(Graphic: CRC)
Portland City Council has added their voice to the list of agencies and organizations that want the replacement bridge and light rail option to receive further study in the $4.2 billion Columbia River Crossing project.
Their unanimous support comes in the form of a letter to the Co-Chairs of the CRC Task Force, who are set to vote on their choice for a “locally preferred alternative” (LPA) tonight in Vancouver.
“The project will have an impact on our city for generations to come.”
–Portland City Council
Much like Metro’s vote and resolutions a few weeks ago, the Council’s letter does not establish how they will ultimately vote on the project (that happens on July 9th). Rather, it is meant to provide direction to Commissioner Sam Adams who is Council’s representative on the 39-member CRC Task Force.
At tonight’s meeting, the Task Force will vote on which single bridge option should move forward for more detailed study. The key decisions to be made are to do nothing, build a replacement or supplemental bridge, decide which kind of transit it should have (bus or rail), and figure out where the terminus of that transit should be.
It is widely assumed the Task Force will vote for a replacement bridge with light rail. The actual design of the bridge (including number of lanes, size and design of bike facility, and details of transit service) will not be set in stone until later in the process.
(Photos © J. Maus)
Portland City Council is one of six regional bodies who have veto power on the the CRC project and critics of the project consider them their best chance at a “no” vote.
The letter from Council — coming prior to hearing public testimony on the issue — has sparked concern from some.
Transportation activist and former City Council candidate Chris Smith posted a story about Council’s letter on his PortlandTransport blog with the headline, Council Drinks CRC Kool-Aid without Benefit of Hearing.
Jill Fugilister with the Coalition for a Livable Future was quoted in the Oregonian today as saying, “What’s the point of a hearing?”
But Shoshanah Oppenheim, transportation policy analyst for Commissioner Sam Adams, told me this morning that the letter “underscores the city’s concerns” with the project. She said, “We feel this was a very clear and concise way to direct Commissioner Adams and to advise the Task Force about what Portland’s concerns are.”
Mayor Royce Pollard at a Task
Force meeting in February 2007.
Oppenheim called Council’s letter a “distillation” of advice they’ve received from both the Portland Planning Commission and the Sustainable Development Commission. Both of those advisory bodies made their recommendations after receiving input during public hearings.
Included in the memo to the Task Force Co-Chairs are four pages of recommendations.
Among the recommendations listed under the heading of “Locally Preferred Alternative Recommendations”, the City writes, “Further technical analysis and public involvement is needed to determine the “appropriately sized” bridge for all multi-modal components,” and that the project should, “contribute to a reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita in the bi-state metropolitan area.”
Also included are a list of five recommendations for the pedestrian and bicycle facilities:
“A multi-use facility should provide for three separated facilities and space dedicated for southbound bicycle travel, northbound bicycle travel, and pedestrians adjacent to the high-capacity transit facility. This facility should meet or exceed standards set by ‘World class’ facilities.
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities on the river crossing bridges should provide for occasional rest areas and look out points.
The multi-use facility on the river crossing should be of continuous design and connect to the Hayden Island transit station and the EXPO station.
An urban standard pedestrian facility shall be provided on the east side of the Portland Harbor bridge connecting Bridgeton to Hayden Island.
Implement the pedestrian and bicycle improvements identified for the recommendations for the Hayden Island and Marine Drive interchanges.”
Oppenheim says Portland City Council wants to make sure they have an opening to influence various aspects of the project. “There’s no reason to think that a bridge of inappropriate size would be built without approval from City Council. What we’re trying to do at this point is to insert into the LPA more opportunities for oversight in the upcoming design process.”
_______
— Download the City Council’s letter and list of recommendations (232K PDF).
— For more coverage, see the Columbia River Crossing archives.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Last night – Vancouver\’s City Council also voted/ made resolutions on its LPA options too:
http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/2008/06/06242008_City-council-tweaks-bridge-resolution.cfm
NO CRC!
