. Maus recommends rehabbing the existing bridge and adding a transit bridge. Cortright said adding another local bridge at a different location could draw away traffic and ease the bottleneck.

But CRC sponsors have consistently said that the project is too far advanced to return, more or less, to the drawing board.

“These things are all about momentum,” Maus said. “Once you get a big project like this rolling down the hill, you either move ahead or get smashed.”

Putney said construction will begin as early as 2013 and should be completed in five to seven years.

Local labor unions and the regional port authority are lobbying hard for the project’s advancement, said Osborn, as are the local construction and engineering industries. One of the major justifications for the project is to create jobs that will help bring down the region’s unemployment rate, which hovers at about 10 percent.

Meanwhile, Washington and Oregon aren’t exactly flush with cash for infrastructure. Without an increase in revenues, said Cortright, the funds for the CRC just aren’t there. “It should really be daunting,” he said. “I don’t see any momentum on the part of either state on raising the gas tax.”

But as we’ve seen in other areas of the country, local transportation officials seem undeterred by very real financial questions and widespread and organized public opposition. Cortright chalks it up to a lack of creativity.

“Basically you’ve got highway departments thinking the way they always have, only more so,” Cortright said, “when the money is running out.”

11 thoughts on The Columbia River Crossing: A Highway Boondoggle in Disguise

  1. I’d add an inbound, surface, bus pad for the Expo Center MAX inside the I-5 307mi interchange with a [roughly] 50′ pedestrian tunnel under the opposing lane (southbound on-ramp).

    Connecting buses would ramp back northbound without leaving the interchange; maybe they could have signal priority crossing Marine Drive. An outbound, bus terminal would need to go at the Delta Park MAX to allow flexible dwell times for separate routes.

    Then I’d lobby to switch I-5 from 6 lanes to 4 lanes with 2 bus/vanpool lanes.

  2. I have seen estimates as high as 10 billion, please report at least the range of estimates put forward by the government groups. I don’t think anyone believes 3.2 billion at this point, that would probably be low even with the cheapest bridge design and no transit bridge.

    Additionally having such a wide freeway built for such a long distance just north of the bottleneck that occurs near the 405 i5 interchange makes no sense and will later be used to pressure additionally freeway widening in the heart of our city. They need to fix the many bridges that are actually rated as having seismic problems rather than waste money widening the freeway near the border.

  3. Regardless of the number of lanes, the fact that the bridge needs to open for large vessels is a major problem; and needs to be addressed.

  4. Oh my god, this is *hideous*! And after just watching “The End of Suburbia” the monumentally misguided idiocy of throwing away billions upon billions when peak oil’s already passed (not to mention global climate change) is just mind boggling.

  5. This Project has been horribly toxic for everyone that touches it. Vancouver, Washington has already suffered the affects of terrible sprawl. This bridge is just one more fatal blow to downtown Vancouver (what remains of it), in favor of more distant suburban development.

  6. “According to Osborn, the CRC typifies the kind of single-occupancy-vehicle infrastructure that the region has expressly rejected.”

    80% of trips taken in the Portland Metro area are single-occupant vehicle trips. About 1% of trips are taken by MAX, 2% by bus (TriMet, C-Tran, and a few smaller agencies).

    80% is certainly not what I would call “rejection”. The CRC project is living in part because of a desire by a few select politicians and developers eager to see light rail (which is just as, if not more, sprawl-producing than highways) pushed north across the Columbia River – and accounts for fully 1/3rd of the CRC project and is an avoidable cost. Further cost savings would be attained by building a simple highway bridge, rather than the elaborate, complex “iconic” bridge sought out by certain Portland civic leaders.

    There is a reason why people choose to live in Vancouver rather than Portland or the Oregon suburbs – and no amount of advocacy from the BTA is going to change that, save for an all-out push to drastically lower housing prices in Oregon and eliminate the income tax, replacing it with a sales tax that will have to be lower than Washington’s 7.5%. Since Oregon’s cities and counties are heavily invested in higher property values, intentionally deflating the real estate market (more so than it is currently) is not going to happen. So it is a simple fact that many folks are going to choose to live in Vancouver where reasonable housing stock can be had. Not everyone wants to cram in a family of four into a Pearl District condo with no schools nearby, and not everyone works downtown for that matter either.

