Astonished. Flabbergasted.

Those were the first two words that came to mind in reading Sunday’s Oregonian article detailing how the traffic analysis for the proposed new “Columbia River Crossing” I-5 Bridge ignored the growth easier highway access to Clark County would induce. As one expert puts it, that’s “flat out wrong.”

The Oregonian has learned that traffic forecasters involved in planning a new bridge, projected to cost $4.2 billion, were told to assume a new 12-lane bridge would not trigger any more growth than if the current bridge were simply left in place. Yet a 12-lane bridge would handle 40 percent more cars during afternoon rush hour, according to the forecasters' calculations.

"In that scenario, it is likely that the congestion and pollution will be higher than bridge planners have forecast. And the higher-capacity bridge could move the I-5 bottleneck southward, closer to central Portland, where the freeway is chronically congested."

Given what we now know, all the analysis supposedly showing a new $4.2 billion bridge with 12 lanes would reduce congestion are poppycock. As the saying goes, garbage in, garbage out. If you make ridiculous assumptions, then your analysis is ridiculous.

And as assumptions goes, assuming that building all the new lanes won’t affect how much growth in jobs and housing occurs in Clark County is very ridiculous.

We already knew the analysis was flawed because it was based on traffic patterns from gas at less than $3/gallon, yet commuting patterns are already changing, questioning the need for such a large bridge.

And we knew it was flawed because it failed to take into account the necessity of building a project that doesn’t bust the region’s goals for reducing global warming pollution.

And it was flawed because it analyzes congestion in just one Portland bottleneck, not taking into account that the huge price tag means other urgent transportation needs would be unfunded.

It’s time to look at more reasonable alternatives that ask what type of transportation and land use investments should the region make in the world of $4/gas and global warming. How would a Columbia River Crossing fit in? The Coalition for a Livable Future has some ideas.

Comments

[Chuck Johnson]

Well said, Jonathon. I am glad that you are outraged. This must be stopped. I am shocked at how sheep-like our elected officials have mostly been on this one. This is definitely a job for OLCV and illustrates the need for vigilance from environmental groups, even with elected officials who should know better.

[Gerald Fox]

Apparently this study began some 8 years ago, when things were very different. Now the conclusions are completely out of touch with reality. If there really is $4.2 billion to spend on transportation projects, is a 12 lane bridge the highest regional priority ? Compared to light rail, or fixing the rail line to Seattle or Eugene? One cost effective fix they never looked at would be extending light rail to Vancouver, and putting 2 lanes for local traffic, plus bike facilities, on the LRT bridge. This would take some local trips off the I-5 bridge, and relieve congestion. Other tools would be ramp metering and tolls on the freeway. In any case, long distance trucking and car traffic is declining as a result of gas prices. Later on it will likely be gas rationing.

This dumb project must be stopped.