Are people comprehending the cost of this thing, and how much of available funds it will suck up? I really get the sense the thinking is: hey, we might as well use this money while it\’s available. But this isn\’t free money from the government. Myself, I honestly sort of thought it was, before I attended the Metro meeting. I had the impression the $4.2 billion was going to come from the feds. Boy was I wrong.
I can\’t remember the breakdown of where the money was expected to come from, but only a fraction was projected to come from the feds. I did a quick search for the details, and found this column that shows the funding question is really quite murky: http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1206401121167920.xml&coll=7
The cost of the CRC seems like an elephant in the room. We hear \”4.2 billion,\” like it\’s a given, like it\’s secured, but it\’s not.
Also, it seems like the the sheer size of the number doesn\’t sink in. Granted, I find it hard to even comprehend a billion, much less 4.2 billion. How about: \”$4,200 million\”?
I would think our political leaders would make more noise about this (and to his credit, Robert Liberty was the council member at the meeting who was stating the numbers), but I think 1) the politicos are scared of ticking off the freight and real estate interests that are getting so tingly about the CRC, and 2) regular folks aren\’t making noise about it.
I think this project is going to cost us, big time, and we just don\’t get it.
All for a project that will help turn Washington farm land into Portland suburbs, and undermine the good planning this region is known for. (Planning, incidentally, that\’s helped keep our home values afloat relative to the rest of the country in these tough economic times.)
Maybe there\’s just such a sense of momentum and inevitability about this thing that these leaders figure they\’d better just get on board. Like hobos hopping a train.
Remember though, even a speeding train can be slowed, and its direction reversed. It just takes the will to do so, and concerted effort to make it happen. Things you might hope our leaders would provide.
Who\’s driving this train, anyway?
http://www.gatewaysucks.org/why-building-roads-doesnt-ease-congestion
What\’s the word, flummoxed ???
Is the City Council really forgetting the lessons of Mt. Hood Freeway? Who in their right mind thinks it was a mistake to not build that freeway?
Who in their right mind would vote for a 4.2 billion BRIDGE?! Not more than 6 \’miles of influence\’ … this is just UNBELIEVABLE. Adding such conditions that VMT not be increased are pie in the sky folks.
Evidently, Vancouver City Council is vehemently opposed to tolling.
I\’m in a state of confusion + disappointment + anger + wtf???
As simply stated in #2, NO CRC!
I guess it\’s time to pull a \”Jessica\” and start writing letters!
No CRC is not the way to go. People need to give up that bandwagon. Dealing with the ancient I-5 is so yesterday.
We need a new crossing.
On another note, did anyone read the Oregonian article last week concerning Pearson Airpark?
It appears that much of the design of a new bridge will be reliant upon approval of the FAA and the people in charge of the Pearson Airpark/ City of Vamcouver.
It was suggested that the airpark be moved, as why should the home of only 175 planes dictate the design of a needed crossing.
It has been rightfully decided that the airpark will neither be moved nor closed, and the design of the bridge will have to fit within the FAA regulations. It is apparent that the bridge that stands now is higher than the FAA would normally allow. I think by like a hundred feet.
Did anyone see Dylan Rivera\’s piece in the O on Sunday morning finding that the bridge planners have willfully made their future traffic forecasts without regard to the growth (and thus the increase in traffic) a new and bigger bridge would cause? He dug up a report finding that a new bridge would increase growth along the corridor and dump far, far more car traffic into Portland every day.
Sometimes it seems like nobody is looking at this issue sanely. Why do we have a massive highway through our central city at all? Instead of arguing about how much more traffic we should invite into town with this new bridge, maybe we should be considering eliminating I-5 through Portland entirely.
No CRC. It is still an option. The thing is not funded yet.
One of the big forces behind this thing is the trade unions that stand to get a ton of work out of the CRC. This is NOT the sort of employment our region should be fighting for. Yes, we need good jobs in Portland, but building highways is not the solution.
Is there no legislative body in the region willing to stand up to this craziness?
