The Worst Day of the Year Ride is February 11th

Metro Councilor Robert Liberty announces panel to discuss CRC alternatives

Posted by on August 16th, 2010 at 10:29 am


Robert Liberty wants to talk about
alternatives to the current
CRC design.
(Photo © J.M Maus)

Metro Councilor Robert Liberty, the man who likened the new I-5 bridge proposed by the Columbia River Crossing Project to a “monster project” that we should leave behind in favor of “smarter, cheapter, greener solutions,” is putting action behind those words.

On Friday Liberty announced that he would convene a panel discussion to come up with alternative solutions to the current CRC proposal. The statement from Liberty’s office about the event said:

“The Columbia River Crossing project in its current form is facing very serious financial and political challenges.

Metro Councilor Robert Liberty believes it is important to begin a community discussion of some alternatives to the current proposal, in the event it is infeasible.

Over the last several months he has solicited suggestions of alternative approaches to the problems which the current CRC is supposed to address. He has asked a panel of experts and community leaders to gather for a group discussion of the merits of these proposals.”

One of the draft concept designs for the CRC.

Among the panelists are: Gary Toth, Senior Director, Transportation Initiatives with the Project for Public Spaces & former Director, Project Planning and Development, New Jersey Department of Transportation; Mary Nolan, Oregon House Majority Leader; Chris Girard, President/CEO of Plaid Pantry; Keith Lawton, transportation consultant and a former Transportation Planner for Metro.

Last week, the CRC project took a step forward when the Project Sponsors Council came together to support a 10-lane bridge and major changes to the Hayden Island Interchange. However, the project is far from moving full steam ahead. Major issues like bridge design, management authority, and where the estimated $3.6 billion will come from to pay for it, still remain.

    Panel Discussion on Alternatives to the Current CRC Proposal
    7 to 9 PM – Tuesday September 14, 2010
    Portland Building auditorium (1120 SW Fifth Ave)

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. Thank you — Jonathan

  • matt picio August 16, 2010 at 10:34 am

    This is great news, and I applaud Robert Liberty’s continued opposition to the CRC.

    I kind of take issue behind the phrase “putting action behind those words”, however. Does this panel have any authority beyond advisory? “Action” in my mind would involve something with decision-making authority. This project should not be able to be approved without the consent of the electorate. If the general public understood what the project cost actually MEANS, and what effect it will have on other road projects, I question whether they would sign off on something as large and complex as the CRC in either its current or proposed forms.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) August 16, 2010 at 10:51 am

      We think alike Matt. I actually stared at that “action” sentence myself and wondered if I was overstating his effort. I left it because I feel that it is action to invite smart people into a room and have a real discussion about alternatives. Sure, the panel is not an official decision-making part of the project, but hammering out ideas and details on alternatives could make other options more realistic. So, while it’s not major action, it is still action. Thanks.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • gregg woodlawn August 16, 2010 at 10:49 am

    I met the CRC folks at their table at Sunday Parkways yesterday.

    They. Were. Robots.

    They had nothing but soundbites. They spoke like bad bumper stickers.

    They diverted AWAY from talking about induced demand, immediate tolling, a third bridge opportunity (An alternative to the CRC), Backup from the 84 interchange all of the way to the Columbia, the current bridge already being safe, the possibility of immediately making a HOV/ freight/ bus lane in both directions, extra bottlenecked traffic just OUTSIDE of the proposed CRC Zone in all directions, etc.

    They diverted TO talking about how “the last 50 people to come to our CRC table thanked us and said that they can’t wait for the CRC to be built.” “We haven’t heard of anyone before you who is opposed to our plan.”
    They also diverted to saying things like “I really like your bike” or “Oh yeah, I totally agree with ______ (Fill in the blank to include EVERYTHING that we said.)

    Cons. Liars. Grrrr.


