home

Activists release new 'Stop the CRC' poster to raise funds, awareness

Posted by Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) on January 4th, 2011 at 10:53 am

Stop the CRC, a grassroots volunteer network of activists opposed to the Columbia River Crossing project, has released a new poster. Check it out...

The poster is a handmade, two-color linocut and letterpress print on 175 lbs. fine art paper. It stands 25x13 inches and is available via suggested donation of $5 - $50. All proceeds from a limited first-run of these handmade posters will help fund a larger, professional print run.

Anti 12-lane CRC Ride-35
Scene from the Anti 12-lane CRC
ride in June 2009.
(Photo © J. Maus)

According to Stop the CRC volunteer Adriane Ackerman, they'll use the posters to cover some basic costs of their efforts (which have included rides and other actions, a rally, poster making, petition gathering, tabling at community events, and so on), but the main idea behind them is to recruit volunteers and gain a broader public identity for CRC opposition.

"The posters will be used in a two-part campaign to gain more visibility and get more volunteers. We plan to take them to businesses and hang them in their windows. We'll also have another poster with a less abrasive image and wording for businesses that want to say, 'We support Stop the CRC' but don't necessarily want a giant corporate snake on their window."

Ackerman says with posters up in shop windows around town, they hope to "more formally solidify" the number of people and businesses that are against the project. She also foresees CRC momentum picking up in 2011 and hopes the posters help build up their member base in preparation.

The posters can be purchased at several business locations around Portland, including: The Star E Rose Cafe (2403 NE Alberta) and the Red and Black Cafe (400 SE 12th Ave). Stop the CRC has volunteers that will hand deliver the poster by bicycle to supporters anywhere in the Portland metro area.

Learn more at StoptheCRC.org.

Email This Post Email This Post

Possibly related posts


Gravatars make better comments... Get yours here.
Please notify the publisher about offensive comments.
Comments
  • gregg woodlawn January 4, 2011 at 12:00 pm

    I love the new poster!

    Stopping the CRC is an issue ALL cyclists and ALL other communities can get behind. This is an issue that cyclists and noncyclists alike can support.

    Coalitions!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • gregg woodlawn January 4, 2011 at 2:08 pm

      More Lanes = More Cars = More Climate Change.

      Let's not put more monies into more pavement for autos.
      Instead, let's put more monies into schools, social security, parks, libraries, etc!

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • matthew vilhauer January 4, 2011 at 4:15 pm

      as a cyclist that regularly crosses the I-5 bridge i cannot support this. the current bridge is archaic and dangerous. seismic upgrades and a canti-levered widening of the m.u.p. i would certainly welcome. would this be supported be the majority of drivers/taxpayers? how did that "build it" campaign (which i do support) go over in portland? i believe the biggest obstacle in garnering support for any major transportation infastructure is in how it is percieved.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Marid January 4, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    Not really. The bridge needs to be replaced. Stopping the CRC is not a solution.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Spencer Boomhower January 4, 2011 at 1:37 pm

      Or it could be repaired, and seismically upgraded to current standards. The CRC's own documentation shows that the existing bridge could be repaired, at a cost somewhere between a fraction of what they're proposing to spend building the CRC, and just under what they've spent (a hundred million and counting) planning the thing:

      http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/FileLibrary/TechnicalReports/PanelAssementofBridgesSeismicVulnerabilities.pdf

      "Yes, it is technically feasible to retrofit the existing bridges to the current seismic safety standards. ... This opinion ranges from $88 million to $190 million. This opinion of cost increases from $125 million to $265 million when design, permitting, right-of-way, construction inspection and management, agency oversight, and contingencies are added."

      But the CRC is more about freeway expansion than it is bridge-building. Look at the CRC numbers (as pulled together in a still from an animation I did):

      http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5205/5324395653_5e6fe404f9_b.jpg

      And you can see the tally for interchanges alone - on-ramps and off-ramps - comes to $1,495,400,000. (And that's not counting something like $100,000,000 just for Right-of-Way & Utilities for the freeway sections.) Roughly half of that - $818,000,000 - would go into actually building new bridges.

      That the CRC's PR focuses more on the bridges makes sense; the public is more likely to get behind bridge-building than we are on-ramps and off-ramps. But it's not an accurate representation of the project.

      That's the point this poster is making, and making well: The CRC is not a bridge. It's a whole lot of freeway with some bridge attached.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob January 4, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    Not a bad looking poster. Possibly a good candidate for wheatposting, or a big building mural.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • i think the CRC is a bad idea, too. January 4, 2011 at 1:56 pm

      yea yea yea!!! this is a great idea. people should do more public art... i wonder if the artist would be ok with that?!