If folks think Pearson Airpark is such a design problem…then how about the true reason for the 12 lane \’aircraft carrier\’…all the weaving to and from the Hayden Island/ Janzen Beach exits cause much of the bridge congestion. Close these exists and move them to the state route with arterial bridges…then the I-5 gets narrower. That is the real horse to whip.
ditto D-J & Bill: no CRC. The reasons have been made plain, most succinctly by Joe Cortright. It\’s distressing to me that the BTA supports this freeway project, albeit with conditions. Once you\’ve signed on as one little supporter for a $4.2 billion mega-project, do you really think you\’re going to be able to bend the design to your will? Good luck with that… better to be in opposition, and go down swinging.
My money\’s going to the Coalition for a Livable Future. There may be no hope of stopping this thing, given the entrenched interests that want to see it built whatever the cost, but least the CLF hasn\’t been co-opted…yet.
You people need to realize a new Bridge is going to be built! Nothing is going to stop a new bridge from being built. This is the reality of the situation.
This is not a new idea, nor is it un-needed.
We need a new bridge. For many, many reasons.
It is important to remember that while it is great we are cyclists, and many of us would love to cancel autos out of the picture entirely, it is not going to happen in our lifetime. Sure some people in the future will be swayed to drive less, but only a small percentage.
Ideas like not building a new crossing, and not even having the I-5 corridor pass through town(sorry Elly) are pipe dreams.
What the hell have you people been smoking? And can you share with me?
\”Sharing the Road\” does not consist of constantly complaining that people should not drive cars, or be allowed to drive cars. (no matter how true it is)
Making blanket statements about not needing a new bridge, and entirely closing some streets to auto traffic is not sharing the road.
Statements like these are no different than those you hate to hear from drivers about how bikes should be only allowed in parks, and on the sidewalks. They are no different than when a driver passes you, and yells for you to \”Get off the road!\”
It is these ideas that continue to drive wedges in between road using groups
The best thing to do is for all groups to stop poo pooing this, and get on the wagon towards building the right bridge.
The right bridge for EVERYONE who uses it. And yes, this does include autos.
Are people comprehending the cost of this thing, and how much of available funds it will suck up?
Yes, and it drives me crazy that the fiscal conservatives aren\’t howling about this. How in the world are the legislatures in Oregon and Washington supposed to cough up a third of 4.2 billion dollars during what may well be one of the worst recessions in ages?? How incredibly irresponsible.
Hi Icarus:
\”You people need to realize a new Bridge is going to be built! Nothing is going to stop a new bridge from being built.\”
Not to pick, but that sounds bit like super-villain talk :). OK, I\’m game:
We\’ll just see about that! (Pow! Biff! Zap!)
\”It is important to remember that while it is great we are cyclists, and many of us would love to cancel autos out of the picture entirely…\”
Whoa, hold up. That seems like a bit of a straw man. I haven\’t seen many arguments against the CRC based on a desire to \”cancel out\” autos.
It\’s about not pouring a massive amount of available highway dollars – 4.2 billion of \’em (or 4,200 million of \’em, or 4.2 million thousand of \’em…) into a project that will induce demand, encourage sprawl, pour traffic into already congested city streets, and then just get clogged up again after new development springs up around the shiny new bridge. All of which directly contradicts the smart growth practices that make this region so great.
Personally, I\’d be happy with something akin to the current capacity – allowing for commerce up and down the western seaboard – but with upgrades to make sure it\’s safe. Light rail, bike routes? Sure, why not, but not at a cost of $4.2 billion, and not at the cost of encouraging tons more driving.
It\’s all the ill-conceived development that sprang up around what was meant to be an interstate river crossing that\’s caused the current mess – how about we fix that? Or at least not let it continue to spiral out of control?
\”Ideas like not building a new crossing, and not even having the I-5 corridor pass through town(sorry Elly) are pipe dreams.
What the hell have you people been smoking?\”
With regards to the not building a new crossing, I guess the same thing 3 Metro councilors have been smoking?