    Portlanders could just give Vancouverites 100,000,000 (one hundred million) to not build this bridge and we would save 3,500,000,000 (3.5 billion)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • camp bike fun August 16, 2010 at 11:03 am

    Bob Stacey and Robert Liberty are going to make a great team!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • matt picio August 16, 2010 at 11:04 am

    Like I said, not trying to discount Robert Liberty’s work, nor saying this shouldn’t be done. I applaud his efforts, and yours, as well as people like Joe Rowe who have been trying anything they can to get this recognized as the expensive boondoggle it is.

    I look forward to seeing what results they have in steering public discussion, if nothing more.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Scott Mizée August 16, 2010 at 11:20 am

    I’m happy to see another outlet for dialog on this project. I think there is way too much information out there that is either under-represented and/or over-stated.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jim August 16, 2010 at 11:27 am

    Scientists are no longer suporting the theory that more cars are going to change our climate. Relax

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • kitten August 16, 2010 at 11:34 am

    props to Mr. Liberty. Now, if he could weave his anti-giant-crc message into the bs “fiscal conservatism” of reducing the national and local debt, he might get some car driving conservatives behind him. Not that it is a political campaign, but there must be a real big critical mass to do a 180 at this point. its really pathetic.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jim August 16, 2010 at 11:49 am

    I would say Al Gore is an idiot except he was the first person to become a billionair from selling worthless carbon credits. The big “O” used to have a seat on the Chicago carbon exchange, watch for him to be the next carbon billionair. 3 things sell- fear sex and gread. They are using fear to get you to buy into the global warming hoax to make themselves rich.
    Don’t drink the kool aid

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jim August 16, 2010 at 11:56 am

    I’m still waiting to hear a solution for moving cars accross the river without a line from the bridge to downtown. Any ideas?
    Should we force Vancouver to have a light rail that they voted down? That serves about 1/2 of 1 percent of the people? It would make Portland look kind of silly since they made lightrail to the expo center (when was the last time you went to EXPO?) without concrete plans to take it accross the river.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul Johnson August 16, 2010 at 1:47 pm

    I see the proposed cycleway snaking around under and over itself into Victory Boulevard. Is it too late to have ’em make just a single switchback and link into Marine Drive? That’s not such an insane connection and could reuse existing Interstate Bridge cycleway infrastructure.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Lenny Anderson August 16, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    Bravo Robert!
    The CRC process has been a ODOT/WSDOT public relations campaign from the get go, not a planning effort. $100 Million gets you a lot of sound bites, but can’t get beyond the fact that $3.6 Billion plus is a lot of money to spend to save Clark county commuters a few minutes.
    Local trips need a local bridge.
    Meaningful transit needs its own ROW.
    10% of trips by bike is reasonable if you build the right facility. Remove all these trips from I-5, and it will work just fine.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • gus August 16, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    The ‘third bridge’ alternative is a red herring.

    It’d require extensive wetland infilling and Western Painted Turtle habitat destruction (and mitigation of both impacts), new ROW acquisition, two new bridges over the Columbia, an additional bridge over the Willamette, a raised freeway viaduct over part of Vancouver and in the unlikely event they can pull that off a hugely expensive (and seriously under-budgeted in the concept) mile long tunnel under North Portland along a privately owned right of way.

    Even its proponents optimistically guess it’d cost at least $3.5 billion and it wouldn’t address Vancouver to downtown commuter needs.

    In short, it’s a bad design that’s not quite as bad a design as the CRC. Building more pavement isn’t the answer.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe Rowe August 16, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    Bravo Robert! I hope the discussion is well moderated and goes beyond talk and into action!

    I love liberals, but we can kill action by trying to talk things to death.

    Republicans have short meetings because they are sheep.

    One idea: After the meeting have 20 large posters with alternative designs. Give each person in the audience 3 small dots and let people vote by putting their dots on their favorite poster(s).