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob January 4, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    Er-r-r ...'wheatpasting'.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • mello yello January 4, 2011 at 1:03 pm

    Getting to Costco will be faster. Drivers will take the much faster freeway instead of surface streets and won't run me over. We could all hang out at the bridge since it's closer to inner Portland. The CRC haters are hating progress and keeping Portland's economy in the dumps. I blame the CRC haters for everything bad Portland.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Opus the Poet January 4, 2011 at 3:16 pm

      Yeah, that's what UK cycling federations thought when they helped promote freeways, that the cars would get off the minor roads and leave them to bicycles. Instead the traffic on the back roads got worse alongside the traffic on the motorways. All they did was make a whole lot more places to drive cars without dis-incentivizing using the surface streets and roads.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • CaptainKarma January 4, 2011 at 5:50 pm

      So the proposed Costco is for Washingtonians to burn gas to? hmm. "let's go get 50 lbs of drumsticks for a superbowl snack; they're $2 cheaper if we drive to the big box across the big bridge"

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • RyNO Dan January 4, 2011 at 1:27 pm

    I really like the "It's not just a bridge" arguement. Good work there.
    Not so much the big scary snake.
    I prefer to try to convince people without scaring them. But if that's what it takes...

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spencer Boomhower January 4, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    Nice job on the poster! The freeway revolt force is with you. :)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Gregg Woodlawn January 5, 2011 at 6:29 am

      I bought two posters yesterday from Star E Rose Cafe on Alberta.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Chrystal January 4, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    I like it. I think it's very clear.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • cold worker January 4, 2011 at 3:22 pm

    looks too much like it should be hanging at people's or the red and black (both places i like). just seems 'generic radical' or something, like every anti-wto/imf/gmo/g whatever meeting. it's just missing some garlic bulbs, a crescent wrench and a cyclist with with a circle A flag.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Atomkinder January 4, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    Why give snakes even more of a bad rap? Snakes are awesome.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • point, counter January 4, 2011 at 4:51 pm

    Though I like the design, and I'm glad more is being done to help stop this bridge-mistake, Cold Worker makes a good point. The design seems a bit too crunchy and radical for the mainstream, making it easy to dismiss. Something less frightening and more refined would likely resonate better. More like Spencer's video...

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • rev January 4, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    Its a fundraiser! Spend those duckets on something that will make the next generation proud, because if the current CRC bridge gets built everyone looses.

    literally and figuratively, this is the biggest issues facing our region. Step up and proudly declare: "WE CAN DO BETTER THAN BANKRUPTING AND POISONING OUR FUTURE!"

    ps i love the idea of making it into mural

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • matthew vilhauer January 4, 2011 at 6:45 pm

      sorry rev but i would encourage folks to spend their $$$ somewhere else... like on food, clothing and an education. and some time learning the nuances of commerce, interstate transportation, their relationship and the detrimental environmental effects of gridlock and stop & go rush hour traffic. even though clark county is not in oregon we have statisticly been in the top 3 to 4 income tax generating counties for your state. oregon can ill afford to negate or deter such a large revenue source. you and adrian have both been a solid for me and i love both of you for this but unfortunately we do agree to disagree on the I-5 bridge issue.

      as always, love & peace, m

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Stop the CRC January 4, 2011 at 6:33 pm

    cold worker
    looks too much like it should be hanging at people's or the red and black (both places i like). just seems 'generic radical' or something, like every anti-wto/imf/gmo/g whatever meeting. it's just missing some garlic bulbs, a crescent wrench and a cyclist with with a circle A flag.

    We agree! We are making several posters, this one is a fundraiser, more "non-crunchy" posters to follow! If you're an artist and (or know one who) wants to help, please drop us a line!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • cold worker January 4, 2011 at 8:08 pm

      yeah, i certainly didn't mean to dump on the poster. i'm wearing dirty carhartt jeans and was listening to the most recent tragedy lp when i typed that, but that style, the skilled-but-not-amazing block-cut work, man it's played out. my concern is that of 'point, counter', it needs more gloss or a modern look to get 'regular' folks to look at it, get those gears turning in their heads thinking about the scale of this project and what it means for us.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Stop the CRC January 4, 2011 at 6:34 pm

    point, counter
    Though I like the design, and I'm glad more is being done to help stop this bridge-mistake, Cold Worker makes a good point. The design seems a bit too crunchy and radical for the mainstream, making it easy to dismiss. Something less frightening and more refined would likely resonate better. More like Spencer's video...

