The Mayoral Candidates and the Costly, Risky CRC
Evan Manvel
The three Portland mayoral candidates have staked out positions on the CRC highway mega-project.
Some argue this is a non-issue, as the city has signed off on the project, and the funds would come from the state governments, federal government, and tolls.
I disagree. The mayor has a big soapbox and lots of influence, the City of Portland has been using its federal lobbying chits to push for the CRC, city coffers might be tapped for cost overruns, the city is losing out through opportunity costs, and if the project falls apart from lack of funding (or lawsuits), the mayor will be critical in creating a Plan B. That’s why the media, the Portland Business Alliance, sustainability advocates and citizens continue to ask about the issue.
As written up in The Oregonian, the Portland Mercury, and the Portland Tribune the shorthand is: Brady is for (most of) the CRC highway mega-project. Hales doesn't think it's fundable. And Smith is against it. All agree there are issues surrounding transportation choices, freight movement, and traffic flow that should be addressed.
To be fair, the candidates have more to say. After all, the mega-project is the most expensive public works project in the region’s history – around $4,000 per household. And it’s meant to last for one hundred years, so several generations will be impacted by our decisions about it today.
As a member of the legislative committee that reviewed the pro-CRC bill last year, Rep. Jefferson Smith has learned more about the project than most. After his studying, Smith opposes the current plan, and thinks it’s unlikely project backers will find the funding to move forward. Smith knows first-hand how difficult it will be to convince the Oregon legislature to pass a gas tax increase, which will be needed to fund the project. At the VOIS event Smith characterized the CRC as “a mega-highway and set of interchanges for Vancouver commuters that if we build we can’t meet our climate goals.” That reminder – about meeting our responsibilities in the climate crisis – is a critical one. Smith wants to be ready to pick up the pieces if they fall apart, and is looking for what the Portland Tribune characterized as “a smaller, less expensive alternative.”
As Senior Vice-President at HDR Engineering, Charlie Hales has spent the last ten years of his life working to build major transportation investments, mainly light-rail and streetcars across the country. In his previous ten years as a Portland City Councilor, Hales pushed forward airport light rail, the Yellow Line and the Portland Streetcar. So Hales has twenty years of experience in analyzing and understanding big transportation projects. The Portland Tribune quotes Hales calling the CRC “a shelf study” -- a big project that won’t be built. Rather than taking a position on the project's worth, Hales simply argues it's not credible. He told the Portland Business Alliance: “I support a fundable, buildable project and I don’t believe the current proposal meets those needs.”
Eileen Brady is a CRC supporter, with an asterisk. In response to the Portland Business Alliance’s question, “Do you support the CRC project as proposed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement and will you advocate for the state and federal funding for its construction?” Brady answers: “Yes.” She then refers to her website statement, where she hedges her bets by saying there are parts of the project we might “skinny down.” Ironically, the “fresh start”-themed Brady argues we should accept the mega-highway mess central to the project’s EIS, rather than starting immediately to create an affordable, targeted Plan B.
Brady repeats many of the discredited claims about the project (safety, "thousands" of jobs), acknowledges some of the problems, ponders some options, and adds a poor argument – that because we’ve spent $140 million, it’s wasteful to not spend another $2,000 to $3,400+ million. It’s a disappointing misunderstanding of sunk costs, and a surprising error for a business owner.
Economics 101 teaches students why it makes no sense for sunk costs to affect decisions. It might best be explained through a joke:
Two men are sitting in a multi-seat latrine. The first sees the second finish his business and stand up, only to have a quarter fall out of his pocket into the hole. The first watches, stunned, as the second pulls a $10 bill out of his wallet and throws it after the quarter. “Why’d you do that?” the first asks. The second replies, “Well, I’m sure as hell not going down there for just a quarter.”
Many thanks to Jefferson Smith, for being courageous enough to stand up for our responsibilities in the climate crisis, and for calling the project what it mainly is - a mega-highway and set of interchanges. I'm glad Charlie Hales is direct about how the financing doesn't add up, and Eileen Brady is aware of some of the problems with the project. There's no need to keep throwing $10 bills - or hundreds of millions of dollars - down this hole.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
9:20 a.m.