    For each design, have a sign up list where people can volunteer to mature each design.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Opus the Poet August 16, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    I just want to know what happened to the original estimate of $4.2 Billion. Now they are talking $3.6 Billion, where did the $600 Million lower price for the new version come from? What go chopped to reduce the price that much?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Hart August 16, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    Bob Stacey for METRO president~!!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Carter August 16, 2010 at 5:57 pm

    From my perspective, comment #2 is the closest to the mark. Robert Liberty can create the most rational, reasonable, popular, buildable plan in the world and its effect on the CRC establishment would be zilch. It reminds me of the buildup to the Iraq war. Bush simply wanted a war and nothing was going to deter him. Similarly, the Project Sponsors Council just plain wants a big, new bridge and they are not going to let common sense or better ideas stop them.

    Good luck to Liberty and the others trying to think creatively about the problem.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe Rowe August 16, 2010 at 7:56 pm

    Carter. Good point. The CRC monster lives simply on it’s own waste–> Now that we’ve wasted 150 million to plan it, it would be a bigger waste to cancel it. It’s a funny but sad joke.

    to Mr/Ms. Opus. It’s a game on the public to say the price has fallen from $4 billion to $3 billion. If you believe it, it was done with removing some on/off ramps and 9 feet from each side of the bridge. In one meeting Sam Adams had to ask exactly how many feet were cut about 6 times before he got an answer. Both 12 and 10 lanes are still possible with the “$3.6” so called plan.

    3.6 billion + loan interest + cost overruns = $6 billion final cost.

    The yearly interest on this bond is just under .2 billion each year!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ted Buehler August 17, 2010 at 2:02 am

    Hooray for Mr. Liberty, getting on this in a timely manner.

    I think a big weakness in the opposition so far has been that the only named “Stop the CRC” group has remained low profile, hasn’t had a public presence, hasn’t been shooting press releases a couple times a week, etc. To stop a megaproject like this, you really need some serious information-dispersal.

    A couple months ago many bicyclists I spoke with seemed confident that “the CRC was dead because Mayor Adams opposed it.” I reassured them that there were lots of closed-door negotiations going on to make it roll forward.

    Now, with the approval from Portland and Metro on the 10/12 lane bridge, it’s time to galvanize opposition and promote a sane alternative.

    Ted Buehler

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Andrew Plambeck August 17, 2010 at 8:40 am

    I very much look forward to this forum. It’s time we stop advancing a dead project and recognize it for what it is.

    Major kudos go out to Councilor Liberty and the panelists for pulling this together.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jim August 18, 2010 at 1:45 am

    i wouldnt think these bonds would be worth the paper they are printed on.
    Joe is right on about this being a funny sad joke.
    it could be built a lot cheaper, simpler, faster,….
    drop the lightrail and reduce the pricetag. vancouver dosen’t want it. dollar for dollar it dosen’t make sense

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jim August 18, 2010 at 1:52 am

    build a 3rd bridge that handles truck traffic only and keep the existing bridges for autos. it is sad to see the traffic jam on I-5 everyday. bad for business’s (our economy) for those trucks to be stuck like that

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul Johnson August 18, 2010 at 11:18 am

    Better idea: Toll single-occupancy vehicles and keep the existing bridge. Let Vancouver pay for their automotive luxuries instead of expecting Oregon to pay for their splendor.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mke H August 19, 2010 at 12:42 pm


    Do you think only Oregonians are paying for this bridge?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul Johnson August 19, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    @Mike #24: Given that we’re talking about an ODOT property, most of the money would be coming from ODOT, though in light of Vancouver’s city government dropping it’s ridiculous opposition to tolls and light rail on the bridge yesterday, it’s looking like Vancouver drivers are going to have to pay their share to keep driving.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jim August 19, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    they should toll bicycles too

