Esplanade closure begins February 1st

“12 lane, insane!” is the battle-cry on anti-CRC ride

Posted by on June 15th, 2009 at 3:38 pm

Anti 12-lane CRC Ride-14

Riders queue up at a stop light
during the Anti-CRC ride Saturday.
– Slideshow below/More photos
(Photos © J. Maus)

Over 80 people met on Saturday to ride in protest against the Columbia River Crossing project. The event was put together by Rising Tide Cascadia to coincide with Pedalpalooza and raise awareness of the negative impacts of a new, 12-lane I-5 bridge.

Riders met at Peninsula Park to coordinate the day’s actions and to make signs. In addition to “12 Lanes, insane!”, other signs read, “The King and Queen of Greenwashing” (featuring Commissioner Leonard and Mayor Adams), “1 Less Bridge”, and simply “CRC WTF?”.

Anti 12-lane CRC Ride-41

Volunteers would stop to chat with bystanders.
Anti 12-lane CRC Ride-27

The route took the protest into residential neighborhoods just south of the Columbia Slough (a wildlife area, ride organizers pointed out, that would be impacted by construction of the new bridge). As riders pedaled by, chants of “12 lane CRC, it’s not good for you and me!” rang out and volunteers stopped to talk and pass out fact sheets on the project to bystanders.

Story continues below


Anti 12-lane CRC Ride-39

Rising Tide activist leads a rally on
south bank of Columbia River.

After somehow getting 80-plus people safely through the indignity that is the Jantzen Beach bike route, we ended up in a quite mobile home park on Hayden Island. A narrow, paved pathway led us right to the bank of the Columbia River, with the I-5 bridge out in the distance to the east.

At this point, ride leaders and other volunteers took the opportunity to provide background on the project and to update folks on their efforts to stop it. Brian Sloan with Rising Tide spoke up and said that if the project is to be stopped, his organization will need many people to step up and help.

Anti 12-lane CRC Ride-49

At the end of the ride
on N. Mississippi Ave.

After the brief rally on the riverbanks, we rolled back to North Portland (via Kenton, and there was some thought to ride by Mayor Adams’ home but no one knew his exact address).

There was talk of a “surprise direct action” at the end of the ride. My hunch told me it would be an anti-CRC banner drop on an I-5 freeway overpass. But, as it out, the banner was placed on a new condo being built on N. Mississippi Street.

It read, “More lanes = More cars= More climate change.”

For more photos, browse the gallery or watch the slideshow below:

Please support BikePortland.

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Also, if you comment frequently, please consider holding your thoughts so that others can step forward. Thank you — Jonathan

  • peejay June 15, 2009 at 4:45 pm

    I went on that ride, had a great time, and enjoyed the company of all the dedicated people invested in getting this bridge stopped. But that’s part of the problem, I think. Yes, we handed out a few leaflets to some residents of NoPo and Hayden Island, but I think we need to find a way to really do outreach to the affected people. They’ve already been sold the supposed benefits of the bridge, but how can we get the info to them about the downside of this project, and about the alternatives to the CRC? Let’s not be satisfied with a 100-rider protest ride. Let’s affect the information flow to the city at large.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bahueh June 15, 2009 at 4:49 pm

    80 whole people, huh?

    out of a metro area of almost 2M…not bad.

    guessing not many of them ever have to sit in idling traffic on I-5N every night trying to get home…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • DJ Hurricane June 15, 2009 at 6:08 pm

    Waaah, I’m forced to sit in idling traffic because I chose to live in Clark County. My convenience is so important we need to spend $5 billion in public money. Waaah.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paulo June 15, 2009 at 7:53 pm

    Is there going to be a ride protesting the UGB expansion proposal?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bahueh June 15, 2009 at 8:23 pm

    so… were one of the 80 huh?