Oct 20, '11
And, yes, Max Brumm is also against the CRC. Don't know where the other Max is on it.
10:29 a.m.
Oct 20, '11
Glad to hear that Max Brumm finally figured out what the CRC is.
10:29 a.m.
Oct 20, '11
Full disclosure: My firm built Eileen Brady's website. I speak only for myself.
1:09 p.m.
Oct 20, '11
Evan, any argument for forcing Portland to restart the EIS process is absurd. We know for a fact the private sector does not care for infrastructure and if anything, the private sector lives to exploit it. Since we have the established procedure to procure bridge funding for Portland and at the Federal level, we ought to follow them. Moreover, anyone who wants to restart the EIS process simply externalizes all the environmental damage which would otherwise be mitigated if the CRC mega project proceeds in accord with the prescribed EIS process. Cost externalization is a capital market failure and although its popular with some on Wall Street, its increasingly less so. I can't be in favor of externalizing costs because those would get passed on to you, me and everybody like a tax only far worse. Eileen's position on CRC and EIS makes the most sense to me.
10:26 a.m.
Oct 20, '11
Disclaimer: in the past I've been paid to do some work on the CRC highway mega-project by the rockin' Coalition for a Livable Future.
10:38 a.m.
Oct 20, '11
Evan,
I have a question for you -
Would you agree that all three candidates for Mayor, and most - if not all - of the "alternative plans" that have been publicly recognized agree that the current bridge needs upgrades to meet modern seismic safety standards?
10:42 a.m.
Oct 20, '11
Dislcaimer: My firm is employed by the Eileen Brady campaign.
10:55 a.m.
Oct 20, '11
Thanks for the question, Jon.
There is exactly one bridge in the region that meets modern seismic standards - the new Sauvie Island bridge.
And yes, people acknowledge that it'd be nice to meet current seismic standards for all our infrastructure.
That said, those who've studied the bridges (though ODOT's own reports) know the Marquam is in worse shape than the I-5 bridges (and Highway 101 on the coast has the biggest problems). So if we're prioritizing seismic upgrades, there are other priorities.
ODOT's bridge condition report notes there are 29 structurally deficient bridges on interstates in Oregon (153 overall). The I-5 bridges over the Columbia aren't among of them. The Marquam Bridge - I-5 through the middle of Portland - is structurally deficient.
If we're desperate to ensure the current Columbia crossing is up to current seismic standards, we could stabilize it for a small fraction of the cost of building a new bridge.
And this week, the Oregon Transportation Commission heard from ODOT staff that we're not keeping up with existing maintenance, that funds are lower than projected due to gas tax revenue shortfalls.
Finally, the question indicates a challenge with the CRC debate - questions framed as a singular "need" rather than "given our limited resources, and many priorities, where do we get the biggest bang for our buck." There are opportunity costs - answering one "need" may mean many others go unmet.
11:22 a.m.
Oct 20, '11
Okay, long answer way of saying, "yes, everyone agrees the current I-5 bridge needs seismic upgrades."
Two weeks ago I met with one of the leaders of the Oregon Section of Civil Engineers and he said "even a medium seismic event could bring the current I-5 bridge down."
Given the agreement on that reality it seems we want that work done as quickly as possible.
11:31 a.m.
Oct 20, '11
You mean work done on the Marquam, right?
As the Willamette Week explained on the seismic argument:
"As any parent knows, when logic fails, try fear."
"Earthquakes are a risk in Portland. But if Oregon gets hit with a massive quake (experts say “the big one” could be a magnitude 9.0), many bridges will become scrap metal."
"The Marquam is rated a lot lower for its ability to withstand a big quake, despite being built in 1966. No one seems in a big rush to claim that bridge is unsafe or to replace it."
4:18 p.m.
Oct 20, '11
Evan,
I didn't ask which bridge is the most unsafe. That would actually be the Sellwood Bridge.
I asked if you agreed that there is universal agreement that the current I-5 bridge does NOT meet modern seismic safety standards.
I've sat through several alternative plan presentations and all of them start with doing seismic upgrades on the current I-5 bridge.