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jim August 19, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    larger toll for single rider bikes?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul Johnson August 19, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    Bicycle infrastructure isn’t something that needs quite as much maintenance beyond restriping the lane lines for a while (the Springwater Corridor’s centerlines are barely visible and the fog lines have largely worn off at this point). Given the comparatively minimal resources needed to build a new cycleway, the benefit to the transportation grid and the absolutely minimal upkeep, tolling bicycles on the bridge crossing is a ludicrous suggestion that serves only to chum a flamewar. Nice try, though.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jim August 19, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    The washington state ferries charge everybody that uses the ferry. If you bring a bicycle they do charge extra for it. This is a fair system that everyone pays, there are no free rides for different types of people. Call that provocative if you wish, I know that this forum many people want everything to be for free for bikes, I just want to be realistic. Should everything always be free for bikes? Should motorists allways pay for bicycle infrastructure? Extra lanes for bicycles are a lot of money. Personally I would rather not see a toll for anybody, but I don’t know if that is going to happen. “inspire productive dialogue about cycling” or “still driving” ?? there is a lot of anti car sentiment in this publication also that has a lot of consequences for people that are not cyclists.
    I did get out and ride today.
    I mean no offense to you or anybody that posts here and appologize to anyone I may have offended. I do hear some good sense from some people and just crazy stuff from some others, I have changed my position on things after hearing good reasons for whatever….. not allways though.
    thanks for listening

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul Johnson August 19, 2010 at 8:11 pm

    As a car-free Oregonian, I already subsidize folks who drive. I feel no incentive to have to pay a toll for a bridge, given that it’s not a ferry. Bridges last a long time once they’re built, and have relatively low upkeep, especially for bicycle infrastructure. Ferries are not a good comparison to make, because ferries require constant staffing, fuel, and daily maintenance to keep in operation. Comparing bridges to ferries in terms of tolling makes about as much sense as comparing an orange to a turnip.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jonathan August 19, 2010 at 8:55 pm

    I would gladly pay to be ferried across the Columbia with or without my bike. If I was ferrying a 3 ton truck four hundred times the size, I’d expect to pay more. I would gladly pay for my share of our roads too if the pay structures were something equitable and reflective of impact. I’m sure my costs would decrease while car user costs would explode to impossible levels.
    (e.g. vehicle weight x vehicle miles traveled x vehicle life cycle cost multiplier to account for environmental impact of vehicle production/exhaust/disposal)
    The last ferry ride I took with my bike was free. Cars paid one fee and trucks paid a higher fee.
    I never asked for free bike infrastructure. In fact, I don’t need any bike infrastructure. All these roads could crumble and blow away and I can still pedal around looking for unexpired food cans, innertube patches and spare ammo. It would just be muddier.

    But we were talking about building a 4+ billion dollar bridge. If built, it needs to connect people, not just trucks and single occupant autos. If it didn’t include a way to allow for bikes/peds/trains I’d say it is awfully short sighted given pollution reduction goals, mounting data about environmental degradation, dwindling energy resources and energy security risks. Investments get paid back. I don’t see this ever paying for itself and so it’s not a good investment.

    Any anti-car sentiment you are reading here is likely a reflection of the feelings of commenters, contributors and advertisers. Maybe they are on to something. Maybe it’s the consequence of 100 years of pro car marketing and decision making.
    What consequences do your perceived anti-car sentiments have for people who don’t use bicycles?

    You have not offended me. I just think you intentionally make comments to get a reaction out of people and those comments stand out here more than on other sites with less thoughtful discussion.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jim August 19, 2010 at 10:07 pm

    The reason I use Wash state ferries for comparison is because the ferry system is part of the highway system as I believe the bridge is also. they both have to pay for themselves in order to exist.
    I checked online the ferry fees between Seattle and Bremerton
    car and driver $14.85
    mortorcycle and driver $6.45
    bicycle and adult rider $7.90
    bicycle surcharge only $1.00
    Check it for yourself- it looks like motorcycles are actually cheaper than bicycles for some odd reason
    The anti car sentiment does affect how the attitude of city hall and their nee-jerk reactions to make it harder to operate a car in the city of Portland. taking away traffic lanes for bikes,parking…..
    “I don’t need any bike infrastructure” It looks like you want a lot of bike infrastructure, all over town, free of charge for cyclists.
    You talk a lot about pollution reduction however you take several trips a year on jets that use tons of fuel to move YOU around.
    Paul- do you think bridges dont require maintenance? how many times do they close lanes on the broadway bridge (or completely) for maintenance? The golden gate bridge is being painted constantly, when they get to one end they go back to the other side and start again. 205right now….
    I agree the cost is too much. Govt out of control…. If the new bridge lasts 100 yrs will it get paid for??
    We do need all those lanes though. We have 3 lanes each direction right now and that is all they want to give us for the new bridge. Sam is fighting for a smaller bridge. Why?
    If I lived in Vancouver I would be happy to jump on a train and ride to downtown or the airport for just a couple of bucks. Only thing is that vancouver voted down light rail and they are going to get it anyway, is that right? I remember we voted down yellow line (interstate) a couple of times and they still built it. Can’t forget the tram- price went up how many times? our lives would have been the same without the tram to ohsu.
    Don’t forget that the trolley cars used to go across one of the bridges into Vancouver, but that is another story

