Catherine Ciarlo in screenshot from
new video.
-Watch it below-
Mayors Sam Adams’ office has just released a video address giving an update to Portlanders on his 100 day action plan as it pertains to his transportation agenda. The video (watch it below) is in the form of a monologue from his transportation policy director (and former executive director of the Bicycle Transportation Alliance) Catherine Ciarlo.
In the video, Ciarlo says “Mayor Adams set out an ambitious agenda for transportation and we feel good about the progress we’ve made,” and it addresses the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) project, the Portland Streetcar, the cycle track, and the new bike parking corral.
On the CRC, Ciarlo says their office came to a “win-win solution” to build up to 12 lanes conditioned on the creation of the Columbia Crossing Mobility Council that will “provide active performance based management of the bridge…in perpetuity”. This council is important, says Ciarlo, because, “in the past, we’ve built big highway projects and then left them out there to fill up with cars. This time we want to do it differently, and we want to do it better.”
Ciarlo also gives an overview of the promised “high-profile” cycle track that is set to be announced soon. She says it will have a “painted buffer” (as opposed to a separated grade) and that it will be located in Northwest Portland (I’ll have more on the cycle track soon). She also touches on the promise for 15 miles of bike boulevards and the new bike parking corral that is set to be installed at PNCA tomorrow.
Watch the video below:
100 Day Plan Update – Transportation from The Office on Vimeo.
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.
Sam and Catherine – bravo to the many triumphs and strides you are making in your 100 day plan, but when it comes to the CRC you’re on the wrong side of this – your vote on a 12 lane megabridge and naive plan to manage it in perfect world conditions 10 years from now is unrealistic. It’s also using a bazoka when a surgical knife is called for. I will continue to support you on the choices that are turly sustainable for our community but you got it wrong with your bridge plan. I hope in the coming months you will see that, have a change of heart and direction.
I have immense respect for Catherine Ciarlo, but I am totally with metal cowboy. The concerns and issues with building a 12-lane freeway bridge were thoroughly detailed by several respected individuals and organizations when they questioned the decision last year to move forward with accepting a replacement bridge. The public was told that we needed a new bridge for seismic reasons and that the concerns about environmental, health, and land-use impacts would be considered with the decision on the number of lanes. At that time many feared that issues like increased vehicle miles traveled and green-house emissions, low-density and car-dependent development in Clark County, and dumping of traffic and air quality impacts into residential North Portland- concerns that would hinge critically on the number of lanes of a replacement bridge- would be bypassed and disregarded once the decision for a replacement bridge was made. The fear was we were going to get the super bridge that ODOT and CRC staff wanted all along. I regret now I didn’t take that fear more seriously. Maybe it was naïve to think that our elected officials would understand that less is more in building a bridge that supports rather than undermines our health and environment. But now it seems even less likely that any new bridge authority or “Mobility Council” is going to have the political will manage demand on a 12-lane bridge in a way that substantively addresses the original concerns about negative health, land-use, and environmental impacts. I can’t believe the City Council could not even muster the chutzpa to add health and environmental justice advocates to the proposed Mobility Council!
If our elected officials now take the next step of asking Congress to pay for this mega freeway bridge, we will have missed a huge opportunity to send a message to the Washington D.C. and rest of the country about the need for a new sustainable era in transportation planning and urban development.
It’s time to for a little direct action. See you on April 5!
Jim
I am feeling lost on this whole lane debate…when I look at the plans at the open house – I see like 12+ land lanes in Vancouver vs. 21 land lanes in No. Portland (to serve all the ramps and weaving for the Jantzen Beach SuperCenter shopping mall and Marine Drive/ industrial area).
Please help me understand this vs. just the simple idea that only sprawl happens in Clark County vs. to the south, east and west of Portland.
I guess ODOT could close an exit or two and reduce the number of lanes to get it closer to 10 if needed?
As soon as I heard Catherine Ciarlo’s greenwashing about the CRC being a “win-win” solution, I immediately thought of this:
http://tinyurl.com/d2zdk4
Win-win for who Catherine? Developers and big oil?
I’m left with the impression that this bridge is not about Portland at all, hence the total folding of political spine on this one.
Interstate commerce: can’t live with it, can’t get it in the way of it and continue to survive politically.
It’s the bridge that’s poised to eat Portland (i think Vancouver was consumed some time ago)…and it’s only going to cost us $1,800 apiece. You, too, kids!
Now that’s what I call a swell deal.
I have nothing but respect for Catherine, but the weak-kneed pols in the City and Metro Councils have screwed up royally on this — and basically thrown Catherine under the bus.
The CRC remains a $4.2 billion dollar pig. It’s painted pale green, with a touch of lipstick, but it’s still a pig.
Let’s get this straight: the Mobility Council is set up to be a rubber stamp. Whether it’s filled with advocates for the trucking industry and developers, or bikers and community representatives, whether the members will be told in advance how to vote, or have their vote mean nothing after the fact, the end result will be that the maximum number of lanes is opened up for cars as soon as possible, and those lanes stay open until the bridge falls down.
Catherine, Sam, you are fooling yourselves (or the voters) if you say otherwise.
By the way, everybody who’s going to the rally on April 5th (Waterfront Park, under the Morrison Bridge): we should organize some rides to get there, and I’ll bet we’ll have a big ride after the event, too.
Oh, the rally starts at noon.
A “win-win solution”? Really? For who? Those who insist on commuting in their single occupancy vehicles? This bridge is not what we need, it is not a good example of sustainability and forward thinking. If there are 12 lanes, we will have 12 lanes full of cars, and anyone saying otherwise is kidding themselves. April 5th!!! Tell everyone you know, this is the time to put a stop to this disaster.
What does “active management” mean, really? All they can possibly do is vary the toll rate. That’s it. They’re not going to magically make lanes disappear to discourage commuting. If I’m wrong, someone please correct me.
“provide active performance based management of the bridge…in perpetuity” = congestion pricing. Not a bad thing, but why all the bureaucrat-babble? Why not just call a spade a spade?
Congestion pricing is a great idea, and would work really well on the current bridge. Let’s try it out! And save all that bridge construction money!
Hate to sound cynical, but it sounds more like a distraction from the fact that 90 days is when the recall efforts begin.
We elected Rex and then Sam to protect and build on the transportation vision we inherited from the 70’s when the Mount Hood freeway was stopped and light rail begun. Oh how they have failed us!
Why isn’t the mobility council managing the current bridge? Why not try the tolling, mass transit & bike friendly sidewalks now before you spend the billions (that we don’t have). Catherine Cairlo, when she headed the BTA, she got to the point of refusing my calls because I inisited they pursue making the Ross Island bridge bike friendly. Thousands of people live on both sides of this bridge. Instead ODOT actually narrowed the bridge & put the guard rails on the concrete wall instead of protecting non-car users. while the BTA sat on their hands. I haven’t been a member since.
Mobility Counsel, hmmm, I don’t think it will work. I remember about 25 years ago Eugene decided to declare itself a “nuclear free zone”. (Eyes roll.) Then somebody pointed out that 30 radioactive waste shipments roll up I-5 every month. Eugene asked USDOT what they could do about it. USDOT told them to jump up a rope, and oh, by the way you have no jurisdiction over state highways either.
I-5 is a federal asset that spans a state border. The idea that a local government counsel is going to tell the feds and two states how to manage that asset is ludicrous. You might be able to toll it, or close an exit or two, but any proposal that materially affects commerce on I-5 will be road kill.