    We agree! We are making several posters, this one is a fundraiser, more "non-crunchy" posters to follow! If you're an artist and (or know one who) wants to help, please drop us a line!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • matthew vilhauer January 4, 2011 at 6:58 pm
  • Greg January 4, 2011 at 7:18 pm

    I generally agree that stopping the CRC is a good thing.
    That said, the above graphic isn't inspiring to me. It looks like it came straight from the 70's. It seems more like an emotional appeal to the converted, rather than something that might change the mind of someone who supports the CRC now. Maybe that is the intent.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Stop the CRC January 4, 2011 at 7:28 pm

    point, counter
    Though I like the design, and I'm glad more is being done to help stop this bridge-mistake, Cold Worker makes a good point. The design seems a bit too crunchy and radical for the mainstream, making it easy to dismiss. Something less frightening and more refined would likely resonate better. More like Spencer's video...

    we agree! this one is a fundraiser! We are actively recruiting more poster designs that are less "crunchy." If you know any artists or are one yourself and want to help with future designs, drop us an email!!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Adriane "DeJerk" Ackerman January 4, 2011 at 8:15 pm

    Hey all! We here at stopthecrc.org TOTALLY hear you on the print issues! If you read the whole article, you'll see that I spoke to that, and that the proceeds of THIS poster print run will go to fund more prints, including alternatives that will garner more interest from people who may not know what garlic/wrenches/and "a's" have in common! In the meantime, if you like the original design for yourself, feel free to donate to the cause ($5-$50) and get one of the limited edition prints for yourself! Then, later, you can host a less "crunchy" or "abrasive" image at your local favorite locale from our second-print run!

    @Matthew: Hey there! Lots of love back to you, and I agree - we SHOULD be thinking about healthier life choices to enrich our bodies and minds. I also agree that GRIDLOCK SUCKS - for EVERYONE! That's why I encourage a back-to-the-drawing-board approach for tackling these issues -especially interstate commerce which, for environmental and gridlock reasons, I feel should rely mostly on rail systems, which we also need to be refurbishing in our region, regardless of what happens with the bridge. Commuting across that bridge SUCKS, but until the CRC chooses to really consider the needs, safety, and desires of cyclists, no option they provide will be better in the long run. I believe the best commerce, the best plan of any sort, is developed always within the framework of longevity in function, and sustainability in capacity. Currently, the CRC possesses neither.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Russell (jr98664) January 4, 2011 at 8:49 pm

    Even as a broke college student, I would donate for that lovely piece of activist art.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Hart Noecker January 4, 2011 at 9:02 pm

    Marid
    Not really. The bridge needs to be replaced. Stopping the CRC is not a solution.

    Like heck it does. There's not a thing wrong with the bridge besides needing some earthquake refitting. Build a second bridge for people and light rail, billions saved, problem solved.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • jim January 5, 2011 at 12:30 am

      do you really think we will never need more capacity as our poulation increases? perhaps with global warming a lot of us will die (Ted Turner) and we won't need it

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Hart Noecker January 7, 2011 at 6:16 pm

        Car use is decreasing nationwide, and has dropped consistently since the late 90s on the current I-5 bridge. Planning for more cars is utter nonsense at this point, the automobile is dying. Do you want a monument to the past of a bridge to the future?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • wsbob January 5, 2011 at 12:52 am

      There's rumors about the existing bridge being supported by wood pilings that are aged and rotten, and if they aren't replaced with the 4-6 billion dollar bridge, the old bridge may fall into the Columbia River.

      That snake has a kind of cute expression on its face. I just now realized the scales on the underside of the snake are currency...your tax dollars. Don't forget that the snake is probably...ahem...excreting sprawl, although this image, was likely not depicted in the poster, out of consideration for viewers with tender sensibilities.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • matthew vilhauer January 5, 2011 at 1:22 am

    okay folks how about this...

    instead of a "stop the crc" how about "a better crc".

    for those of you that don't drive or ride over the thing on a regular basis - please do so. or educate yourself on the realities of an outdated, overused structure that is a hinderance to commerce and a public danger. this is one of two lift span bridges on an interstate freeway in the united states. both need replacing.

    as a historical footnote - the united states had (until the early 40's) the largest the largest rail/trolly/public transportation system in the world in terms of miles of service. begining in the 1920's gas/oil, rubber and auto manufacture's in the states began buying out their competition. busses and otr trucks began replacing local public transit and long distance transportation of both goods and people rather than railways and trolleys. "greasing a palm" kick backs and payoff's were and are the norm. lobbying is a gentrified term for buying. individuals with power got paid. period. that is how it was and is still today. the "good" and "just" decisions are sold to the highest bidder.... kinda negates both ideals egh?

    in essence we reap what we sow. a small government with a "laisse faire" attitude is wonderful! the dollar has plummeted in value. you, me and everyone of our ilk (the masses) bicker with each other over trivial matters of how "our" money should be spent but we all agree "it just ain't right".