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul Johnson August 19, 2010 at 11:01 pm

    Sam is fighting for a smaller bridge because it doesn’t need to be bigger. All a bigger bridge will do is shift the bottleneck downstream where the extra lanes end. If you build access for alternate modes, people will use them. If you build more lanes, people will use them. We have a chance to shape how people get around for the next 100 years. Making it easier to drive across the river just plain isn’t the answer to this problem when we have better options on the table. Even 10 lanes is too many…what’s wrong with 8? Or better yet, four, with two more HOV lanes?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jonathan August 19, 2010 at 11:12 pm

    Jim, if anti car sentiment is felt in the population at large, should it not be felt in City Hall where the people’s demands trickle down? Making it harder to operate a car in the city may be happening because there are too many private cars for an infrastructure that changes at a glacial pace and was planned in 1956 and earlier and whose maintenance cost are increasing at exponential rates.
    Removing private vehicles from a city allows more people to live more comfortably at less expense.
    I don’t understand your beef.

    You said, “It looks like you want a lot of bike infrastructure, all over town, free of charge for cyclists.”
    I have said nothing like that. You are wrong.

    I do agree with you that airplane usage is a massive source of pollution that is all but ignored. It was one of the biggest revelations for me in calculating my carbon footprint after seeing An Inconvenient Truth and I have consciously chosen to cut back air travel and live somewhere more sustainable than the desert or the tundra.

    However, we were talking about a bridge. Your comments are all over the map.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jim August 19, 2010 at 11:55 pm

    If its not any bigger than what we have now then what are we to gain? a lot of money spent for no gain, might as well get the best bang for the buck that we can. otherwise we will still be bottlenecked. they will build something if we want them to or not, might as well do it right.

    Jonathon- Since you asked, It is only a very small percentage of the poplulace that is pushing the anti-car sentiment. Those few squeeky wheels make the liberals at city hall react to things we can’t afford, or to stiffle traffic for silly reasons… It just hurts the city.
    Don’t sweat the “Inconvienient truth” propaganda too much. so much of it has been disproved, junk science.
    Is it true that you don’t want bike infrastructure? or that bikes should not pay for it? Where am I wrong? perhaps if we could get the city budget under control we could afford to just pay for it with city dollars. right now we cant afford it

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jonathan August 20, 2010 at 12:34 am

    Jim, you really are all over the map. If cost is your concern, you should be the biggest opponent of this project.
    What percentage of the populace is pushing an anti car sentiment at City Hall. What evidence do you have? Where are you getting this info?

    You say the government is reacting to things the population can’t afford yet you support the biggest regional construction project of all time? WTF? Over.

    It is true that bike infrastructure is not important to me. Public safety and wise planning are.

    You are wrong because you said that, “It looks like you want a lot of bike infrastructure, all over town, free of charge for cyclists.” I’ve not said that. I can’t be any more clear.

    Bikes don’t pay for shit. People do. Adult taxpayers who choose to bike on the street infrastructure we have are paying their way already through those taxes and are subsidizing the ability for those who use a car to do so. Those cars are what result in traffic jams, pollution, high infrastructure maintenance costs, the perceived need for more lanes and lots of injuries.
    The more people cycling and the fewer people driving, the less costly it is for all of us.