    yes, how dare someone live somewhere else than where you choose to live…

    its a public bridge…its for the public.
    its not built just for you….and I highly doubt you travel on I-5 much at all…so its easy to criticize and complain from a far…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • peejay June 15, 2009 at 8:27 pm

    You said it, DJ. The fact is, EVERYTHING costs money. But doing the same old thing – expanding road capacity – seems like it’s always necessary because it’s what we’ve always done in these situations, even though it never has the desired effect. So, people don’t mind spending the money. We need to break people out of that attitude.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • keirnsy June 15, 2009 at 8:46 pm

    Good ride yesterday. For anyone interested…I just checked the official CRC project website for future happenings…and they’re holding public meetings next week to talk light rail and bike and ped facilities…among other topics.

    Tuesday, June 23, 2009

    5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
    Jantzen Beach SuperCenter, Community Room
    (across from the food court)
    1405 N Jantzen Beach Center, Portland,


    Wednesday, June 24, 2009

    5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
    Red Lion Hotel Vancouver at the Quay, River Rooms
    100 Columbia Street, Vancouver, WA

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan Maus (Editor) June 15, 2009 at 9:46 pm

    just a word of warning to DJ and bahueh… please don’t start the personal back-and-forth stuff again. i really value both of your perspectives, but if this thread devolves into meanness and insults i will just start deleting every one of your comments.

    let’s keep the space constructive (doesn’t mean you can’t be negative!) and open for everyone to participate.


    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dan Kaufman June 16, 2009 at 7:58 am

    Never mind the devil’s advocates and “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” – Margaret Mead

    The cat’s out of the bag on this boondoggle and it won’t happen if we keep applying pressure from the multiple fronts. Good on you 80 (you have a lot of support).

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Vance Longwell June 16, 2009 at 8:48 am

    Is there some new technology out there I’ve missed? Can we now label every molecule, every element, that comes out of every internal-combustion exhaust system with some unique way to identify it in the atmosphere? Even after some of those elements, and molecules have bonded with other elements, and molecules present there? Really? We can do that? Wow. If this isn’t true, then explain exactly how one tells the difference between the presence of GHGE in the atmosphere that is there because of cooperative electricity production, and that of car exhaust? By way of, “For instance…”, that is, I could go on.

    Oh, so in reality it is 100% impossible to even accurately speculate where each CO2 molecule in our atmosphere has come from. So it’s really not about cars then is it? Well, it could be I guess if you are a brainwashed religious fanatic, and you eat up every word The Church of Green clergy, the progressive-liberal, says at the Sunday-go-protestin’ meeting. In the end though, you just want to tell others how to live their lives, right?

    Using environmental conditions few scientists understand completely as a justification to meddle with personal liberty is pure fascism. There was a guy once who used science to PROVE people of Jewish faith were a separate, mongrel race. Is that the kind of science you guys are using? Or is it more like the church of Scientology and their PROOF we all came from some magic-jew-fairy-king-in-the-sky? Seriously, which so-called evidence are you going to use today to justify interfering with the democratic process, and foist your minority views on the rest of us?

    Let us all bow our heads toward the Netherlands and pray. “Oh god of unknowable science, lend us the strength to be more like the Amsterdamonians! Oh god of greenhouse-gas emissions grant us the vision of a carfree world so thriftstore-clad, tattooed, out-of-town, weenies can get laid too! Above all, oh Green god, stop the construction of a much needed bridge for no other reason than we need a place to meet up for coffee plans at Tiny’s!”