And with regards to not having I-5 go through town… Well, there had been a whole freeway where there\’s now a park on the west side of the freeway… And 205 could conceivably allow traffic to go north/south past Portland. Not exactly pipe-dream material, IMO. Sounds rather doable, actually. And nice.
\”Making blanket statements about not needing a new bridge, and entirely closing some streets to auto traffic is not sharing the road.\”
Well, using up $4.2 billion of available funds – assuming that much is even available – for a six mile stretch of freeway that mostly benefits ill-conceived suburban development isn\’t really sharing the roads either.
Most statements about not needing a new bridge are usually made in the spirit of it being a still serviceable bridge for the thousands of cars that cross it every day… How is that not sharing?
And closing streets? Are you referring to Parkways? The event that closed all of 6 miles of roads – out of the hundreds of miles within the city limits – for six hours – out of the 8736 hours in a year – on a Sunday morning? Oh, how piggy of us.
I love the Parkways. I want to marry the Parkways. Don\’t pick on the Parkways.
\”Statements like these are no different than those you hate to hear from drivers about how bikes should be only allowed in parks, and on the sidewalks. They are no different than when a driver passes you, and yells for you to \”Get off the road!\”\”
You know I\’ve never personally heard statements like these from drivers, but I could see how someone might… Anyway, assuming these to be common car-driver statements, I would imagine they would be the results of an over-inflated sense of entitlement so many car-drivers get (heck, I feel it when I drive – pedestrians are so slow! And always walking in front of my mighty metal self!), an attitude that would only be reinforced by the gift of a massive, multi-lane monstrosity like the big-bridge CDC.
Arrgh, why can I never spot typos until after I post?
I wrote:
\”Well, there had been a whole freeway where there\’s now a park on the west side of the freeway…\”
But it should read:
\”Well, there had been a whole freeway where there\’s now a park on the west side of the river…\”
I am already disgusted with this project but if WA isn\’t paying a majority share when it is all said and done I don\’t even know what to say…
For the present, I continue to oppose this bridge because it perpetuates the faulty work-live growth pattern that has been largely responsible for creating the need for the new giant bridge. Most elected officials, land use planning experts, consultants and others charged with conceiving the design of this bridge are not confronting that issue.
There\’s a number of good reasons a new bridge is called for, but one to provide for a huge increase in the number of state to state home to work and back commuters is not one of them. Much more effort prioritizing reasonable means of allowing workers homes to be closer to their place of employment should be considered.
Graham,
My references to cyclists wanting car free were not in any manner in reference to this project, meant more in general. It is a nice idea, that is a long, long way from happening. I believe I wrote \”not in our lifetime\”.
I constantly hear and read comments in reference to people hating cars, or slamming car usage. I am over it. And it is in no manner \”Sharing the Road\” to wish one group of users off of it.
I was also not referencing the \”Parkways\” in any manner. Did you see me point to that? Do not put words in my mouth. That is \”piggy\” of you. (to use your own words).
The answer? No you didn\’t read or see me point to that, but you may have seen me on the \”Parkways\” ON MY BIKE! If not just for a short while. (by the way, I now live about 35 miles out of town, and did a number of different date/cycling/grocery shopping/bike polo, \”things\” that Sunday, and I DROVE partway, so as to make it to everything I needed to do in a timely manner. Not to mention getting the milk and ice cream home cold.
I am not going to reference any more of the points you tried to make to me, even though I could joyfully pick some of them apart, as I was not looking for explanations.
I was making a statement.
I know what I am talking about.
As for where I am coming from, you would not be able to find many more consistent, long term, dedicated cyclists than myself in this city.
I have probably logged more miles in the downtown core alone than most do in all of their riding, combined.(lifetime)
My point however with what I wrote was totally correct. The bridge is going to be replaced, and as many groups have done, the best idea is for everyone to get on board and make sure it is replaced in a responsible, proper manner for ALL who need to cross the river.