    a better crc would include light rail and mup infastructure not only for the crossing of the columbia river but the outlying regions that would be effected. i was against light rail coming into vancouver for years until a friend called me out on it since i never rode max. i really appreciate it now that i have been using light rail. my only objection is that current plans would have light rail up to 39th street then head east to I-205 and back down to portland. it should go out to 134th st. to reduce the need to drive into vancouver just to hop on a train. people as a whole like convieniece, if transportation options aren't... well, stoicism preails and they resign themselves to the option that is comfortable. sit in my car, listen to music and burn time and gas just cause that is how it is to get to my job. incentives and options can change this. in all the crc plans i have seen there is no option for scooters or vehicles that cannot drive on the freeway (due to speed & liscencing restrictions)but do not belong on a mup(bicycle and pedestrian oriented) riding gas or electric scooters and although they shouldn't be there (by law), what other option do they have? a better crc would be well suited for all mode share users.

    i'll aplologize for rambling an bit and step off the soap box now.....

    thanx

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • matt picio January 5, 2011 at 4:31 pm

      It's not a hindrance to commerce. VMT is declining, interstate commerce between Washington and California should be using rail except for time-sensitive cargo (and we should be encouraging the switch to rail), and much of the truck traffic can or does use I-205. The commerce argument is frequently used as justification for the CRC, but IMO the argument doesn't hold water.

      The bridge itself has one major issue - bridge lifts and the mis-alignment of the non-lift area with the downstream railroad bridge. Those railroad bridges will likely be replaced if the corridor is converted to allow high-speed rail, and the adjustment could be made on that end rather than the I-5 bridge. CRC still doesn't have a resolution for the downstream traffic it will feed into the 3->2 lane merge at I-405.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • matthew vilhauer January 5, 2011 at 10:52 pm

        otr trucks heading north from S.F., L.A and san diego all time their departures to aviod rush hour traffic through portland and over the I-5 bridge. i won't argure the point that rail should be used for most of the transportation of freight. freight should use rail.

        the reasons the commerce arguement not only holds water but carries substantial weight is that our fuel costs in the U.S. encourage otr transport and the simple fact of the location of the port of portland and the railway hub are both close to the I-5 corridor. services and facilities that serve the trucking industry(for repair, maintanance and service) are substantially greater along this route.

        i'm glad you pointed out that the "bottlenecks and gridlock would be shifted south into portland. the livability of neighborhoods in the area would certainly suffer adverse effects form higher rates of local traffic from folks wanting to get off the freeway and out of stop an go traffic. if you have ever drove through portland on the I-5 you cannot help but wonder of the absurdity of the freeway shrinking to 2 lanes of travel through downtown. seriously?? i mean SERIOUSLY!!!!!!! i did have the unfortunate experionce of living in dallas tx. in the late 80's and remember the L.B.J. as having 8-10 lanes in each direction in some areas. and they still had gridlock. we certainly do not need that but just 2 lanes creates a slew of problems. sad to say but yes, portland will have to address that sooner or later.

        the sooner the cheaper.

        as our dollar continues to get devalued we will get less for our money spent. 12 years ago the exchange rate with canada was roughly $1.50 canadian to $1 american. now their dollar is worth more than ours. vancouver has spent 200k+ a year for many years on feasability studies which are mandatory to even qualify for federal highway funding. they will continue to do so until a replacement of the current bridge breaks ground. it is fiscally irresponsible to have not broke ground on an new I-5 bridge many years ago and delays only compound this mistake.

        an equitable sollution is imperative. in fact it should be a regional priority.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Duncan January 7, 2011 at 6:07 am

          matthew-

          The answer is simple- put a 5$ each way toll on all non commercial traffic crossing the bridges. End of transportation problem for trucks.

          Second, after retrofitting the bridges, rebuilding the RR bridge to eliminate 90% of the lifts, use the money to bring light rail to vancouver and build them the sweetest park and ride facilities known to man.
          End of car transportation problem. By simply using existing funds instead of borrowed billions, the savings in interest payments alone is worth it.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • matthew vilhauer January 7, 2011 at 12:04 pm

            statisticly tolling most adversely affects the people who can least affort them. at your proposed $5 per way per day toll a commuter with a five day work week with two weeks of non-commutes for vacation etc. would fork out two thousand dollars. for working wage families would be devastaing. what you are suggesting is to have people basicly have to make a choice between putting food on the table, clothes on their backs, have a place to live and keep the utilities on or have a job. pretty simple egh?

            retrofitting an achaic & dangerous structure like the I-5 bridge makes no sense due to the limitations of what can be done to to the structure itself and how it can accomodate all mode shares and volumes of users now and in the forseable future. forgive me for being dense but i have never seen any plans for the rebuilding of the RR bridge in crc plans. please clue me in if i've missed something.

            i'm all for building "the sweetest park and ride facilities known to man" as you've suggested. to get the majority of people to use them you would have to acomplish a huge shift in perception of transprotation to lead folks away from the "car culture"dominated country in which we live. by your "simple" logic i would suggest mass hypnosis... problem solved.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Alan January 6, 2011 at 12:29 am

        matt picio
        The bridge itself has one major issue - bridge lifts and the mis-alignment of the non-lift area with the downstream railroad bridge.

