Winning in Stoppage Time: My Vision for the CRC
The run for Team USA in the soccer World Cup is over. One of the most memorable moments for Americans was the victory over Algeria. All game long, the Americans and the Algerians fought to a draw. There were many shots on goal, many near misses, heroic plays, and heart-stopping moments. But at the end of the regulation 90 minutes the score was still tied at zero.
The USA needed a win to advance. England had just beaten Slovenia, and a loss or a tie to Algeria would send the Americans packing. Prospects seemed dim as the referees added four more minutes to the game in "stoppage time."
Then, in the 91st minute, Landon Donovan kicked a miracle shot into the Algerian goal. The crowd erupted. Teammates rushed the field and piled on top of him. The Algerians were stunned. After a 90-minute battle, with only minutes left, Team USA went from elimination to first place in the division. It's hard to remember one final shot meaning so much.
One of the great things about sports is that it gives us metaphor and a common language to understand complex, real-life problems. So how is the United State victory over Algeria like the process for building the Columbia River Crossing (CRC)? Glad you asked.
Almost everyone involved with the CRC can agree that there are serious problems with the current bridge that need to be addressed: safety, congestion, freight movement, lack of transit, and more. Yet the process to date has resulted in an expensive design that does not clearly fix the problems on which we agree. After years of study and millions of dollars for planning, the CRC seems to be stuck in a draw.
Time is running out. There is a federal cycle that needs to be met for funding, and delay in getting the right analysis and the right design only erodes support for a solution. Groups with legitimate concerns are losing patience and withdrawing from the process. More and more elected officials are skeptical. The funding seems more tenuous. And as a result, every day the CRC is less likely to happen.
We need a 91st minute goal: a step back to get the analysis, governance, and funding right so we can move forward quickly. In doing so, we can move from a project that is unlikely to happen - leaving us with the same problems - to a consensus solution that creates jobs and invests in smart infrastructure for the next hundred years. We can go from elimination to a winning strategy in one move. But it has to happen now.
Who can lead this coalition? My view is that this coalition is best led by those who can lead a discussion with proponents of the current process. Labor organizations and business groups, for example, gain from solutions that create a long term, high performance infrastructure asset. Along with several other electeds from across the region, I have argued that we also need a leader who can talk to all stakeholder groups and bring the sides together. I will continue to do my best, but Oregon needs leadership at the highest levels committed to a well-managed process that gets to a solution that is buildable and fundable. And we don't have much time to do it.
ShareThis