    Now quick, put your bike back in the garage and grab the keys to the mini-van. You need soymilk of that most special kind, only found in the nether-reaches of yuppie-ville, and you wouldn’t want your brakes to wear that kool color off your wheels!!!!!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Todd Boulanger June 16, 2009 at 8:50 am

    Too bad the group did not loop through downtown Vancouver. It might have been interesting to gauge if folks reactions differed.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dave June 16, 2009 at 9:08 am

    “King and queen of greenwashing;” that’s a good one. Again, a 12 lane bridge will just be a case filling a quart jar with a 5 gallon funnel. Only question is,how far will this allow the Rose Quarter bottleneck to back traffic up–to SR500 or all the way to the Clark Co fairgrounds? As a Vancouver resident who drives over the bridge a couple of times a week and rides over it a few times a month, I think a tight bridge serves as a check valve to manage traffic flow southward. Traffic will act like water–it’ll flow where it can and flood where it is dammed up. Buses rails and a much higher gasoline tax will solve the problems, not more lanes.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul Tay June 16, 2009 at 9:44 am

    When car driving becomes the new smoking, 12-lane bike paths would totally ROCK!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Evan June 16, 2009 at 10:00 am


    Not familiar? Look it up:

    Adding capacity will cause people to:
    A) increase primary reliance on single occupant vehicles
    B) increase use during peak hours
    C) increase use of a single route
    D) decrease use of alternatives

    Countless studies have shown that when capacity was REDUCED, the traffic just went away. People adjusted to the reduced capacity by:
    A) using a different mode
    B) using a different route
    C) traveling at a different time

    How do you impact demand? Price it!
    If you toll the bridge, and increase the toll during peak hours, you will potentially change behavior enough to delay (or even negate) the need for additional capacity.

    It works for electric utilities, who price power lower during non-peak hours. Smart companies who use a lot of power switch their high demand hours to save money.

    How do you maintain traffic flow with tolls? Electronic readers that let frequent travelers pass through without slowing down. They do it in California and on the east coast, and it works great.

    Why they haven’t tried to reduce demand rather than simply increase capacity (at no cost to consumers) is beyond me.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • NB June 16, 2009 at 10:01 am

    Couple of things:

    Great ride. I wish that we could have done more to talk to actual people about our views (though it was great to see some of the riders stopping to distribute leaflets to people in those neighborhoods). I also thought there was supposed to be some sort of demonstration or action – what happened with that? (Was that the reason we randomly stopped on an I-5 pedestrian bridge for five minutes?) It would be good, as someone else said, to have gone to Vancouver. But generally a good ride for organizing like minded people.

    To Bahueh: Yeah, traffic on I-5 sucks, but the bigger bridge will not solve the problem. Ever drive on a highway where they’ve either opened up an extra lane for a short distance or else closed one? The whole of the traffic funnels into the part where the lane ends and slows to a crawl as people merge. Sure – there will be 6 lanes in each direction over I-5, but there are many fewer going through Portland and Vancouver. How can making a wider bridge possibly help that?

    And yes, you did choose to live in Clark County and commute to Portland (if that is why you’re stuck in traffic). You could live in Portland, maybe out in one of the cheaper east areas; you could bike commute from Vancouver (!); etc. Point is – you make choices, you have options, no one is twisting your arm. However, the general suggestion by those of us opposed to the bridge is to instead create a local traffic/pedestrian/light rail that crosses the Columbia so that all of you commuters are not on I-5. If we can get the commuters onto a train to cross the river, then I-5 will open up for through traffic, rather than having it be how people get to Jantzen Beach and Vancouver.

    To Vance: Seriously, your posts only barely make any sense on the best of days, but what on earth are you talking about? What does any of that have to do with the community discussion as to whether we should spend $4.2 billion to build a megabridge? And though your previous sentence about genetics and the Jewish people implies that you disapprove of anti-semitism, what does “magic-jew-fairy-king-in-the-sky” mean? (I’m not sure whether that demonstrates bigotry against Jewish people – “jew-fairy?” – or Scientologists.) And which “democratic process” is being interfered with? The one where our elected City Council decided to build a bridge? Oh, does that mean that we, the citizens, do not get to have oversight or disagree with them? Should we not be able to organize with other people and try to change the City Council’s course of action?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Lord Nelson June 16, 2009 at 10:15 am

    Thanks, Evan (#14) and NB (#15). Apparently, some people have a lot to learn about transportation planning. This is a good start.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • GLV June 16, 2009 at 10:31 am

    @Dave: the real problem southbound is the Delta Park bottleneck. It will be very interesting to see what happens when the widening currently underway is complete next year. I’m still positing that the need for a new bridge will be far less apparent once that problem is fixed.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kate June 16, 2009 at 11:31 am

    @ Evan #14

    Glad you mention Induced Demand. I agree with you.

