A Bridge Over The River Why?
Local pols say global warming is a dire threat. But they want to spend $4.2 billion on a project that makes driving easier.
July 23rd, 2008
BEST OF PORTLAND: By the People, For the People0 comments
July 16th, 2008
Lean, Mean Meat-Free Machine | Portlander Robert Cheeke is the face of vegan bodybuilding.130 comments
July 9th, 2008
The Sopranokovs | The Russian mob comes to town with a new scam—medical identity theft.17 comments
July 2nd, 2008
Manhunter | Almost every state lets bounty hunters chase down its most wanted. Why doesn’t Oregon?103 comments
June 25th, 2008
Get Wet: WW’s Summer Guide 2008 | The rain is finally over. Now let’s get wet!1 comment
June 18th, 2008
New Kids In The Flock | Gresham’s twin teenage sensations go about their Father’s business. And it’s making them superstars.49 comments
June 11th, 2008
The Price is WHAT? | Second-guessing City Hall—it’s more fun than Monopoly! 17 comments
June 4th, 2008
Welcome to Googleville | America’s newest information superhighway begins On Oregon’s Silicon Prairie.18 comments
May 28th, 2008
Fleeced | While students across Oregon celebrate graduation, many are facing a gnawing problem—they’re getting sheared by huge debt.57 comments
May 14th, 2008
Higher Ed | Reed College is exceptional for more than academics. It’s one of America’s most permissive colleges for experimenting with drugs.555 comments
 ORWELL ALERT: Proponents of a new $4.2 billion Columbia crossing say doubling the number of lanes (model above) from six to 12 is not an expansion because the new capacity represents “auxiliary” rather than through lanes. IMAGE: Courtesy Columbia River Crossing |
[May 21st, 2008]
Rex Burkholder until recently would have probably ranked last on a list of Portland elected officials most likely to push for a $4.2 billion highway project.
“Every penny we spend on transportation is wasted,” Burkholder wrote in a November 2006 Oregonian op-ed.
Burkholder is a true greenie. Before winning a seat on the Metro Council in 2000, he founded the Bicycle Transportation Alliance in 1990 and was a founding trustee of the Coalition for a Livable Future in 1994. His oft-stated belief that people should live where they work and trade in SUVs for bicycles and bus tickets has made him, for critics of Portland’s mania for mass transit and land-use planning, the devil on two wheels.
Google Burkholder and you’ll find the plainspoken 51-year-old Kansan transplant is treated as a bespectacled piñata by highway-loving conservatives on postings such as “Is Rex Burkholder Mentally Challenged?” (NW Republican, August 2005).
“Rex’s idiotic transportation dogma has caused congestion to grow more quickly [here] than [in] any other urban area,” wrote GOP activist Rob Kremer in a February 2007 post on his blog.
But lately something big and blacktopped has taken hold of Burkholder. It’s called the Columbia River Crossing project, which if built, would be the most expensive public works project in Northwest history.
On May 2, the 39-member bi-state CRC task force published a document describing the five options for reducing congestion on the six-lane Interstate 5 bridge between Portland and Vancouver, Wash. Leading the charge for the Cadillac-cost option, which includes a new 12-lane bridge: none other than Burkholder.
“In terms of congestion, safety and obsolescence, the existing bridge is broken,” he tells WW. Burkholder believes incremental fixes would cost nearly as much as a new bridge and would be far less effective.
“Instead of patching a leaky roof, it’s better to build a whole new house,” he says.
Burkholder is Metro’s representative on the CRC task force. Although Metro is but one of eight government entities that must approve the project, the agency’s vote next month on which option to pick is crucial because Metro is the conduit for federal transportation dollars.
Yet the gigantic project wasn’t much of an issue in the races for Metro—Burkholder was unopposed for re-election Tuesday to his third term on the Metro Council—and two of his colleagues faced only nominal opposition. And even in hotly contested primary races for mayor, City Council or even U.S. Senate, candidates (other than City Council hopeful Chris Smith, a critic) rarely mentioned the issue.