Are you suggesting that other candidates are opposed to seismic upgrades on the current I-5 bridge?
8:30 p.m.
Oct 20, '11
Lets say that some of my windows in my house are broken and they are all dirty. You suggest I should hire a window washer and you call one and he is standing on my doorstep with a quote ready to start. I look at his quote for $4000 to clean one window and say no. That doesn't mean that I think that that window is clean, (nobody is arguing that*) that means I think that that is way too expensive, and in any case I should be more worried about other things, like the windows that are broken.
*But feel free to ask a 4th time.
3:11 p.m.
Oct 21, '11
Jon,
None of the plans include seismic upgrades on the current I-5 bridges. They all call for tearing down the current bridges, which costs nearly as much as a seismic upgrade.
By the way, if they wanted to fix the seismic issues quickly, bundling the bridge project with over $2 billion in miles of freeway interchanges and light rail construction a terrible way to go about it.
3:32 p.m.
Oct 21, '11
Getting the right answers starts with asking the right questions.
Ask too narrow of a question, and you'll get a useless answer.
2:40 p.m.
Oct 20, '11
Jon, in the interest of disclosure, you're currently working for Eileen Brady, correct?
2:43 p.m.
Oct 20, '11
Jon says so three comments up :)
10:45 a.m.
Oct 20, '11
Eileen Brady is the only candidate willing to be honest about the CRC. I appreciate honesty. The other candidates want to have it both ways.
2:44 p.m.
Oct 20, '11
What exactly has Smith said that you find dishonest? I say he's been more candid (and talked more) about it than just about anyone in town.
11:06 a.m.
Oct 20, '11
I think there's a critical element that's been missed in this item.
Evan, I think you'd agree that it's critical that we begin to reduce the number of vehicle-miles traveled on that road - particularly during period of peak use. Congestion is especially problematic, since idling cars just produce exhaust in place.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Eileen Brady is the only candidate who is willing to explore tolling on the I-5 bridge. From her website:
This discussion is particularly timely, as there's a great Atlantic Monthly article just out that suggests that congestion pricing is the "only hope for reducing traffic":
11:57 a.m.
Oct 20, '11
As a new campaign staffer here at Charlie's office, I can tell you that you aren't correct.
As Charlie just said to me, "Of course I'm willing to consider tolling. I'm willing to consider anything that will make a fundable, buildable project move forward. If that means tolls - heck, if that means bake sales - I'm willing to consider it."
2:09 p.m.
Oct 20, '11
How about a lemonade stand?
2:10 p.m.
Oct 20, '11
In fact, to help fund the new bridge, we can sell lemonade to people stuck in traffic on the current bridge.
4:12 p.m.
Oct 20, '11
can we sell some lemonaide for the sellwood as well?
12:58 a.m.
Oct 21, '11
Glad to hear it. Thank you.
11:23 a.m.
Oct 20, '11
Since I first heard about it, the "Common Sense Alternative" has made the most sense to me, as a solving the problem (especially freight) better at lower risk and lower cost.
http://chatterbox.typepad.com/portlandarchitecture/2011/04/seeking-common-sense-crc-alternatives-after-governors-take-the-low-road.html
11:25 a.m.
Oct 20, '11
(let me get this out of the way: i work for Jon Isaacs' firm on the Brady campaign. what follows is my own opinion.)
first, your representation of Eileen's VOIS statement is misleading: "Yes". she said a lot more than that, but you didn't seem to think that was worth noting. two important things to recognize in her statement. 1, her support of this CRC is contingent on it passing environmental muster. you & i agree that is not going to be easy; i suspect Eileen understands this as well. 2nd, she is calling for a "financially realistic option" and the CRC is anything but.
at which point, her website statement is important. it's more than the single paragraph the VOIS format allows. much of what she states on her website is what many other CRC opponents have said (granted, not those who are saying "No way in hell, no bridge!"). as Mayor, Eileen's job will be to work to help solve the real problem: the horrible way we move bodies around the region.