    It would be an interesting test. The key would be to try tolling commuters first, *before* expanding the bridge. I wonder if it would positively impact traffic (i.e. lessen traffic) or just increase revenue?

    Great points!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Vance Longwell June 16, 2009 at 11:49 am

    NB #15 – Your arcane quoting of scripture is no less perplexing to me, than my views are to you. I’m railing, as usual, at superfluous, often unvetted, statistical data from the remote regions known only to the most out of touch element of my own philosophy. I get it that you don’t like cars. I get it that you wish to force people, at gunpoint (This is a metaphor NB. One symbolizing using the government to do your dirty work. They got guns. Lots of ’em. Should I, or some one like me, decide you are a danger, and act, it is those guns that will be brought to bear, right. M-E-T-A-P-H-O-R, man, say it with me now…) to live a lifestyle YOU approve of. I get it, I get it, I get it.

    What people like you fail to see is that quite often flawed data is used to make decisions that effect a lot of people. I view the issue at hand as one of these instances. While only an idiot can look out their window and deny there is a climate emergency, no one can know, let alone does know, the principle source of the building up of GHGE. If it isn’t cars, what is it? Do they have more money and resources than the average motorist? Then why pick on the car?

    In true fascist form, this wobbly data is seized, and pointed to as evidence that we all need to wipe out an entire industry, reverse the forward trajectory inherent in technological advancement, and join the rest of the third-world in squalor. Which is where I PREDICT (What people do when they lack facts. At least I’m big enough to admit it.) crashing the car industry will lead. The very people, in the very best position, to develop technology that can give both you AND I what we want. Cars, and a clean environment. How does this help the environment?

    In the face of alternatives, producing cleaner cars, the argument changes. It is abundantly clear to me that no one here is looking for a solution like this. Quite the opposite, there are other properties of a motorized society you find distasteful. It is my impression that the term, “Urban livability”, is meant to embody the notion that, as a society, we stand to gain something from rubbing up against each other a little more.

    There you have it. It’s completely disingenuous to say out of one side of your mouth that cars are killing us, while out of the other you are saying that even if they weren’t you’d still want less on the road. Whatever this other motive is, aside from metaphors you clearly can’t decipher, I believe it’s not gas-burny cars that bother you, it’s the rat race you think they enable.

    This is a personality type A vs. personality type B, and you use sketchy data, bad science, popular convention, and anything else your pea-brain can get ahold of to justify telling people like me, that I have to live my life a certain way in order to please you.

    Call it like it is. I don’t like you. I won’t ever like you. I don’t want to know you. I don’t want to live any where near you. Part of the reason I have lived my whole life in an isolated city like Portland, BTW. YOU bring this into a community I’ve lived in, worked in, and payed taxes in, my whole life. YOU, who just got here. YOU who just got here and started grabbing at people’s car keys.

    I’m not only atheist, I’m a staunch anti-theist as well. When your contingent is demanding the type of lifestyle changes you are demanding, just like religious freaks, and you are pointing to things that don’t exist, i.e. solid scientific evidence, as proof that you are right, man you might as well just call it a religion.

    Quit the lie. You couldn’t care less about the environment. Bet you even have a car. Call it what it is. You want people to be like you. Plain and simple. For no good reason either. You just form up your little camps, in some one else’s community no-less, and start issuing demands. You know, just like the bovine, callow, parishioners of the evangelical far right. You go right ahead with your politically correct mode of speech. More power to you. You get lost in your own disclaimers, contradict yourself, and all for a position that too closely resembles a crazy RELIGIOUS FREAK!!!

