Editor’s Note: The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial staff summarizes the successes and failures in state and local public affairs. Peaks and Valleys is published sporadically. To read this week’s Peak, go to oregonlive.com/Opinion.
Multnomah County needs to build a new bridge over the Willamette River – one that can carry people, cars and cargo from one side to the other and withstand a major earthquake.
That simple proposal should guide the Multnomah County Board of County Commissioners when it considers a community advisory group’s recommendation next month to design a replacement for the current Burnside Bridge. While a bridge shouldn’t detract from the city’s appeal, taxpayers won’t fund a $900 million project because Portland needs a landmark.
Unfortunately, the design advisory group’s recommendation appears to fall into that trap. As The Oregonian/OregonLive’s Mike Rogoway reported, the “inverted Y” cable-stayed structure is not only about $45 million more expensive than other options, but it also ranked fourth out of six options in a survey of more than 19,000 county residents who preferred an arched structure like the Fremont Bridge. The inverted Y, however, was the preferred choice of an internationally known bridge architect whom the county hired to speak to the group earlier this month. Keith Brownlie of Beam Architects praised the design’s “urban and urban” look, noting that “it’s pretty unique in the Pacific Northwest, it’s pretty unique anywhere.”
Those words, of course, are like catnip to Portlanders. Why stick with what’s tried and true when being unusual is a cultural pride? Although some committee members urged the group to consider public opinion, the committee voted 14-2 in favor of the towering, inverted-Y design. As committee member and Portland bridge expert Sharon Wood Wortman said, “A $900 million bridge should look like no other in all of bridge-building history.”
This is not a criticism of Wood Wortman, whose deep love and knowledge of Portland’s bridges has helped educate thousands and build a strong culture of appreciation for the city’s bridges.
But Portland doesn’t have to compete on a global scale for bridge-building rights. Regardless of whether the federal, state or local funds could be used for other county purposes, our politicians need to show they are good stewards of public money. This comes down to a question of priorities for a county that continually struggles to keep its commitments and promises.
There is nothing wrong with building a bridge that is attractive, functional and commonplace. And as the county’s director of engineering services said at a previous meeting, the more standardized the design, the simpler and less expensive it is. An unusual design only exposes the county to unforeseen difficulties.
Furthermore, it makes no sense to spend millions more on this unpopular design, considering that the bridge currently lacks bicycle and pedestrian connections to the Eastbank Esplanade and Willamette River—a shortcoming of all bridge design options that should be addressed.
Fortunately, the county commission does not have to accept the design committee’s recommendation. Commissioners should show that they value public input and vote for pragmatism over vanity.
-Editorial staff of The Oregonian/OregonLive
Editorial from the Oregonian
Editorials reflect the collective opinion of The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial board, which operates independently of the newsroom. The editorial board includes Therese Bottomly, Laura Gunderson, Helen Jung and John Maher.
Board members meet regularly to determine our institutional stance on current issues. We publish editorials when we believe our unique perspective can provide clarity and influence an upcoming decision of great public interest. Editorials are opinion pieces and therefore different from news articles.
