Jefferson Smith only mayoral candidate to question Columbia Crossing boondoggle

Jefferson Smith (image courtesy Street Roots)

BY BRIAN LIBBY

Earlier this month, the three major candidates for mayor - Eileen Brady, Charlie Hales and Jefferson Smith - gathered for the race's first debate. Although the trio showed little disagreement on issues like jobs and the economy, the difference came in the Columbia River Crossing, the proposed Interstate 5 bridge.

Despite this being a project that would cost billions, has been vehemently criticized for its design (think flat slabs of concrete), is not supported by a majority of the community and is not even sure to reduce traffic congestion, two of three candidates expressed support for its going forward.

As reported by Beth Slovic in The Oregonian, both Brady and Hales called for immediate action on the bridge, perhaps seeking support from trade unions eager to have the bridge's construction jobs. "We need to build that bridge, you guys," Brady told the crowd of 150. Hales even declared that he would start construction in his first year in office.

Eileen Brady (image courtesy EileenBrady.com)

Only Jefferson Smith, the state legislator representing east Portland, showed a sane degree of skepticism about this poster-child for pork and the highway-industrial complex. "I know I'm supposed to just say build baby, build," Smith told the debate audience. "We need a Plan B."

Perhaps it's fitting, then, that Smith shares his name with the James Stewart character in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, the classic movie about a principled young legislator fighting corruption.

New electoral candidates are usually full of policy ideas, as evidenced by the trio's proposals for other aspects of city government. Hales, for example, suggested cutting mayor's office staff and creating a capital fund for sidewalk construction. Brady vowed to accelerate the permitting process and to bulldoze the remaining natural portions of Hayden Island for industrial purposes.

But not one of the three candidates suggested or even addressed the natural solution for the Columbia Crossing: building a local bridge to Vancouver instead, which would drastically reduce I-5 traffic by creating non-freeway alternative and also cost about half. Not one of the candidates admitted there's another elephant in the room: the fact that the Rose Quarter is the true bottleneck of this stretch of Interstate, not the Interstate Bridge over the Columbia. It's the Rose Quarter where the freeway shrinks down to two lanes in each direction precisely as it interchanges with I-84 (multi-freeway intersections always make for the worst congestion), not on the existing Interstate Bridge with twice as many lanes as as at the Rose Quarter. But perhaps for Brady and Hales, the "Plan B" that Smith spoke of us too far of a diversion from their talking points and sound bytes. It's a messy problem requiring a thoughtful solution, something that doesn't play well to what Shakespeare called "the rabble in the pit".

Charlie Hales (image courtesy Willamette Week)

Let's ask the trio of Hales, Smith and Brady what they'd do if the Marquam Bridge carrying Interstate 5 travelers were the only bridge over the Willamette River. Would they tear down the Marquam and build a replacement Marquam, or would they build a local bridge like the Hawthorne or the Morrison? On this question, it's probable that these candidates as well as other Columbia Crossing supporters would argue that it's all about federal funding, which would be possible for the CC but not for a local bridge. But in this time of Great Recession, the federal funds are far from guaranteed. Hales' promise to build in Year One of his administration, for example, is a somewhat empty one: in this political climate, and in this budget-cutting economy, a major federal commitment of funds is unlikely, especially if Das Republicans take the White House and/or Congress in 2012.

One can see Brady following the wishes of construction and trade unionists who see the Columbia Crossing as a way to go from unemployment to a job. But Hales' enthusiastic commitment to the bridge is particularly disappointing. While a member of Portland's City Council in the 1990s and early 2000s, Hales spearheaded construction of the streetcar system. After leaving office, he helped several other cities build streetcars as well. He has an established record as a leader when it comes to transportation. But if Hales is an unequivocal supporter of a woefully designed, oversized, automobile-oriented bridge that doesn't even solve the problem it heavy-handedly is being built for, it casts his past record in a different light. Supporting the streetcar seemed to indicate that Hales was a proponent of progressive, smart mass-transit-oriented development. But when you take away all but the transit part, and Hales is still cheerleading, it makes one wonder if he's quite as discriminating about what transit projects to support as it seemed when he was in City Council.

This is not necessarily an endorsement for Jefferson Smith as mayor. Over the course of the campaign in the next five and a half months, he and the other two major candidates will articulate their visions on a number of policy fronts. If Brady and Hales have disappointed and induced cringes in their embrace of the Columbia Crossing like football players running towards the wrong end zone, it's still possible they will be out in front on other issues facing the city.