    Ya, trust me son, you make no more sense to me, than I to you. Way to be community though. Way to look at alternative viewpoints though. Way to be inclusive, and neighborly though. See, you religious wackos can’t even play it straight with the lifestyle you’re trying to shove down everybody’s throats.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Vance Longwell June 16, 2009 at 12:00 pm

    NB #15 – With all due respect, of course. Sorry, my hackles are up. I regret the punitive tone, as usual. You folks are pretty frustrating though. I want a place in the dialogue, but this is very heartbreaking for me. I’m still bummed Critical Mass polarized the cycling community like it did. Things have just sucked here ever since.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Vance Longwell June 16, 2009 at 12:26 pm

    Evan #14 –
    A) increase primary reliance on single occupant vehicles (Unprovable. You can’t predict the future, and history only gets you so far.)
    B) increase use during peak hours (Unprovable)
    C) increase use of a single route (Desired effect)
    D) decrease use of alternatives (More crystal-ball stuff)

    Countless studies have shown that when capacity was REDUCED, the traffic just went away (False. Lie. Inaccurate. You pick. Unless you’ve figured a way to reverse the physical properties of the second law of thermodynamics.) People adjusted to the reduced capacity by:
    A) using a different mode (Especially bikes if I own a bike shop, or a bike blog.)
    B) using a different route (Could use more gasoline, and CREATE pollution where none existed.)
    C) traveling at a different time (Oh look, we found some of your traffic that just, “Went away”.)

    “How do you impact demand? Price it!”

    Uh, ‘demand’, in that sentence is people exercising free-will. By objectifying the personal desires of humans, you also objectify humans. The thing people do to each other prior to making unreasonable demands; or to exert power and control over them. Countless studies have shown that the objectification of human beings leads to their being treated inhumanely.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • NB June 16, 2009 at 12:46 pm

    Uh, Vance, where/when did I quote scripture? (The “jew-fairy” bit? That was a quote from you.) Seriously, I just want to make sure we’re both reading the same posts here.

    To summarize your argument against me, you are saying that I am trying to force a lifestyle change (taking the MAX? suffering through traffic?) on you, a tax paying citizen. (No mention of the fact that the reverse is also true: you, if you support the bridge, are trying to force me, a tax paying citizen, to support something I don’t like.)

    Regardless, as you don’t seem to address my main reason for opposing the bridge (which I don’t think I’ve yet stated, making your whole previous post nothing but conjecture), consider this: the national economy sucks, and the state of Oregon simply doesn’t seem to have $4.2 billion to spare.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • NB June 16, 2009 at 12:59 pm

    Also Vance:

    1) I do own a car. I do not think cars are the sole (or even the largest) factor in climate change. (Can we say factory farming? Industry?) This does not change the fact that we, as a society, would get a lot more out of $4.2B in teachers than in bridges.

    2) Re: “third world squalor:” I don’t think building a smaller public transport bridge instead of a highway bridge is going to revert American society to “squalor.” Also, the “squalor” of the Third World is quite clearly due to the way the Western world runs the IMF and World Bank, not to lack of highway bridges.

    3) You don’t like me or want to know me. Cool!