        Its foundation (wooden pilings) is far below seismic standards. Risk of collapse in an earthquake is high.

        It has grossly inadequate bike/ped lanes.

        It has no transit lanes.

        It has poor sight-lines for drivers and no shoulders for escape.

        Egress ramps are tight and short. The Hwy 14 eastbound exit is particularly bad and results in frequent collisons.

        And that's just the bridge and immediate ramps, there are more issues in the CRC corridor.

        Matthew Vilhauer's "a better crc" and David Osborn's (below) explanation of his meaning of "stop the CRC" offer the sort of discussion that is meaningful to me. Flatly saying "no" or "stop" only makes me roll my eyes and look the other way, just as I did at Leavitt's "no tolls" promise.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • matthew vilhauer January 6, 2011 at 12:09 pm

          alan-"Flatly saying "no" or "stop" only makes me roll my eyes and look the other way,". yeah with a bit of introspection i can see that even though i'm not in total agreement with everyone, this is my community and these are my friends. we really should support each other and i will purchase a poster.

          peace.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe Rowe January 5, 2011 at 10:36 am

    Thanks Adriane... Awesome job. I'll get one.

    We need everyone to take different and small actions to stop this.

    I'm asking people to add their name to a postal letter I'm writing my North Portland Lawmakers. Chip Shields and Lew Frederick won't say if they support or oppose the CRC. We must to band together and ask this most basic question. Most democrats in Salem are ready to sign their name to get the loans started on this project.

    send me a message to join my letter or get a copy of one for your PDX neighborhood lawmakers. Phone calls never got returned, it's now time for a petition.

    J r o w e (at)) i g c . o r g

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • David Osborn January 5, 2011 at 5:12 pm

    As someone that is part of the Stop the CRC Coalition I wanted to add a point about our "anti" message.

    I think it is important to understand that the Columbia River Crossing has been a specific process that has produced a specific proposal. It is not an umbrella phrase for any sort of potential transportation solution across the river.

    The process was set up in such a way as to yield a car-centric, massive highway expansion project such as we have before us. We are opposed to the Columbia River Crossing because the proposal is bad and the process cannot yield the type of solution that our region needs. Therefore being against the CRC is not being against transportation solutions, rather it is being against a process that does not allow for the citizen driven, alternate transit, climate conscious types of solutions that we need.

    This is why why say "Stop the CRC" and why we argue that we need to a back to the drawing board approach so that we can have a process that will allow for real solutions to the real problems our society faces.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • rev January 5, 2011 at 6:59 pm

    thanks David!

    yeah, we have to kill this specific CRC in order to create a better one. Every month those people trying to convince us that we should build the current bridge suck another million out of our public funds.

    Its criminal! I should get paid so well to come up with terrible ideas.

    ps snakes ARE cool, but i wouldn't want to try to ride across one.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dan Kaufman January 6, 2011 at 12:53 am

    Great poster!!! The imagery is visceral and right on target. Count me in for (at least) one.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Duncan January 7, 2011 at 6:18 am

    To the Pro CRC folks... look I drive over the bridges a lot, often at rush hour to work along the Washington side of the River, but I took a job that I knew involved that aspect, and I accept it. You all chose to live in Washington, knowing that most jobs are over here. It was part of the deal you made- cheap housing for a shitty commute.

    The problem is now you want someone else to pay for your choices. Every time the word toll appears in print you can here the cries of Clark county. This is not a transportation issue- this is a real estate issue in Clark County. The powers that be see the potential to suburbanize areas further and further from Portland with this project, I do not doubt that Longview will be considered a bedroom Community if this is accomplished.

    All that traffic is going to glide along right to the Lloyd center- where the limited number of lanes, along with Oregonians inability to merge will continue to bring I5 to a standstill just as it does to day, just worse because more cars will make it there per hour. Then what happens? Well y'all hop off the freeway and drive down MLK, Interstate, choking surface streets with your cars. Nowhere in the CRC is there any mitigation for the loss of value of homeowners along the streets you will clog- so you want them to pay for your choices too.

    As these areas decay due to high traffic flows, speeds, increased noise and accidents, that decay spreads to my nearby neighborhood- so you want me to pay for it too. I have worked and work extremely hard to buy a house, keep it nice, improve my neighborhood and make it a better place. There is no way I am going to sit back and let you wreck my whole city because you want the advantages of living near portland but do not want to pay the cost of doing so.