The Portland City Council says the project should “contribute to a reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita in the bi-state metropolitan area\”
NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
If VMT per capita decreases, but population increases, what do you get? *Increased total VMT*.
If we want to survive both peak oil and global warming, we need to decrease the total amount of driving we are doing as a collective whole. That means either the population decreases (probably not going to happen) or the VMT reduction per person decreases faster than the population increase.
Icarus,
I took your criticism of people wanting to cancel out autos as having something to do with the CRC because it appeared here, in a thread about the CRC. A natural misunderstanding, but I\’m sorry for it nonetheless.
Also, the phrase \”entirely closing some streets to auto traffic,\” automatically made me think of the Parkways, which 1) is still fresh on everyone\’s mind, 2) was a blast, and 3) was the victim of a hatchet job by a local news station. I\’m still kind of riled by #3, so I was quick to jump to what I thought was its defense. I\’m not clear on what closings you\’re talking about, but it\’s obviously not Parkways, so my apologies for that misunderstanding as well.
It\’s far too easy for people to misunderstand each other, get mad, and stay mad under the best of conditions, and the internet is not the best of conditions. So thanks for clarifying!
Language and semantics can be tricky. Note that the quote contains the words, \”…per capita…\”. That pretty much keeps the doors wide open on continuing a growing trend of round trip home to work state to state commuters each day.
How about if a cap on numbers of single occupancy vehicles(SOV\’s) allowed across the bridge per day, specified for the years and and decades to come, were put into place? Derive the number for the cap from peak numbers of bridge crossings in years past.
Doing something like that would represent a commitment to reducing congestion and improving area livability.
The O\’s June 24th Op/Ed page had a piece complimenting the BTA on their conditional support of the bridge:
\’A Bridging of the Minds\’ O story
The article doesn\’t get in to the specifics of BTA\’s support, but does have a couple bits that show the O\’s editorial staff has a few clues about what\’s going on:
\”The ideal connection for biking would most likely be a futuristic \”alt-bridge\” that doesn\’t serve cars or trucks at all, but ferries only bikers, walkers and light-rail trains or rapid transit buses across the Columbia. The problem with the alt-bridge is that you could build it only in an alt-universe.
You couldn\’t get federal help for it in the upcoming reauthorization of the Transportation Act. To capitalize on Oregon\’s transportation clout in Congress, you\’d need to take a few other pressing needs of the region into consideration — those of businesses, car commuters, truckers and freight advocates, just to pick a few.\” O article, link above.
Their answer to that need isn\’t so great though.
Someone please convince Rex Burkholder and Sam Adams to change their minds about this project!
Killing this project isn\’t about bicycles or cycling, at least for me. It is about logic. We don\’t need a new bridge, we need people to change their behavior or pay for their behavior. Last night there was a story on the news about the CRC during rush hour and after the story they cut to a live shot of the bridge and traffic was flowing smoothly.
This project has many huge hurdles to overcome and public opinion is still forming. The elephant in the room that needs to be talked about over and over and over again is taxes and who is going to pay for this bridge. Anyone supporting the bridge should be painted with a pro-tax brush. If you support the bridge replacement you are supporting massive new taxes.
I don\’t believe the new bridge is inevitable and the longer we can stall the better our chances will be of killing it all together. Gas will continue to rise, people will change their behavior and the need will recede.
The highway trust fund is going bankrupt, there is no free lunch. Who will pay?
What kg said.
You all voted for Sam, right? What did you expect?
There has yet to be an overpriced, needless boondoggle, that he hasn\’t loved. You all voted for a progressive, for change. You got a slicker, shinier version of the same.
Just wait until your Obama bubble bursts.
Fools.
Steve,
Are you implying we should vote for John McCain or that things would be different with Sho Dozono? I guess you think the Bush years have been just dandy or maye you voted for Ralph Nader. Really besides name calling what is your point?
The fact that most people believe in the existence of two separate political parties is my point. It is just a big game of good cop, bad cop.
Same people footing the bill for both shows and the storyline does not rely on your meaningless vote.