  7. Unfortunantely, the bridge needs to be replaced at some point. Unless it includes a connection to MAX, forget it. Also, I would want this to include a new bridge for freight and passenger trains in order to eliminate a 10 mph bottleneck across the Columbia River. That could trim a few minutes between Seattle-Portland.

  8. Erik: “…light rail (which is just as, if not more, sprawl-producing than highways)…”

    Seriously? Citation needed for this nonsense, please.

  9. There have been several better bridge designs proposed by community groups. The main contender is a two-bridge design which puts local Hayden Island traffic on a separate arterial bridge, eliminating the Hayden Island interchanges, and therefore removing the justification for all the highway widening (which is supposed to be to deal with on-off traffic) — cheaper and more effective. These designs were ignored because “we can’t get federal funding for a local arterial bridge”, a bogus reason for building a bad design. Proposals involving adjusting the railroad bridge to deal with the shipping issues were deemed “out of scope”, which is simply arbitrary rejection. Proposals for any scheme which didn’t involve extra general-purpose highway lanes were apparently rejected because the state DOTs refused, in backroom deals, to support any project which didn’t involve road expansion.

    The CRC project stinks to high heaven. It doesn’t address any of the issues it is supposedly there to address, and would just move the traffic bottleneck a couple of blocks towards downtown Portland at the cost of billions. It is only continuing to lumber onwards because it provides highway pork for the highway construction lobby, as far as I can tell. Everything else in it is an attempt to buy off people who would otherwise oppose it. The history reminds me of the Big Dig in Boston, though at least it’s unlikely to go over budget the way that did.

  10. I was in Portland recently, and everyone there thought that I-5 to the north should have been widened years ago, and that it was only the pointy bearded academic types pushing this anti highway expansion doctrine.

  11. This project is an issue in Portland’s contested mayoral race. The only candidate for mayor with the guts to tell it like it is and ask tough questions about the CRC is state Rep. Jefferson Smith. Check out what he has to say here:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


The Final Act for Portland’s $3 Billion CRC Highway Boondoggle?

The Columbia River Crossing proposed for suburban Portland is one of those highway boondoggle projects that’s so enormous it develops its own gravitational field, and that makes it very hard to stop. Despite its momentum — more than $100 million has already been spent on planning efforts — this $3 billion-plus, five-mile bridge-and-megahighway project has drawn fire […]

The Opportunity Costs of Highway Expansion

In case you haven’t heard, gas tax revenues aren’t what they used to be. In this kind of fiscally-constrained environment, every dollar spent on big, expensive transportation projects is a dollar that won’t be spent on smaller but smarter local transportation needs. Yet around the country, mega-highway plans conceived in a different era continue to march […]

Portland’s CRC Highway Project Is Dead — And Buried

We’ve said it before, and it gives us great pleasure to say it again: Portland’s Columbia River Crossing highway megaproject is dead. And this time it appears the project is finally, definitely deceased. Oregon lawmakers adjourned this week without authorizing funding for the $3 billion-plus bridge and highway widening project. Last year, it looked like […]

Portland’s Tilikum Crossing, a Bridge for the 21st Century

Tilikum Crossing, a new bridge across the Willamette River in Portland, is everything the hated Columbia River Crossing was not. While the CRC would have devoted billions to expanding car lanes and new highway interchanges, the Tilikum will serve only transit, biking, and walking. Matthew Nelson at Electric Urbanism says the fact that one bridge — the […]

A More Down-to-Earth Plan to Span the Columbia River

Did the Columbia River Crossing highway/bridge megaproject for suburban Portland ever have a chance of becoming reality? A lot of folks who watched the project very carefully from the beginning doubt it. Part of the problem was that the $3 billion project became so bloated, so outlandish, that it simply collapsed under its own weight. […]