    Where can I get those posters? I will buy two.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • matthew vilhauer January 7, 2011 at 12:38 pm

      the absurdity and hypocracy of your arguements astounds me. to think of the crc as being a clark county real estate issue is farcical. it is a regional issue and impacts not just the portland metro area but the whole west coast.

      as a homeowner and stakeholer in my community i value the relationships i have built here just as you have in your community and the same for people who may choose to live in sandy or hillsboro or yes, even in longview. if someone lives in longview and makes the long and costly commute to portland for work there must be substantial reasons for them doing so. pretty much the same reasons you make the work choices for yourself. they want to own a home, perhaps raise a family and live in a community they value. often, as is my case, they just want to live in the areas that the were born and raised. is it overly sentimental or nostalgic of me?

      please take some time and re-read the comments i've posted with a "bigger picture" in mind. i believe i have mentioned some of the points you bring up. to distil the myriad of crc issues down to a single "simple" arguement is disingenuous to the discussion and short sighted.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Duncan January 7, 2011 at 3:11 pm

        yes but you want me to pay for your choices.. its amazing how many "people should pay their own way" types change their tune when they have to pay their own way.

        Whan Vancouver (Clark County) is willing to pay for the cost of the bridge and ALL the externalized costs of THEIR choices, I will probably die of shock.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • matthew vilhauer January 7, 2011 at 5:13 pm

          and again you make these "us vrs. you" statements. again i would remind you that this is not a "simple" folks that live in clark county issue. thanks for contunually showing your ingnorance on this issue.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Duncan January 7, 2011 at 7:09 pm

            It is really an Us Vs Them thing- it is very bad for Portland, expensive for Oregon for the benefit of a group of people who expect others to pay for their desire to live in Clark County. It is NOT about transport, because their would be no transport issue without SOV drivers heading over the river every day. It is NOT about transportation because Clark County residents have consistently stated they want only one form of Transit; the SOV. It IS about livability (and thus property values) in MY city. Your lifestyle, your demands for an ever greater impact on MY city are going to wreck what we have built here in Portland- and CRC supporters refuse to accept the externalized costs in terms of health, surface traffic volumes and speeds and the resulting injuries and deaths they will cause. You have not once responded to any of these statements, instead taking the Tea Party personal insult and crying poor me express through the middle of this comment thread. In short sir you have not offered anything insightful to this debate, just personal self interest and snide comments.

            You want unfettered car access? Go check out Houston. That is what happens when you try and build roads to end congestion. If the CRC was really about decreasing VMT, Emissions and improving truck transport I would support it. The fact that it would benefit me personally does not make it best for my community. And as such I will continue to write against it, vote against it, lobby against it. If you could see past your self interest maybe you could see my point of view. But you won't. So I will quit trying.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

    • matthew vilhauer January 7, 2011 at 12:41 pm

      ummm... locations to find the posters are in the article we are commenting on. perhaps you should re-read that too.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Duncan January 7, 2011 at 3:08 pm

        Matt.. that was a rhetorical question. Maybe you should bone up on your irony.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • matthew vilhauer January 7, 2011 at 5:17 pm

          please check out the link to a previous story here on bike portland i posted concerning the safety issues for cyclists on this bridge. this coming february 14th i will be on an extended cycling tour (with 9 other folks from portland) in death valley. yes i do understand and appreciate irony.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • matthew vilhauer January 7, 2011 at 5:30 pm

          feel free to criticize my proof-reading skills. my intellectual capacity and thought process is much more solid.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Dan Kaufman January 7, 2011 at 2:33 pm

      Duncan, it is really easy to make arguments against this bridge based on the total cost, induced demand, pollution, opportunity cost and others but you really nail one of the key problems regarding this single-use motor-commuter solution we have be given: It's not good for Portland. Our state and local legislators need to hear this, understand that we don't want I-5 to be expanded through our city (and we all know this would just be the start of it).

      Political cover is key to killing this beast and political cover comes from us and our neighbors.

      Also, if you are a member of a labor union (as I am) you need to let your leadership know that the jobs created by this project are not worth long-term impact. Many Oregon Democrats are not willing to go against the wishes of trade-unions on this one.

      Thank you, Duncan, for being so well spoken and I hope you paraphrase this sentiment for all your representatives. I know I will.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • matthew vilhauer January 7, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    dan-"you really nail one of the key problems regarding this single-use motor-commuter solution we have be given: It's not good for Portland". i totally agree with this thought. in fact it is not good for our planet much less our country. i can't see where duncan stated this but you have evidently made your own leap to this and it is true.

    as for unions... my grandfather retired from the union pacific railway and was at various times the head of his local union from the '50's until the '70's. before his death he voiced his opinon to me on many occasions that there was a time and place for unions and in his words "they're too big for their own britches now". one only has to look at the current state of the U.S. auto industry to see the results. i know a few people personally that belong to unions that voice the same concerns-i pay dues but get nothing for my money.

    i do not share your view of duncan as being well spoken. if you said trite, well versed in knee jerk sentiments and short sighted? then i would agree.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Dan Kaufman January 7, 2011 at 9:37 pm

      Matthew,

      If it's bad for the planet and the city as you say then I think we are on the same side here and I'll tell you... we need to fight this thing until they give up or start pouring concrete.