    4) Re: making sense: You actually didn’t respond to any of the points I raised the first time around. When I say your writing doesn’t make sense, I am not saying I disagree with you or cannot understand why people like you think the things you think. What I am saying is that you – personally – do not express yourself in writing very clearly, and so your posts on here do not make sense. I would be happy to have more of a discussion with you if I could understand what exactly you are saying. Again, how does organizing a bike ride to organize a community against a proposed bridge project somehow defile democracy. And what on Earth does “jew-fairy-king-in-the-sky” mean? These are specific questions that can be responded to with short, specific answers.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joel June 16, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    The second law of thermodynamics is useful in describing how heat moves in a closed system, and thats it. This is a very interesting discussion to read, but I had to set you straight on that one, at least you are not trying to use it to discredit the theory of evolution. I think that the actual design of the bridge needs to be weighed in on by both folks with Vance’s viewpoint and those on the other side of the spectrum. Is a 12 lane bridge or no bridge our only options at this point?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Vance Longwell June 16, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    Environmentalist fringe=bridge inspection=project tabled=project designed=rejected by fringe environmentalists=huge debate about everything from salmon eggs to urban livability=huge price tag on bridge to please everybody=still arguing=PEOPLE SETTING IDLE ON A BRIDGE BURNING FOSSIL FUELS!

    Not building a bridge in-line with demand, the 12 lane solution, will not reduce congestion on the bridge. It will increase it, if anything, in my opinion. Don’t forget this 12 lane solution adds only ONE lane of motorist traffic to the existing. The rest was beads and trinkets for Mass-Trashit, and fringe environmentalists.

    Given that you oppose this, given that this opposition, not by you per-say, is stating that sating demand here will crumble so-called Urban Livability, well then the discussion becomes about lifestyle, and freedom. Not the environment. Cars are a lifestyle, a choice, a personal thing.

    It is my BELIEF, and I hate me some faith sir, I’m here to tell ya, but it is my belief that the quite good cause of helping the environment is being used to justify a different agenda. Which I perceive as that of trying to force people to take a bus, walk, or ride a bike when they would rather drive. Opposing the bridge for purely fiscal reasons is selfish as all get out due to our rapid, unprecedented expansion.

    As a true liberal I’m committed to choosing my mode, the bicycle, and letting other people choose theirs. If, by my example, some folks adopt my lifestyle, my choices, well then I’m proud I represented. However, even considering other people’s behavior is completely beyond me. This isn’t a, “Three fingers pointing back at me”, case either, as I’m arguing FOR the status quo.

    A cleaner bridge with better flow will ease congestion. Right up until 2,000,000 more Californians move here, then we’ll have to build another one. Why, because that is what a majority of people want to do, as evidenced by the current mode share. Interfering with this for personal gain is selfish, and you are meddling in affairs that are none of your business. Especially if you think it’s okay to use a municipality like this to bully people out of their cars.

    Pick on my mode of speech one more time man. Go ahead. Mommy and Daddy didn’t even get me through high-school let alone college. The condescension is completely unwarranted. I view your mode of speech as obtuse, and completely indecipherable. You and many others. My metaphoric, often enraged blathering is an attempt to feed you some of your own medicine. Now I said I was sorry, so ease up.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Vance Longwell June 16, 2009 at 1:51 pm

    #24 – hey thanks man. Ya, I try to stretch diminished-returns a bit far sometimes to look extra smart. You can see the kind of mileage I’m getting out of that too.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Just a Thought June 16, 2009 at 7:10 pm

    Anti-CRC event organizers:

    A few ideas:

    1. Organize your events and actions around the CRC Project Sponsors Council meetings, and the ODOT headquarters in downtown Portland.

    2. As Todd B. noted, if you’re not crossing the bridge and extending your message into the other state that has at least 50% of the say in what ultimately happens here it strongly smacks of cowardice. Think about it: this is a bi-state project. Preaching to the choir and condemning two city commissioners who play bit parts in this decision-making process surely limits your desired success. That’s obvious, right?

    Protesting at an elected official’s home is a below-the-belt, amateur-hour tactic that always backfires. Show some respect for the human beings who do these tough jobs. It’s not to say you have to like or respect the decisions they make. But show some basic respect. An invasion of personal privacy is a sure-fire way to lose any hope of turning that person’s opinion.

