Using logic to fight the Sprawl Monster

A Portland businessman takes a scalpel to the proposed new I-5 bridge, which would consume over $4 billion--before overruns, and before noticing that the costs of steel and concrete are skyrocketing as energy prices explode worldwide.

The Columbia project obviously gets a lot more attention in the Oregonian, partly because a third bridge over the Willamette in Salem would "only" squander $670 million while helping to defeat Oregon's response to the climate crisis. Here's some choice bits from the article--all of which could easily be applied to Salem:

I-5 bridge proposal ignores big picture

[Referring to an op-ed to defend the replacement I-5 bridge by Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder, Fred Hansen of TriMet and Gail Achterman of the Oregon Transportation Commission:]

The trio admits that it is a "valid concern" that greenhouse gas emissions will increase with the proposed bridge because 40 percent of such emissions are caused by fossil fuel for vehicle transportation. But these environmentalists blithely sweep aside the true impact of the 12-lane bridge they are promoting. That impact is a 40 percent increase by 2030 in vehicle-miles traveled over the crossing. That means more than a 40 percent increase in global warming pollution with any of the alternatives the bridge task force is proposing.

To be on track to meet standards passed by the Oregon and Washington legislatures, a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is required by 2030.

It's tempting to say that no individual project makes a big difference in the huge challenge of global warming. But this expensive project is clearly a step in the wrong direction. There are catastrophic consequences for continuing to ignore climate change -- in Oregon a 5 percent change in temperature, expected by 2050 if we don't change current trends, would have a dramatic impact on our snowpack in the Cascades and our water supply. It would put much of the Oregon coast underwater with the melting of the Arctic icecap.

And here's a part that EXACTLY describes Salem's situation:

Everyone wants a big new bridge if you suggest it is free to them and you don't tell them you are dramatically expanding greenhouse gas emissions, and you don't tell them you are just moving the congestion down the road a few miles, and you don't tell them what you are not doing in the region in order to be able to create this stranded investment.

This is a fairy tale told by the auto, oil and trucking lobbies.