      I know we all recoil when people frame things as us vs. them but Clark County SOV commuters are what is causing the congestion. Just watch the traffic cams for a few days and also consider the fact that they repeatedly turn down light rail and de-fund C-TRAN.

      Not sure if you've argued this but Seismic and other concerns are red herrings. The Marquam bridge is in much bigger need of upgrades, not to mention the Sellwood (and these are bridges I actually use regularly - self centered, I know but it is my city and my tax dollars at stake here).

      Matthew, no need to be the devils advocate. Come to the light ;) and help us fight this boondoggle.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • matthew vilhauer January 8, 2011 at 12:53 am

        dan-
        yep. without question SOV users are the major problem and obsticle for a smooth flow of traffic on the I-5 corridor in the portland metro area, not just on the bridge.

        it is the primary reason i ride to portland for business. unless there are both negative and positive incentives to do so the SOV users will continue to be a factor in causing gridlock. higher fuel costs, modest tolling and a well funded and maintained public transit system would go a long way to reduce the problems caused by SOV's. all of these compoments of the problem will and have been met with huge public resistance.

        public transit is made possible due to subsidies from federal, state and local municipalities. in clark county box revenues (fares) account for around 17% of the operating budget. if the electorate (voters) refuse to fund public transit it withers and is diminished. we are seeing this happen right now. as i have said before and will say again it is a battle of perceptions. drivers say-i don't use the bus, why should i pay for those damn empty busses driving all over town? if folks are too lazy to get a job and get a car-eff 'em. perceptions of public transit will have to change before any real alternatives to SOV's can take hold.

        seismic arguments are not red-herrings as long as federal funding hinges on them. without federal funding no alterations or improvements can happen on the I-5 bridge. our two states and cities cannot fianace such a project. as a interstate freeway it has a higher priority than local structures. (ie: marquam & sellwood bridges)

        i thought vance played the devil's advocate here but i haven't heard from him in a while... not trying to fill his shoes but rather i am just saying it how i see it. i'd like to think i'm a reasonable person and i do understand where you're coming from and that you have your city foremost in your concerns. likewise you should consider me the same. that being said we have common ground and interests and wish the same for both our communities. we want them to thrive.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • matthew vilhauer January 8, 2011 at 12:02 am

    duncan-wow. i mean WOW. you really just have no grasp of how interconnected we are. our communities, economies and infastructure that all depend on each other to either thrive or wither. the point you are so sadly missing is the fact that there is no you vrs. me arguement that is valid. on the contrary. it is us. we. it is our problem regardless of any other perceptions. that is is the factual matter of it. period. it makes me sad to think you would seem to prefer portland as an isolated autonomous state.

    please let me know which specific arguements you have that you would like me to address. i think i've covered a lot of ground and have sound conclusions. i did in no fashon advocate unfettered car access. i lived and drove in dallas texas in the mid to late 80's and saw firsthand the results. i've merely stated the realities of the car centric culture in which we live.

    i own one car and more bikes than i can count. last time i tried counting my bikes i stopped at fifty because i figured i really didn't want to know the exact number. i really have way too many. i ride many more miles a year than i drive and it brings unmeasureable joy to my life. at 44 years of age riding makes me feel young, like a kid when i first experienced the freedom of riding. cycling and bikes are a large part of who i am.

    i've voted in every election i have been able to and have never voted for a republican candidate though you have made a leap of assumptions and more or less called me a tea-bagger. and you state i cannot see past my own self interest and you will quit trying to argue against my viewpoint. my view is of the world we live in and is grounded in reality. your hypocrisy's escapes you and i cannot change that. you may call it snide but i would rather refer to my comments as a healthy slap in the face of reality.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • resopmok January 8, 2011 at 9:39 am

      Didn't see anything new in this post over all the others you've penned in this section but I still haven't seen you address any responsibility for Clark County residents' decisions to use SOVs as their primary transport. Does the bridge need to be replaced as a safety issue? Sure, but that doesn't mean it needs to expand capacity at the same time at a cost much greater than needed. Whether the funds come from the fed or local is mostly irrelevant - we all pay those taxes too, and should look at having our money spent smartly, in every case. This CRC plan is not a smart investment for many reasons and shouldn't be supported just because it is a plan for an issue we need to do something about. We should hold the decision makers and money spenders to higher standards, and demand a good solution. Also, your tone here is becoming degrading and that makes you lose a lot of credibility in my eyes, no matter how good the arguments might be.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • matthew vilhauer January 8, 2011 at 12:51 pm

        you are right. i do apologize to duncan for my tone and really should not have kept ratcheting up the rhetoric. this is a topic that i have very strong opinions and feelings about given my history with the bridge. when duncan gave a very simplistic and narrow view (in my opinion) to a very complex issue i got frustrated. for me at least, there is no one componet that can be singled out and blamed for the problems with the I-5 bridge.