You seem to be implying that there is no difference between say George Bush, who has denied the existence of Global Warming until maybe yesterday and Al Gore who has been talking about it for almost two decades. While I agree we have many problems with our two party political system I think to say that there is no difference between them is incorrect.
For instance:
John Mcain would like to have a gas tax holiday.
Barack Obama points out this is a gimic that will solve nothing.
John McCain wants to start drilling for oil anywhere and everywhere.
Barack Obama points out that this will do nothing to lower gas prices.
John McCain wants to stay in Iraq.
Barack Obama wants to leave.
ect. ect. ect.
In this instance the majority of the populace is still heavily supporting the CRC job one is to chip away at this support and I believe the talking point to achieve that goal is money. If public opinon can be swayed then politicians will follow.
KG,
Your little list there is nice, but I for one do not believe either candidate will actually back up what they are saying about these, or any, topics when elected.
Politicians say whatever it will take to get elected, and are paying many people to tell them what to say, in order to get elected.
Then, most DO NOT come through at all with what their promises once elected.
How many times does this need to be proven?
Also, we do not have a \”two party system\”
I believe in any presidential election, there are generally up to 35 presidential candidates.
The real problem lies withing the electoral college, and the constant reconfirmation by any and all, including irresponsible reporting by news, media, even the candidates themselves, that we have 2 candidates to vote for, either democrat, or republican.
So what are you going to do? Take your ball and go home? That would be fine but you don\’t have a ball.
BTW-
A two-party system is a form of party system where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all elections.
You were saying?
The \”bottleneck\” myth:
The I-5 system includes all bypass extensions that run parallel to it; thus, the total number of lanes crossing the COlumbia river is the number of lanes on I-5 AND the number of lanes on I-205. Sounds like that\’s way more lanes than a lot of other parts of the I-5 corridor – certainly more than most of the rest of Oregon. And why would one build MORE lanes of traffic in the most expensive part of a road: the part that has to be elevated and traverse water? One might think the optimal and cost-effective strategy is to accept a certain amount of bottlenecking at the most expensive part of a route. If these lanes are merely to serve Hayden Island, then let\’s think about whether that\’s such a smart idea. Is it wise to allow for the kind of density on the island that requires direct access from a high cost interstate system at its most challenging point? What would happen to Hayden Island if all access were by lower cost connections to the mainland of Portland, and then an easier-to-design entrance and exit ramp to I-5? The only objection would come from the big-box businesses on the Island, who certainly are not generating the tax revenue that might justify the great expense of the more complicated interchange. Residents might actually prefer a slightly less direct route, if it meant a little more peaceful neighborhood. Personally, I believe what might happen there if access were a little harder is that the mix of buisnesses might change such that it might be a little more sustainable. More of the resident\’s needs might be met on the island, and fewer trips might be necessary from Hayden Island to the rest of the city.
OK, now that we no longer need all those auxiliary lanes, we\’re back to the six through lanes that most designs talk about. Which is what we have right now. Let\’s stick to the bridge we have. It\’s a lot cheaper. The money saved can pay for a light rail ferry system, or some other lower cost alternative.
I was saying the system is screwed.
That is a fact.
Light rail ferry system? A nice pair of floating barges with rails? Oh, and at a low cost too.
Nothing Tri Met does it at a low cost. You can\’t screw the city you are supposedly serving if you do things at a low cost.
Tri Met would have to change their misson statement.
Another pipe dream.
You know what? If it meant that we\’d have to sacrifice the light rail connection to Vancouver to prevent this stupid bridge, it\’d be worth it. Forget the rail-ferry or any rail. Forget the better bike lane. It\’s all about the extra car lanes. That\’s it. That\’s what this whole thing is about. The extra car lanes. If we stop these, we win. Period.
Let Vancouver make their own jobs.