    Your real targets here are the DOTs. Sure, they’re harder to demonize. After all, how do you personalize ODOT or WDOT? Direct your focus strategically, and make sure you respectfully and effectively target all the decision-makers. Get to know that Project Sponsors Council group.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Lord Nelson June 16, 2009 at 9:04 pm

    Excellent suggestions at #27.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bahueh June 16, 2009 at 9:10 pm

    NB…while I value your input, your assumptions are simply outrageous. I never once said i live in Clark county..I actually live in SE PDX and bike commute daily..what chops me is people like “DJ Hurricane” extrapolating their lifestyle choices onto other as the “gold standard”. its ridiculous and infantile (sorry, Maus, it is).

    I have never once personally supported a 12 lane bridge, but I do believe a slightly larger structure is needed, as is a complete overhaul of the onramp system just south of the river on the Oregon side..the nightly backup isn’t caused by too much traffic…its caused by too much traffic entering the highway on onramps WAY too close together…

    I digress…I said it before here…people are moving to Portland, mass…and will continue to….the capacity of some bridge has nothing to do with it and will do nothing to increase or decrease the tide of individuals and families seeking to live in this city…8 lanes, 10 lanes, whatever lanes…speaking out in attempts to preserve some sort of personally contrived lifestyle is ridiculous…because I bet you all 4:1 that you didn’t grow up here…you relocated also…so complaining about the “crowd” and “density” is freaking ridiculous as many of you….well, caused it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Lord Nelson June 17, 2009 at 8:12 am

    Bahueh, you just don’t get it, man. Go back and re-read #14. You’re wrong and the studies are out there to prove it. It’s that simple. And it’s been explained to you before. Obviously you just have a chip on your shoulder about certain people in the community.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bahueh June 17, 2009 at 8:03 pm

    lordie…and i refer you to Vance’s writing…

    I do medical research for a living…have for about a decade….I tear apart studies for a living..and the use of these gold standard studies that are so often used in these conversations are so full of methodological holes one isn’t quite sure where to begin…yet, for poltical posturing many in “the community’ continue to use them as scripture…without knowing their weaknesses…my obtuse response is just that, criticism over the external validity of such findings…a viewpoint I hightly doubt you “get”

    as for induced demand…it hardly needs to be reiterated to me, because of these “studies”, I’m fully aware the situation described in them in not generalizable…so, actually, counter to what you think you know, it not “that simple”…

    people live in Vancouver…work in Portland…they’re not going to stop doing that because of a bridge or a toll or whatever…where do you suggest they live? Portland? NE, SE? “no po”? how about SW? do you want the 10’s of thousands of them in your neighborhood?
    I didn’t think so…

    portland is growing…I’d put money on the fact you’re not actually from here yourself…portland will continue to grow…and infrastructure will have to keep up….in whatever form.

    I’m not for 12 lane…I’m not for 3….something in between would be fine.
    were your hackles raised so much when the I-205 bridge was built? or were you even living here then?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • revphil June 18, 2009 at 4:59 am

    vance, i can’t exactly say that I value your input, but i like a diversity of voices. Yours would be helped by writing more concisely.

    Much of your rant comes from the idea that enviros would take away cars because they pollute. Sound understandable, I have def not enjoyed being around the interstate during rush hour traffic.

    Here is a statistic I do know, cars are (or at least were as of 2007) the #1 killer of people under the age 37.

    i dont know why we tolerate 44 thousand deaths every year, but most of society has accepted it. I think it is wrong; I think we could do a lot to give people alternatives that are less likely to kill people; and I think it might be the responsibility of the government to pay attention to this kinda thing and when possible encourage less lethal transportation.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dan Kaufman June 18, 2009 at 9:43 am

    blahueh #31, My father and I we’re both born at Good Sam but I’m not sure how that gives us more of a say on how we determine or transportation priorities.

    You say you be fine with the number of lanes somewhere between three and twelve. Well, how about the six perfectly good lanes there already? AND, let’s not forget the 205, which we were told was supposed to ease congestion for I-5 thru traffic. Instead what we got was major development in east Vancouver (that did not exit before). I don’t claim to be a scientist, but that seems like induced demand to me.