Despite his decades of work to end the primacy of the single-passenger auto on local roads, Burkholder is now advocating a mega-project to make it easier to commute between Clark County and Portland.
The $4.2 billion he wants to spend could buy a $21,000 Toyota Prius hybrid and a year’s worth of gas, four new $1,000 bikes, and an annual $1,260 C-Tran pass to Portland for each of Clark County’s 150,000 households.
Burkholder acknowledges his views have changed during three years on the CRC task force. Hearing Washingtonians’ pain led him to the epiphany that Clark County suburbs aren’t structured like Portland’s Irvington neighborhood where he leads a mostly carless existence.
“When we started, I said, ‘This [building a new bridge] is not my issue,’” Burkholder says. “But it’s been death by 1,000 cuts.”
The tectonic shift in Burkholder’s approach—from highway hater to bridge booster—is evidence of just how difficult it is for even the most committed environmentalists to choose between the way Americans live now and the wrenching sacrifices needed to combat global warming.
Critics of the CRC project, many of whom are longtime Burkholder allies, have banded together into a group called SmarterBridge. They say Burkholder is simply choosing a mid-20th-century roads-first solution rather than seizing an opportunity to attack global warming.
“This bridge is the first real test of whether we’re going to change the status quo,” says Jeremiah Baumann of Environment Oregon. “Instead of changing our auto dependence and giving them options, we’re preserving the status quo.”
Rather than building additional capacity, Baumann and other project critics would toll both Columbia River crossings now to discourage driving and to fund light rail and seismic upgrades to the existing six-lane crossing. And they’d leave intact the spans that a 2006 ODOT inspection found were in “fair to satisfactory” condition.
Oregon politicians from Gov. Ted Kulongoski to Burkholder to Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams talk tough on global warming: Oregon has committed to reduce carbon emissions 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and by 75 percent below 1990 levels by 2050; the city has committed to reducing emissions to 10 percent less than 1990 levels by 2010.
 Rex Burkholder: "I am convinced there is a serious problem." (PHOTO: Jonathan Maus) |
But below are six reasons critics are dismayed those same pols are driving full speed ahead on the CRC project—in spite of such ambitious carbon-reduction goals.
And if you think the bridge is somebody else’s problem because you don’t drive or because you don’t live in Vancouver, remember this: You’ll open your wallet to pay for the project in the short term, and in climate terms, we’ll all pay in the long run.
1: The bridge isn’t Oregon’s problem.
The task force says the option that best reduces congestion is also the most expensive—with an estimated cost of $4.2 billion. That sum would streamline seven I-5 entry ramps approaching the Columbia River and build a light-rail/bike-and-pedestrian bridge and a new 12-lane bridge for vehicles, replacing the existing I-5 bridges.
Although the project is pitched as a bi-state partnership, traffic counts show the congestion on the I-5 bridges results primarily from Clark County commuters. During the morning rush hour, for instance, southbound traffic outnumbers northbound commuters by about 2 to 1. And figures show more than three-quarters of the vehicles carry only one person.
But the financing plan calls for Oregon and Washington to split the balance of whatever the feds don’t pay.
Critics question that allocation.
“Why should people in Portland pay for tax refugees in Washington to travel to Portland?” asks Burkholder’s Metro Council colleague, Robert Liberty, who favors tolling, light rail and phased improvements to the existing bridges.
Burkholder and other CRC members say congestion affects Washington and Oregon residents alike.
“We have to look at the transportation system as a whole,” Burkholder says. “A million new people are going to move to this region in the next 20 years, and we need to figure out how to manage that growth on a regional basis.”
Transportation dollars are tight in both states. Given that the Oregon Legislature hasn’t increased the gas tax—the source of most local transportation funds—since 1993 and Metro has compiled a wish list of critical transportation projects costing $15 billion in the region, some observers fear the CRC could crowd out other priorities, such as replacing the Sellwood Bridge.
“I worry that it could consume all the federal dollars for the area for the next 20 years,” says City Commissioner Sam Adams, a member of the CRC task force. Yet Adams is a cautious supporter of the project, provided it includes light rail, bicycle and pedestrian capacity, and relief for Hayden Island.