In the years ahead, leadership will be needed to jump-start the building industry, to maintain Portland's role as a sustainability capitol, to bring jobs, and to prudently oversee crises like Occupy Portland or weather emergencies. And any of the candidates may be qualified in that regard. Although Smith is the Harvard graduate, Brady (a grad of Evergreen State, a top regional school) has an impressive record building New Seasons and a family history of public service (her mother was a city councilor in Illinois) and Hales (University of Virginia, also tops academically) has an impressive record as a neighborhood leader even before he became a Portland city councilor.

Still, the Columbia Crossing is not only a huge issue concerning the Portland metro area, but also a kind of litmus test. There's no question that action needs to be taken to address the bottleneck plaguing I-5 day after day from the Rose Quarter to the Columbia. It's just that taking the right action matters here - not just any action.

 

Advertisement

Comments

[Kari Chisholm]

Hey Brian --

I suggest that you actually read Eileen Brady's detailed position on the CRC, rather than relying on 30-second responses in the midst of a debate.

For example, she addresses both the idea of a local bridge and the Rose Quarter bottleneck:

We have an opportunity to skinny down this bloated project, value engineer it so that the costs come down – probably way down – and then start building the critical pieces that we can actually afford. There are alternatives that have been suggested that need to be reviewed as options for reducing the costs, and in some cases improving the outcomes of the project. For example, perhaps we could build a new bridge, extend our regional light rail system to Vancouver - including a new bike/pedestrian crossing - and add a safe Marine Drive interchange while eliminating or scaling back most of the rest. For environmental air quality management, we obviously have to take a very serious look at congestion tolling to reduce south bound I-5 traffic at peak hours near the Rose Quarter.

The key question is not whether there needs to be a new plan - "skinnied down" or "plan b" or whatever you want to call it. The key question is whether we're going to use the current process to scale it down and move forward promptly; or whether we're going to blow the whole thing up, start over, take another decade, and millions more in planning and environmental reviews.

Personally, I continue to believe that there's no money for this project anywhere. But to the extent that we're talking about how to spend money on a bridge, Brady's approach is the one that will require the least process going forward and produce the best possible bridge.

(Full disclosure: My firm built Eileen Brady's campaign website. I speak only for myself.)

[Evan Manvel]

Kari's point is interesting - Brady says very different things to different audiences.

Brady was extremely clear when talking to unions - "I am very supportive of the Columbia River Crossing project.... Let’s get on with it. I’m tired of these projects that are being stalled at this city." There wasn't any mention of scaling back or building only part of the project.

What conclusions you draw from that is up to you.

As far as the taking another decade, etc. - that's a claim (created by the CRC mega-highway lobbyists) that doesn't really hold up under scrutiny. Taking another direction doesn't have to take a decade. Either direction will require additional reviews, which in the grand scheme of a $4,000+ million project that will last over one hundred years seem smart.

If there's really no money, we need to be forthright about that and stop spending tens of millions of dollars designing a project that can't get built. That's the sort of leadership I want.

[Kari Chisholm]

I don't think there's anything dissonant between what she said at the debate and what she wrote in a lengthy position statement, other than that 30-second quips are necessarily shorter and thus abbreviated.

It's also worth noting that the folks in the room at that debate were all highly-involved highly-educated political leaders who could be reasonably assumed to have read all the candidate's positions before the debate.

In her in-depth statement, Brady is clear -- we must skinny down the project and then get to building it. Her concluding paragraph:

There’s a saying in situations like this that I like: We can’t allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. And “the good” here is to admit that the current process is a mess, but that with the right leadership we can build a CRC that is affordable, creates jobs, ensures safety and allows us to scale in goals like a regional light rail, a bike/pedestrian crossing, tolls and congestion management. As Mayor, I can provide that kind of leadership. And after 13 years of stops and starts, it’s time to get this thing moving.

Shrink it down, make it affordable, focus on alternative modes, and get building.

Here's a question worth asking: Jefferson Smith calls for a "Plan B". What is his Plan B? It's possible that I've missed it, but I don't think we've heard even the outlines of what that Plan B would look like.

[T.A Barnhart]

One can see Brady following the wishes of construction and trade unionists who see the Columbia Crossing as a way to go from unemployment to a job.

well, one could see Smith following the wishes of the greens who see the Columbia Crossing as a way to waste billions & get this project done wrong. if you're going to impugn people's characters, why not be even-handed about it?

(disclosure: i work as a freelancer for the Brady campaign.)

[Evan Manvel]

There's really nothing about the format that prohibited her from being clear.

Brady could have said supports X and Y, and thinks we don't have the money to do the whole thing. That's ten seconds, and she's got twenty more.

Instead of being clear, she used sweeping statements of unqualified support, using her time to repeat seismic and safety talking points and talk about getting on with it.

In my book, that's simply misleading, and it wasn't caused by the format.