    You just gave me shit for taking “several trips a year on jets that use tons of fuel” and then you tell me that carbon footprint calculations are junk science. Pick a side, schizo.

    My name is spelled J-o-n-a-t-h-a-n.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul Johnson August 20, 2010 at 1:04 am

    We gain more modes than just driving across the river. Increased capacity doesn’t have to exclusively be for private cars. If we build more lanes, what do we have to gain except eliminating one bottleneck to create two more?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jim August 20, 2010 at 1:28 am

    Do I suport the bridge? Don’t have a choice, they will build it if we want it or not so may as well do it right. dont build the same amt of lanes that we allready have.
    I was giving you crap for not sticking to your silly carbon convictions, not that I think anything of your actual flying. Pick your side, schizo
    I am happy that you are all for public safety… Your commentators are a great contribution to this with all of their combined experiance.
    I never meant that the actual bicycle was going to pay for anything.
    Sorry for the wrong name spelling. I’ve seen it spelled both ways and meant no disrespect.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jim August 20, 2010 at 1:36 am

    The train isn’t going to have a big enough of an impact on traffic to make a differance. Nor more walkers and cyclists on the bridge. The rose quarter will also need to be dealt with someday. 2 lanes, in the busiest part of traffic on 1-5 in Oregon is insane

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul Johnson August 20, 2010 at 1:41 am

    Then leave the car at home and take the train or get on a bike, and go around the traffic. It really is that simple!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jim August 20, 2010 at 1:59 am

    “what percent of populace is pushing anti-car…” It must be rather small since most people still like to be able to drive their cars in a reasonable fashion. There aren’t that many people that have given up their cars. I don’t know where to find that number?? I think a lot of those people sitting on I-5 trying to get home in vancouver still like their cars in spite of their misery. I think you can have their cars when you pry them from their dead cold hands (I guess pry them from the steering wheal) Thats not cynical, its just realistic

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jim August 20, 2010 at 2:05 am

    Bikes aren’t a realistic choice for most people, The train is an option that could be used a little more- but only a little. As it is, it serves about 1/2 of 1% of the population at an incredible cost. The train also has its own problems. Dosen’t work if its too hot, to icey…..

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) August 20, 2010 at 7:34 am

    Jim and Jonathan,

    thanks for the comments and the dialogue. Just please refrain from any name-calling. It’s possible and much more productive to respond to people — even those you strongly disagree with — without calling them names. “schizo” is disrespectful and i won’t tolerate that sort of thing. i’m watching this thread closely and will start deleting comments if it gets/remains personal.


    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Opus the Poet August 20, 2010 at 10:12 am

    OK I’ve been away from my computer for a while, and I see the debate is unabated. 🙂 I think I see some of where the $600 Million reduction came from, in the form of reduced bike/ped facilities. When I first saw the proposal the thinking was world-class facilities with the capacity to get as many people over the river on bikes and feet as in cars, now the thinking is status quo for bicycles and pedestrians and everything else for cars and trucks, with maybe a light rail line (I think the light rail coming off was another big chunk of that $600 Million “saving”). As far as wear and tear on infrastructure is concerned, using the AASHTO formula for figuring relative wear and tear (2002 study, use the 4th power o the most heavily loaded axle or the GVW of a single track vehicle like a bike or motorcycle) a single occupant SUV like a Cadillac Escalade does the same amount of damage per trip as 3000 300 pound riders on 50 pound bikes. From a roads perspective any trip that can be done by bicycle should be done by bicycle, and the payback also applies for using the lightest possible vehicle for trips that can’t be done by bike. FYI the damage done by a fully-loaded to max legal weight semi truck and trailer is 160 million fat guys on bicycles, per trip. Loaded to only 40,000 pounds that works out to 10 million fat guys on bicycles, plus or minus a few hundred thousand. 😉

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jonathan August 20, 2010 at 11:19 am