note: when she says we need a new bridge, she does not say it's to move cars. it's for safety, it's to move freight and it's to get workers on the job (something we are cheering the President for getting on the stump about). she also calls for a much smaller project, for getting light rail into Vancouver, for more active transportation, and -- critical to any discussion of the CRC but too often missing from this discussion -- some way to reduce the congestion around the Rose Quarter. by including that in the discussion of the CRC, she endorses the efforts of numerous CRC opponents on this front. including one Evan Manvel.
in short, to say Eileen Brady supports the CRC is misleading to the point of being untrue. a more honest critique would focus on how carefully she hedges her bets on this issue. which, frankly, she has little option on. the CRC process has been a mess. the next mayor is inheriting a nasty can of worms. (Jefferson, for example, sets himself up as an opponent of labor on this, and he absolutely is no such thing. but that's what a clusterfrack the CRC has become.) the one thing Eileen does not hedge is her commitment to getting this done. her entire campaign is based on what is best for the entire city; i'm guessing that in the coming few years, as she goes thru this campaign and then takes office, her position on the CRC is going to evolve quite a bit. the issue makes that inevitable.
11:45 a.m.
Oct 20, '11
I tried to balance all of Brady's statements, and quote her using her own words, and link to her statement so people could read it for themselves. I'm sorry it seems misleading.
The PBA questionnaire asked if she supports the CRC as in the FEIS, and she said yes. If you're arguing her actual answer is no, than argue that with her campaign.
Newspaper reporters have summarized her stance in less nuanced ways than I did.
As far as making her support of the project "contingent on passing environmental muster" - that's not in her website statement, but I'm glad to hear it. If she wants to add that in, I'm thrilled.
And yes, I'm glad she wants to look at tolling. That's been part of the project plan all along, and is something that gets broad support among many of the opponents of the CRC.
11:41 a.m.
Oct 20, '11
This article doesn't fully explain Charlie Hales' position, which he has outlined in detail. Charlie has not opposed the CRC, he has said that the current plan is not well thought out from a funding perspective. He has said a CRC is needed and he will support one that is fundable, reasonable and appropriate. His 20 years of infrastructure experience in public and private sectors will help assure Portland that we get a bridge, in the end, that is what we need...no more and no less.
11:46 a.m.
Oct 20, '11
I agree with Hales that the CRC is not fundable at this point. The public has spent an enormous amount of money to determine what we already knew 15 years ago. And without support from Vancouver et al for light rail, it's fruitless. We should have been shovel ready for the stimulus money, but the lack of an ability to agree and lack of real leadership has created yet another missed opportunity.
11:55 a.m.
Oct 20, '11
Having had the conversation with Eileen about this project I appreciate that she is looking at the issue from multiple angles and is being honest about how we need to approach it. Being against the CRC is fine but when it comes to handling an issue like this I want a mayor who will get practical - Eileen is the only candidate I have seen display this quality.
"We need pragmatic regional solutions for a purpose." John W. Gardner
12:55 p.m.
Oct 20, '11
I appreciate the way Jefferson Smith is looking at this issue. I certainly share the concerns he has lifted up about the project.
2:05 p.m.
Oct 20, '11
Having paid careful attention to all three candidates on this issue -- both what they say in public and what they say in things like the PBA questionnaire, it's clear to me that Jefferson Smith is the candidate I'd trust to have the judgment to make decisions as Mayor when the current CRC debacle comes to a halt and leaders need to figure out what's next.
2:12 p.m.
Oct 20, '11
Unfortunately, the continued overblown rhetoric around the CRC has prevented a sane discussion of its merits and faults. Posts like this only contribute to the toxic environment of the CRC discussion. That's too bad.
I like that originally opponents called it the "12 lane megabridge." When that was debunked (actually six through-lanes, same as current bridge), the framing became "megaproject."
I'm tired of the BS on both sides of this debate.
3:01 p.m.
Oct 20, '11
I don't think it was "debunked." The plans changed so it is a 10 lane megabridge (with enough width for 12 lanes, in theory).
Of course, at its widest, there still are 17 lanes in the cross-section at Hayden Island, which is some 450 feet wide.
I don't call it a 17-lane project. Will you drop the "through lane" vs. "non-through lane" characterization that pretends the bridge won't have 67% more lanes?