    Right now, take a look at the crossing and chances are it’s not that bad

    $4.2++ bilion is LOT of money for such uncompelling and backward looking project so I’m doing all I can to prevent this boondoggle from happening along with many others on both sides of the river.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Lord Nelson June 18, 2009 at 10:00 am

    Well, if you want to claim there is a problem with the external validity of induced demand studies, then you need to specify what those problems are. Just claiming that they lack generalizability or have some methodological problem without specifying what doesn’t cut it. And you really don’t have any excuse for that since you claim to be an expert. Resorting to whining about hipsters and the mantra that “it’s not gonna change” is an even more eggregiously poor argument from someone who claims to be able to analyze these issues at a higher level. Please endeavor to do so or stop complaining.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • NB June 18, 2009 at 4:21 pm


    I’m sorry I assumed you lived in Vancouver. I think my point still stands that people who live in Vancouver and work in Portland are choosing to do so, and as such must accept whatever impositions of traffic go along with it.

    However, I think you are assuming that those of use who oppose the CRC have completely homogeneous reasons for our opposition, and that most (or all) of those reasons have to do with the “lifestyle” you’re referring to. Again, I will note that it really doesn’t seem like the state of Oregon has $4.2 billion to spare right now, especially with schools closing and social services being cut. This is a question of fiscal priorities. Furthermore, opposing the CRC project as it stands is not tantamount to opposing all potential alternatives. I don’t think anyone is saying that the traffic on the current bridge isn’t bad. Like I said before, I think increased public transportation (eg, a light rail) between Vancouver and Portland to get the commuters off the road would be very effective, as well as a “local” bridge for people who are trying to get to Jantzen Beach or even all the way to Vancouver. I also agree with your point (much previous) about it also being a problem of how people are merging on and off the highway – again, something I think would be helped by rerouting local traffic off of I-5. If we eliminate congestion from local drivers and ease the demand by increasing public transportation and there is still a big problem, then we can talk about what to do with the existing bridge. But it’s currently six lanes wide, and that should be enough for through traffic.


    Good statistic. I think driving is one of those things where because we’re “in control” and we’ve done it safely so many previous times, we all think driving is safe, whereas something like bicycling is seen as dangerous, even though its accident rate is proportionately so much smaller.

    And @Vance: I agree with what Phil said to you. I wasn’t trying to give you a hard time on a personal level, just stating that it is literally difficult to make sense of what you have to say on here most of the time.


    I’m with you about the money. (How much have they already wasted in development and meetings that go nowhere??) Seriously though, can we excise the word “boondoggle” from this discussion permanently? It about killed me at the protest down at the Waterfront a couple of months ago where every single speaker referred to the bridge as a “boondoggle.” Arrghh!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dan Kaufman June 18, 2009 at 11:29 pm

    NB 35 – Sounds like we’re on the same team here, but I’ll keep calling it like I see it. The CRC (in it’s current form) is most definitely a boondoggle. The scope and price tag of the project and fact that we Gov. Ted see’s the project as some sort of a “jobs program” makes me think there is no better word for this boondoggle than boondoggle.

    Certainly a boondoggle by any other name is still a boondoggle so I’m not sure why that word offends thee.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • NB June 19, 2009 at 9:47 am


    No offense meant. It has nothing to do with the meaning of the word – simply that every politician/reporter/blog commentator has referred to the bridge as a “boondoggle.” When you hear something repeated over and over like that, it starts to drive you insane, you know? (I also think that if everyone starts calling the bridge a boondoggle, it starts becoming sort of our opposition slogan, and since boondoggle is sort of a funny word, the whole matter becomes funny and then can be more easily dismissed. But that’s kind of reaching – it’s 99.5% the fact that everyone keeps saying it.)

    Recommended Thumb up 0