    The schizo comment was intentionally disrespectful and not the sort of productive dialogue I want to read on this site. My apologies. What would be productive is standing together in opposition to an overly burdensome project like the CRC in an effort to avoid getting steamrolled by those that want it built at any cost. The panel discussion on Sept 14 is one opportunity to learn something and potentially make a difference. I am pleased that Councilor Liberty is putting it together.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jim August 20, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    I also am sorry for my bad response and wont let it happen again.
    I would really like to see a solution to the bridge without spending THAT much money. I think there still needs to be more lanes somehow. That is my opinion. simple math supports that need, x amt. of cars per hr per lane at 55mph= how many lanes. Lightrail, carpooling, cycling aren’t going to solve it. The bridge in Minnesota the one that fell down- I believe it has allready been replaced for $800 million? that fell down aug 2007. we can do this cheaper and faster than what this beauracracy is proposing. Leave of some of the bells and whistels, don’t make fortunes for someones cousin to get contracts, no prevailing wage, don’t pay someone $30.00 hr to hold up a stop sign…
    We should put a toll booth on the California border… (just jesting)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paulie August 20, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    Instead of replacing the existing bridges with a more massive structure, why not build an additional bridge for local traffic/transit/non-motorized travel? Much of the cost of the CRC is in the roadway/exit ramps leading to and from the bridge, and much of the problem with the proposed design is that it would shift congestion to the Rose Quarter. So why not build a smaller bridge west of Hayden Island, connecting to Hwy 30 and then to I-405? It’s crazy-stupid to only have 2 ways to cross the river between Portland and Vancouver.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jim August 20, 2010 at 1:50 pm

    If I remember right back when they made the overpass on marine drive (next to smith bybee lakes) there was a plan to have a turn from the top of the overpass onto a bridge going to the west end of hayden Island, i think they were going to put a grainery there and tear down one by the rose quarter. but that would only be half way across the river

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul Johnson August 20, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    @Jim: Americans drive in a reasonable fashion? More like excessive. Since when do people need to drive a car four blocks to the store to pick up bread and a gallon of milk? I’ve seen people drive to the end of their driveway just to pick up the mail. It’s lazy to the absurdest extreme. If you want to be lazy, pay for it yourself. Your ridership numbers of the train are substantially lower than reality. 1% of the Metro region would be 22,174 people. TriMet Rail’s daily average is 108,780 boardings and steadily increasing despite service cuts. I don’t exactly see freeways moving when it’s too hot or too icy, either. In fact, during the last ice storm, The MAX didn’t even get knocked off schedule, but the freeways closed. During the heatwave, the freeways, once again, were parking lots thanks to overheated vehicles stalling in traffic. MAX? Restricted speed, but still moving. No prevailing wage? Good luck ever getting it built if you’re not willing to pay the going rate for that kind of work; not to mention flaggers aren’t used on freeway projects. Your ignorance is glaring like illegal blue headlights on a riced out Honda.

    @Paulie: There’s no place to put a third bridge. You have Sauvie Island, Kelly Point and the airport in the way on the Oregon side, and Vancouver Lake, and the bluffs in the way on the Vancouver side.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jim August 21, 2010 at 11:30 pm

    You made a good arguement. I will turn off my blue headlights now

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe Rowe August 22, 2010 at 8:36 pm

    Me and a few friends are going to meet before Sept 14th to plan ideas. Please contact me to join us. jrowe at igc dott org

    Us anti CRC activists are doing a bad job and need to work smarter.

    Here’s my new reflection: The CRC is adding 2-3 lanes behind a bumper 2 bumper bottleneck that stretches 7 miles long each morning into Portland. Much of Interstate 5 near downtown is only 2 frekin lanes wide!

    see map

    What’s the meaning of adding lanes behind a traffic jam?

    Answer: Send all the extra cars to the surface streets. MLK and Vancouver Ave are faster routes than the map above. Think of the consequences? When the max is shut down by a suicide for a few hours the extra bus traffic winds up crushing a man’s leg. Every choice we make promoting single passenger transportation in any way has huge but mostly invisible negative effects on everyone.

    Recommended Thumb up 0