As far as the language shift - I, for one, realized focusing on the bridge (or the proponents calling the project the Columbia River Crossing) is inaccurate, and misleads the public to understand it as a bridge project, when most of the cost is the highway expansion and huge interchanges in the five-mile long project.
4:19 p.m.
Oct 20, '11
It's worth examining the number of lanes proposed by the CRC, and the difference between what the project describes as "through lanes" and "auxiliary lanes."
Through lanes are the ones that go all the way through from one end of the project area to the other, and there are only 6 lanes that meet that definition.
Auxiliary lanes are lanes that exit or enter somewhere within the project area. This might make it sound like auxiliary lanes are trifling little on- and off-ramps. But there are least two of these auxiliary lanes that go almost the entire length of the project, only to stop just within the borders of the project area. So if you look at a detailed map showing the lanes, you'll see 8 lanes going effectively the entire 4.5 mile length of the CRC. But two of those lanes stop just shy of the project area borders.
Then there's the great many other lanes which converge and diverge, and then expand to 10 lanes over the Columbia, and those could, as Evan explains, be further restriped to 12 lanes in the future. That's a big expansion of the current 6 lane bridge.
And in the crazy looping interchange over Hayden the lane count explodes to 17, and in the middle of Vancouver it becomes 18.
In trying to get my head around all these lanes for an animation I did on the CRC (http://vimeo.com/20762135), I produced this graphic:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6226/6264531943_806060c552_z.jpg
But that hardly does the CRC justice.
Worth noting that if you go looking for CRC maps, the latest official aerial map I found seems to have done away with showing lane markings. But you can find older maps around that show the lanes in detail.
8:25 a.m.
Oct 21, '11
Love that lanes graphic you did, Spencer - and appreciate all the work you're doing to make this enormously complex project understandable.
2:30 p.m.
Oct 20, '11
As someone who has worked on climate issues since college, I am pleased to have at least one candidate running for mayor who takes our need to address the climate crisis seriously. How we move forward on the CRC will have long-term ramifications on our ability to reasonably and responsibly tackle our region's climate goals. Jefferson Smith is doing what is right instead of doing what is politically expedient in an attempt to gain the support of the building trades and business. I applaud him for standing up for our future.
3:14 p.m.
Oct 20, '11
It's not really accurate to call the CRC a bridge when only half a mile of its 4.5 mile length is bridge. The other four miles consist of freeway lanes, on-ramps, and off-ramps, all at a cost of something like $800 million per mile.
Naturally CRC backers want us to focus on the bridge part because it's easier to get support for bridge-building than it is for mega-freeway-building; it's just good marketing. But to fall into the trap of calling the CRC a bridge is to miss the mark.
Jefferson Smith seems to be the one candidate who doesn't fall into that trap.
Of course it's worth talking about the bridge; it is old and it does need work. But there are I-5 bridges in worse shape, and lots of other things that in a big earthquake will fall down before the Interstate Bridge does. Like schools for instance. How about we prioritize these investments appropriately? The ability to set priorities when it comes to public investment would be a nice quality to see in a potential mayor.
Of course congestion is a problem around the crossing. But look: you've got a big tangle of urban freeway - on-ramps, off-ramps, several highways trying to jam into this one funnel - to the north and south of the bridge. And then there's the pinnacle of (to put it politely) poor planning, a big-box shopping center in the middle of this funnel. It's on an island with only one way on or off of it, and that one way is a freeway interchange.
The bridge in the middle of all this - old though it may be - has six perfectly straight lanes of uninterrupted pavement. It's the one stretch where there are no cars entering or exiting. It seems unlikely that this stretch in the midst of all that other freeway chaos and turbulence is the source of the congestion. (Of course the bridge has a lift, but lifts are prohibited during the rush hours when the congestion occurs.)
It's more likely the interchanges are the problem, which is why interchanges are the proposed solution. And expensive interchanges are proposed in the hope the feds will pay for them. (Which unfortunately puts us on the hook for massive matching contributions.)
Personally, I think a real solution to the problem of freeway congestion any city starts with the acknowledgement that highway infrastructure designed for interstate travel - for going vast distances between sparsely placed destinations - just doesn't make sense in a destination-rich urban environment. I'd be curious to hear a candidate's take on that idea.
