The real question is whether ANY bridge over I-405 at NW Flanders, new OR recycled, is the # 1 priority pedestrian/bicycle project, most in need of funding citywide.

I don't believe it is.

Mercury Blogtown a couple of weeks ago posted responses from candidates for Position 1, on whether the City should pay $5.5 million to make the old Sauvie Island Bridge a bike/pedestrian bridge over I-405 at NW Flanders. Three of my competitors endorsed relocating the old bridge, at a cost of $1.5 million more than building a new one.

My comments two weeks ago:

Portlanders care about livable neighborhoods, walking and biking, and recycling. I support those good values. I also care about spending taxpayers money wisely, and fairness in prioritizing that spending, and I believe Portlanders share those priorities, too.

The first core question I've heard from neighbors all over Portland, including some in NW, is whether spending an extra $1.5 million to reuse an old steel bridge is good use of public funds, compared with the cost of building a new concrete bridge half as wide. Mayor Potter noted the cost of the project can rise an additional $1.3 million before being re-approved by Council. If elected, I will work to change the City Code that currently allows overruns of 25% in City contracts. I will always ask the questions, "What is the true cost? Who pays, who benefits, and is that fair?"

I appreciate Commissioner Saltzman's insistence on putting the project out for bids. Given that the idea of reusing the bridge was posted on CommissionerSam.com in March 2006, the fact that the ordinance was filed as an "emergency" is ridiculous. I believe emergency ordinances are sometimes used to pressure compliance on votes. To facilitate better public process, I will ask other members of the Council to use the "emergency" designation only for true emergencies.

The Mercury, Oregonian, Tribune, BikePortland.com, and CommissionerSam.com have all covered the issue. These sources state that funding for the $5.5 million relocation would come from $2 million in River District Urban Renewal Area funds, $2 million in transportation Systems Development Charges, $1 million in federal funds, and $500,000 from either private donations or from all Portlanders as part of the Safe, Sound and Green streets proposal heading for the November ballot. What would those pots of money be spent on, if not this project?

* Which projects will drop off the list for funding in the River District, if this bridge project is done? Is it really the highest priority for pedestrian/bicycle facilities in the plan area?

* Is the $2 million from the River District existing funds, or part of the proposed $311 million extension of the Urban Renewal Area?

* Which neighborhoods will have to wait longer for their Systems Development Charge projects to be completed?

* Why is this bridge in this location more deserving of additional public funds, faster, than planned pedestrian/bike projects in other areas of the city, such as the promised bridge over I-5 in the neighborhood formerly known as Corbett-Terwilliger-Lair Hill, now South Portland?

How many jobs would be created in renovating and moving the old bridge versus building a new one and recycling the old steel? With the economy weakening, supporting more good jobs with benefits should be considered in every decision.

Global warming, pollution, and building green should also be part of the equation. What are the carbon impacts of the two methods of providing this bridge?

This ordinance asked for a vote on "Is this a good use of public money?", when the real question is, "Is this the best use of public money when compared with other ways it might be spent?"

Since the Council's vote on this matter, I have heard from neighbors in all parts of the city, even NW Portland, opposed to spending an additional $1.5 million to renovate and reuse the Sauvie Island bridge on NW Flanders. While those testifying at the hearing were predominantly in favor, most Portlanders are not able to take time off work to ask the Council to prioritize funding of basic services throughout the city. I will provide multiple ways for Portlanders in every neighborhood to give input, to facilitate engagement in our government.

More information is needed before deciding whether the bridge relocation proposal is the best use of transportation and urban renewal taxes, or not. If you elect me to the Portland City Council, I will make sure that important questions are asked and answered clearly, soon after a project is initiated.

Since that post on Blogtown, I have learned more information. $3.5 million of the money to be used for the Flanders bridge will come out of pots that could otherwise be used for projects in other areas of the city.

My answer above looked mostly at:

But in fact, the match-up is:

Citizens, city staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council devote significant time and effort in annual and long-term budget processes, identifying priority lists for funding transportation improvements, citywide. Is a bridge over I-405 at NW Flanders, either new or recycled, next in line for funding?

I believe Portlanders who live in areas with few sidewalks, bike lanes, or paved streets, deserve basic urban services first.