Come on now Peejay,
I know you are a good guy, and I also know that you realize the bridge will have bike lanes, light rail, and pedestrian crossings. It will not be built without the proper accommodations for all users. (once again, \”all\” includes cars)
You also know they are going to throw an extra couple of lanes on the I-5 to attempt to ease congestion (whether it will or not is still to be seen, but I think it will), or in an attempt to justify the new bridge. Either way, there will be either more lanes, or more effective lanes built.
We also know that a lot of Vancouver\’s population and big tax money is on the outer east side, and partially deep north, of town, making this light rail connection at Clark College not very convenient at all for many \’Couverites. Many I have spoken to still don\’t think light rail just to Clark College is even worth the cost.
I have always thought that the proper thing to do is to run the light rail across the 205 area, from the airport to Vancouver mall, as there is a lot of right of way space down the middle of 205 along that corridor, and it would be a boom both to Vancouver and to \”ugh\” Tri Met.
It would still, in my opinion, be more worthwhile to build a light rail bridge alongside the Glenn Jackson,(or under it) instead of running it across the I-5.
Running it across the I-5 bridge though just may open up a future rail line (hopefully CTRAN trains, and not the evil Tri Met) from Clark College, across 500, to make a nice loop across Vancouver, and back over to the airport.
The real question here is have you learned to skid your fixed gear yet?
(my subtle attempt at humor, which sometimes can tend to transcend controversy)
OK, so if you don\’t think light rail is worth it, then why build, unless you believe that more lanes will lead to a reduction in congestion. Since there\’s a huge price tag associated with that supposed benefit, please show me just one example of an increase in lanes that leads to a reduction in congestion six months after construction is completed. Just one case.
Oh, and if you\’re having trouble, put your weight forward, and pull up with the front foot when you lock the rear foot. Be prepared to buy a new rear tire every two months. Which you can purchase for about 1/2000000000 of the cost of this stinking bridge.
Math error! Make that about 1/200000000th.
I am not having trouble skidding, but the last time I talked to you, you hadn\’t mastered it yet….
Icarus,
You say,
\”We also know that a lot of Vancouver\’s population and big tax money is on the outer east side, and partially deep north, of town, making this light rail connection at Clark College not very convenient at all for many \’Couverites.\”
and,
\”I have always thought that the proper thing to do is to run the light rail across the 205 area, from the airport to Vancouver mall,\”
Do you live in that area? East/deep north part of Vancouver, near the Vancouver Mall? I\’m guessing maybe you do, because when I followed the link that was in your username until a few days ago, it led to a blog – http://bowelsofjohn.blogspot.com – that showed a few round trip bike routes that started and ended at roughly the same area – http://tinyurl.com/5dojla – a Vancouver suburb, on the edge of what appears to be farmland.
If that is where you live, it would seem to underscore what I think is an important point in this debate: how one feels about the CRC depends a lot on where one lives.
If I lived in the Vancouver \’burbs, I would desperately hope for transit options that allowed easy access into downtown Portland (which I love), and I\’d probably be a huge fan of the CRC, especially if I could get the federal government and Oregon taxpayers to kick in for it.
Personally though, I made a point to live close-in to Portland, where I can meet my needs – including getting downtown – mostly without driving. I operate my own business from home, for much the same reason. It cost more to buy a home close-in like this, but I\’ve economized to help afford it. (Also, it turns out driving very little is a real financial boon, especially lately.)
A cost-benefit analysis of the CRC also depends very much on one\’s location. From where I stand, a new crossing will benefit me hardly at all: I don\’t know how long it\’s been since I drove over that bridge. The times I have, the traffic has moved along well enough. I must have avoided rush hour.
However, a new crossing stands to cost me a whole lot. I pay a LOT in taxes, and I don\’t see the need for a huge chunk of my tax dollars to go to a shiny new mega-bridge that benefits me not at all.
Which is, of course, a really selfish way to look at it. However, even if I look at how the CRC benefits my beloved Portland as a whole, I\’m just not seeing the win: A mega-bridge CRC will dump tons more cars into Portland, tons more carbon into our air, and suck billions of dollars out of our available funds. While it\’s at it, it\’ll make the madness of building subdivisions on close-in farmland seem to make good economic sense.