        as for clark county SOV users responsibility? i've touched on the reasons people as a whole tend to drive. comfort, options, incentives and the predominant car culture in which we live. they are all interconnected. if mass transit is to be utilized it needs to be viewed as convenient, safe and effective in getting folks to their particular destinations in a timely fashion. many that drive prefer the comfort and safety of their cars vrs a bus trip that would take the same time or longer. if there were positive incentives like HOV & bus lanes and negative incentives like modest tolling folks would be more encouraged to get away from SOV's. voters need to initiate and fund these incentives or they will not happen. this would require a major shift in how transit of all kinds is percieved by the electorate. yes SOV drivers know they are largely responsible for gridlock during rush hour commutes but without viable options and incentives they will continue to drive in their car alone.

        this is a very circular problem. folks don't want to pay more taxes, fund projects they see as having no value in for them, pay tolls for roads they feel they have a right to use freely and the problem continues to grow. like a dog chasing it's tail, spinning and spinning till they get all wobley and fall over only to get up, shake it off, then look back and see that damn tail and the whole ordeal starts again. voting in politicians willing to make the hard choices people need is a whole other slippery slope. one only has to take a look at sam adams to see the oscilations in stance they defer to in order to keep their hands on the reigns of power.

        probably didn't give an explanation of clark county's SOV drivers acceptance of responsiblilties that you are looking for and i'm not sure it can. i do believe that only be changing the way people think about getting from point A to point B and electing politicians willing to make the hard decisions people as whole are unwilling to do, can a solution be delivered.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob January 8, 2011 at 12:38 pm

    "matthew vilhauer January 5, 2011 at 1:22 am

    okay folks how about this...

    instead of a "stop the crc" how about "a better crc". .... a better crc would include.... "

    Considering the excessive use of the present CRC for daily state to state job to home commuting by SOV passenger car vehicles, towards creating a better CRC, how about a management plan to guide use of the river crossing by motor vehicle operators?

    Possibly, toll SOV's drivers exclusively, as part of that plan, and/or....limit use of such vehicles on the river crossing only during non commute hours, or within specific hours of the day, such as 12am-6am?

    Assuming people could be successfully deterred from seeking to beat the system, that would ensure that passenger cars carried at least two people.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • matthew vilhauer January 8, 2011 at 1:14 pm

      brilliant. i've heard this idea a few times from various people and think it would be a great incentive to carpooling and mass transit. toss in a HOV lane and it would be even more effective. the HOV lane would have to be accessable to buses getting on the freeway from downtown vancouver so i don't know how it might play with the placement of an HOV lane.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob January 8, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    Slight correction: "... limit use of such vehicles on the river crossing only during non commute hours, or to within specific hours of the day, such as 12am-6am? ...wsbob

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • matthew vilhauer January 8, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    duncan-yes i can be an ass at times and do apologize. we view things differently and since we live in a free society that should not be discouraged. peace.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • wsbob January 8, 2011 at 6:23 pm

      spare_wheel...I looked at the map. Readers looking at it could guess, but why don't you, in addition to encouraging them look at the map, simply state a few reasons why you oppose CRC, that you hope readers will gather from looking at the google map of Washington, west of Vancouver?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Greg January 9, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    Obviously, many people feel strongly about this issue from different perspectives.
    I can agree that the bridge should be upgraded seismically, however, when I hear people saying the bridge expansion is about "commerce" and not about SOV Washingtonians, it seems disingenuous.

    To illustrate my point, take a look at the traffic view on google maps (link below). Click the "change" link next to "Live Traffic". I choose to look at Wed, 8AM, Noon & 6PM.
    At 8AM, all the slow traffic near CRC is from people travelling south.
    At Noon, there is a slight slowdown southbound.
    At 6PM, it is solid red northbound.

    http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Portland,+OR&sll=45.521082,-122.650015&sspn=0.00875,0.014141&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Portland,+Multnomah,+Oregon&ll=45.589777,-122.5597&spn=0.139828,0.357056&z=12&layer=t

    Recommended Thumb up 0

- Daily bike news since 2005 -
BikePortland.org is a production of
PedalTown Media Inc.
321 SW 4th Ave, Ste. 401
Portland, OR 97204

Powered by WordPress. Theme by Clemens Orth.
Subscribe to RSS feed


Original images and content owned by Pedaltown Media, Inc. - Not to be used without permission.