Mayor Adams' statement on CRC Independent Review Panel recommendations
Fri, July 30, 2010 3:04pm
Today, the Governors of Oregon and Washington released the report on the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) project prepared by an independent panel of experts convened to review the project.
When the panel was convened earlier this year, I feared it would be a whitewash. It is not. The report of the Independent Review Panel (IRP) on the Columbia River Crossing Project is a thoughtful analysis.
As a member of the Project Sponsors Council, which provides oversight for the CRC, I have given serious consideration to the report and its recommendations. What follows is a summary of several of the report's "findings," along with my comments in italics.
Finding: "The apparent consensus reached in 2008 actually reflected a very low level of agreement between the parties..."
Moving forward, the Project Sponsors Council must hire an overall CRC project manager. This project manager must be vested with the full authority and responsibility for all aspects of the CRC project. The CRC project manager must be supervised directly the Project Sponsors Council.
Finding: "Since [adoption]...the LPA (Locally Preferred Alternative decision) has been modified considerably. Most significant is the change in structure type for the main bridges across the Columbia River...Current cost estimates are for a previous bridge type and may not reflect the actual cost..."
This issue has not been discussed adequately at the Project Sponsors Council. It needs to be considered carefully and publicly by the local elected officials who are responsible for signing off on the project.
Finding: "Clearance issues linked to the river traffic and aviation associated with Pearson Field and Portland International Airport present constraints that make reasonable bridge solutions difficult."
The tight envelope constraining the CRC bridge design, like several other complex design-related issues, need to be resolved in a way that ensures we are making the best decisions possible about the way the new bridge looks and operates. These issues will need to be resolved by an ongoing conversation at the Project Sponsors Council.
Finding: "Consensus on a specific plan regarding land use, commercial development, and community concerns on Hayden Island must be in place before the right transportation solution can be developed."
I agree. We have made great progress in recent weeks as local agency staff, CRC staff and residents have tackled tough issues. More work remains to be done, and we need to ensure a mechanism is in place to support that work and bring it back to the Project Sponsors Council.
Finding: "Tolling is seen by the IRP as essential to the viability of the suggested plan. However, many tolling issues remain including overall philosophy, how and when tolls are imposed, and whether their purpose is project finance, travel demand management or some of both."
I agree.
Finding: "No provision was presented to the IRP about project phasing. The IRP finds this to be unrealistic given the final cost of the CRC..."
I agree. This issue has not been discussed at Project Sponsors Council.
Finding: "The risk of not seeing far enough into the future on this project is a concern; the new CRC bridges will last for 100 years or more... In the context of the current 10 lane versus 12 lane discussion, the IRP believes the greatest risk in the decision-making process is not over-sizing the bridges but not building enough capacity for the next 100 years."
I disagree. Building only one mode of the crossing based on 100-year horizon is unwise. If we build to the highest possible automobile demand over the 100-year horizon; then we must build now for the highest possible (and desired) demand in the next 100 years for lightrail, bicycle and pedestrian use, and interstate high-speed rail. Otherwise we are planning only for – and incenting – only automobile-related growth and change on both sides of the Columbia River. We have asked URS, an independent consulting firm, for a feasibility analysis of opening the bridge at 8 lanes (based on actual demand) but building the bridge so it can be expanded to 10 lanes in later years as needed.
Finding: "CRC governance and management has been difficult to date due to the bi-state nature of the project and the diverse ownership and sponsorship relationships...decision-making appears to be cumbersome due to management, in effect, "by committee." ....A number of ideas have emerged around the concept of a bi-state commission, interstate compact, a bridge authority or mobility council as the model that should be implemented to address this critical need..."
I agree with the problem statement. However, for the duration of the project's planning, as well as during construction, a single CRC project manager needs to be hired and managed by the Project Sponsors Council. This independent third-party manager will work with all parties to resolve the complex design and funding questions still outstanding, and will oversee construction.
Over the long term, a coherent bi-state structure must be put in place to ensure we get the maximum value out of the huge investment our region is making in the project. Before the new CRC opens, local governments, states and Congress must approve the structure and bylaws for a bi-state bridge and transportation compact. The compact's boundaries must include I-205 and the railroad bridge.
Finding: "Performance measurement is an important strategy... This is an important long-term strategy that deserves attention from all parties..."
I agree!
As I have suggested in my responses above, I would add two key recommendations to the IPR's list. I believe it is critical, if the CRC project is to move forward, that the Project Sponsor Council's process continue through design and construction of the project. I will make this recommendation to next Project Sponsor Council meeting on August 9, 2010, where I will also recommend that before the new project opens, a bi-state Columbia River Crossing District be created to manage it for the greatest long-term value to the region, the state, and the entire I-5 corridor.
At the August Project Sponsor Council meeting, I will also make other recommendations for moving the project forward. In the meantime, I commend and sincerely appreciate the work of the CRC Independent Review Panel.
Sam Adams
Mayor, City of Portland
Comments
Please review our Code of Conduct rules before posting a comment to this site. Report Abuse, please include specific topic and comment for the fastest response/resolution.
Post a Comment (Sign-In Required)