I think maybe what we\’re seeing with this CRC is that the people who stand to benefit from it have been more aware of it – and for longer – than the people, like me, who could care less about crossing the Columbia. I mean, I only became aware of the thing when Jonathan posted about it here on BikePortland a few months ago.
Now the people who stand to benefit from the CRC have some major momentum behind them, while the rest of us are just waking up to how much this thing is going to cost us, and how much it will impact our region.
Graham,
I do indeed at this juncture live at the very end of the road in that area.
I commute by bike a very long way. I also ride big loops in the hills around here, and even ride 12 miles uphill (the hill starts mere blocks away) to go mt. biking, with a nice downhill bomb straight to my house afterwards.
The closest store is like 8 miles. Public transit is at least 10 miles. depending on the time or the day.
However, my opinions come from living here now (7 months) and in the past(growing up), but mainly from being a resident of very close in NE Portland for most of the last 20 years, until quite recently. I worked on my bike, in downtown Portland, for most of this time.
I have also lived in Downtown Vancouver for that matter.
My comments and thoughts on this subject come from the unique view point of having lived on both sides of this crossing, being personable with other road users, and listening to and reading the information available.
I have been aware of this project ever since the early 80\’s, (not just a couple of months by the way) as there has been a constant and ongoing struggle as to what to do about the outdated I-5 crossing.
I certainly have the experience in dealing with this crossing, the residents n both sides, and the intelligence, to understand fully what is going on here.
Have a good day!
Hey Icarus,
You said:
\”I have been aware of this project ever since the early 80\’s, (not just a couple of months by the way) as there has been a constant and ongoing struggle as to what to do about the outdated I-5 crossing.
I certainly have the experience in dealing with this crossing, the residents n both sides, and the intelligence, to understand fully what is going on here.\”
I hope you don\’t think I was suggesting that you haven\’t been aware of the project, and I\’m definitely not questioning your intelligence. I was saying *I* only became aware of the CRC in the past few months.
That\’s what\’s so alarming to me: this thing has a lot of momentum, it stands to cost me and my region a lot of money, but I\’m only just hearing about it. That\’s my fault of course – the information was out there, and I just didn\’t see it.
In contrast to my own dawning awareness of the CRC, I would of course think that people with a vested interest in the crossing – and I\’m guessing you have just such a vested interest – would have been very aware of it, for the years that it\’s been in the works.
The rest of us, the ones who might be less directly – but entirely negatively – affected by the CRC, had better start thinking about it, and making our voices heard.
Holy crap:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1214029515244280.xml&coll=7&thispage=1
\”The Oregonian has learned that traffic forecasters involved in planning a new bridge, projected to cost $4.2 billion, were told to assume a new 12-lane bridge would not trigger any more growth than if the current bridge were simply left in place. Yet a 12-lane bridge would handle 40 percent more cars during afternoon rush hour, according to the forecasters\’ calculations.
Ignored is a finding by regional planners, in 2001, that eliminating the bridge\’s bottleneck threatened to push job and housing growth away from other parts of the metropolitan area and concentrate them in North Portland and across the river, in a rapidly expanding Clark County.
That might or might not be a good thing. But it is absent from decision-making on a project that could, according to several planning experts, influence growth and quality of life in a region that prides itself on avoiding sprawl.\”
They just ignored induced demand?!!? Lordy.
Further down it says:
\”And it examines the relationship of other traffic problems in the region to I-5: If Oregon 217 in Beaverton is not widened and the Sunrise Corridor in Clackamas County isn\’t built, \”then the effect of the capacity increases in the I-5 corridor would be greater,\” the report states.\”
So, a bigger I-5 creates demand for more and bigger highways within its sphere of influence.
\”In cases from Chicago to Vermont, environmental groups have obtained federal court orders that required highway planners to redo their traffic forecasts to account for induced development, Ewing said. Such litigation and new study can cause years of delay.\”
Huh.