Long story short though: the candidate best able to perceive the problems that led to the CRC - and the problems the CRC will in turn create - is best qualified to fully grasp all sorts of other public policy. In this race that candidate appears to be Jefferson Smith.
3:47 p.m.
Oct 20, '11
Oops, my math is slightly off there. While I think it's accurate to say the whole CRC project is $800 million per mile ($3.6 billion / 4.5 miles), the portion of the CRC that is strictly freeway is $1,562,000,000. So that, divided by the 4 miles of the CRC that is freeway, results in CRC freeway construction costing only (only!) $390 million per mile.
3:53 p.m.
Oct 20, '11
The city of Portland budget is $2B/year, or $8B/mayor term. In that perspective, is the CRC a $3.2B problem? True, the money doesn't come from the city of Portland budget directly, it comes from the citizens, but still, is Eileen really saying that if we gave her that money to spend as mayor, that she'd spend it on the CRC? That she wouldn't spend it on making sure our fire department didn't have to close stations, that our schools didn't fall down in an earthquake, that all the other bridges, (except Sauvie Island) wouldn't fall down, that the electrical system wouldn't fail, that our main trauma hospital didn't slide down the hill/become unreachable when the roads slid, etc, etc?
If I had $10B to spend on preparing this city for an earthquake, I'd allocate none of it towards the CRC, maybe a couple million for study, (although the current group of studiers needs some work.) The National Guard already has a bunch of boats so that we can get critical supplies across the Columbia [and Willamette!] rivers, one of the things that they are worried about in an earthquake is that the dams could fail, which would make Hayden Island disappear, (it is just a sandbar.) Even if the bridge was still standing after that, all the ramps would be in the wrong place so you couldn't reach it.
And of course, is preparing for the big one the best thing we could do in our city? There is a 50% chance we'll have a large earthquake in the next 100 years, where as there is a 95+% chance that climate change and peak oil will happen in that time period. More important than that, we could worry about keeping people fed, off drugs, employed so they don't commit crimes or riot in the streets, (okay, peacefully protesting in the park in front of city hall,) etc...
If I had $50B to spend on all our priorities the CRC still wouldn't make the list. $50B is the state budget, and Jefferson Smith was in the state legislature when they didn't fund the thing, so...
7:25 p.m.
Oct 20, '11
Evan--I would like to comment on a couple of points. First your response to Eileen Brady's acknowledgment of the $140m in sunk costs. By taking her comment out of context, you actually change her argument. In such a nuanced and complex issue, context is absolutely critical.
The prior sentence says: But doing that would set us back years because we would have to start the whole federal permitting process over again from scratch. In other words, while we have invested $140m in the CRC project to date, there are significant opportunity costs to starting the process over again.
The second comment I want to make is about the value of action over words. While you laud Jefferson Smith's willingness to stand up for the climate crisis, you fail to mention that he is not one of the 20 legislators that have signed a letter to the members of the House Committee on Transportation and Economic Development Committeelast March, asking for information on many aspects of the project, including projected interest costs, traffic projections used by project staff, tolling estimates and potential cost overruns. As the one member of the mayoral race who is actually in a position to do something about the CRC, I wonder why he chose not to sign the letter? Is it because his mind is made up? If so, that is of great concern to me. I think a responsible legislator (and mayor) needs to keep his/her mind open to all the factual arguments, regardless of whether those facts might make one retract or revise previous statements.
11:31 p.m.
Oct 20, '11
Eva - I wondered too about Jefferson not signing onto the letter, so I looked into it more. Jefferson is actually on that House Committee, so it would be strange for him to sign onto a letter asking himself for more information. It has been my impression that Jefferson is and has been one of the most outspoken legislators on the CRC.
3:44 p.m.
Oct 21, '11
Evan, I must admit you have swayed me on the importance of the Portland Mayor's race on the CRC issue. It would be awesome if the mayoral election was seen as a referendum on the CRC.
That said, I don't believe they are the true power brokers in this battle and I'm concerned we in the advocate/activist community don't have a workable plan to confront the folks really turning the key here: the governors, the state legislatures and the state DOT's.