Doug Ficco, a WashDOT engineer and co-director of the CRC project, says Adams’ concerns are unfounded because federal transportation funding comes from different pools of money, and the CRC project would not compete with other regional priorities.
Liberty says teeing up a $4.2 billion project without considering the impact on other more environmentally friendly projects around Oregon is irresponsible. “We ought to figure out what our priorities are, how much we have to spend, and then rank our possible expenditures,” he says.
2: Gov. Kulongoski’s own climate change task force says there is an “urgent” transportation problem—but that problem is not congestion.
In January, Kulongoski’s climate change integration group, which included Burkholder, sounded a dramatic wake-up call.
“The earth’s climate is undergoing unprecedented change as a result of human activity, and this change will have significant effects on all Oregonians, their families, their communities and their workplaces,” the group’s report stated. “It is urgent that we act now.”
The most effective action, the report says, is to reduce driving, which accounts for 34 percent of Oregon’s carbon emissions.
“Reducing VMT [vehicle miles traveled] is simply the single most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” the report said.
Yet reducing vehicle miles is nowhere near the top of the list of CRC task force priorities. And CRC forecasts show the project would not result in a material reduction in vehicle miles—estimates show that compared to leaving the bridges intact, the proposed $4.2 billion project, which proponents say is “revolutionary,” would reduce VMT only four-tenths of a percent by 2030.
Despite championing emissions reduction, Kulongoski is also a big booster of the new bridge. Dave Van’t Hof, the governor’s sustainability adviser, denies the two concepts are in conflict.
Story continues below
advertisement
 Jill Fuglister: "We think every investment of any size has to move us toward a net reduction in carbon emissions." |
“If the governor’s criteria are met and the project includes light rail and congestion pricing, it will be a national model of a climate-friendly project,” says Van’t Hof, who represented the governor on the climate change group.
Critics note that as proposed, the tolls would only be installed after the bridge is built in 2015. That means their purpose is to finance additional capacity rather than reduce vehicle miles traveled.
“We want to make the climate change goals primary,” says Jill Fuglister, co-director of the Coalition for a Livable Future, the Portland nonprofit Burkholder helped to found. “The question they are trying to answer is how do we relieve congestion. We think every investment of any size has to move us toward a net reduction in carbon emissions.”
3: $4.2 billion is a lot of money for marginal improvement.
Even if Vancouverites ride light rail, instead of rejecting it as they did in a 1995 vote by a 2-to-1 margin, and even if the 500 or so who now walk or ride bikes daily across the bridge were to quadruple, CRC projections show the reduction in total carbon emissions associated with the bridge versus the no-build option could be a less-than-Olympian 2 percent (emissions would drop more than VMT because of reduced congestion).
“Even if you accept that their assumptions are right,” says Environment Oregon’s Baumann, “they’re talking about a very small improvement to a very big problem.”
Traffic studies project the morning rush-hour commute for Clark County residents in 2030 would be 41 minutes from 179th Street in Vancouver to the I-84 interchange—if the new bridge gets built. That’s 10 minutes longer than today and only five minutes faster than if there is no new bridge.
CRC projections show it would actually take two minutes longer to drive the busiest part of the route—from SR-500 in Vancouver to Columbia Boulevard in North Portland—with a new bridge than if we stick with the old one. That’s because by 2030, 44,000 more vehicles—178,000 vs. 134,000 now—would be crossing the 12-lane bridge.
Critics say the minimal improvements in southbound commute times prove building the new bridge would only shift the existing bottleneck south.
WashDOT’s Ficco says concentrating on the rush-hour travel time misses the bigger picture—that the proposed bridge reduces the number of hours of daily congestion from a projected 15 by 2030 to 5 1/2.
“If we don’t do this, what we call ‘rush hour’ now will last all day,” he says.
4: In fact, if you build it, however, they will drive…more.
There’s a concept transportation planners call “induced travel,” which means more road capacity results in more traffic.
While the precise relationship between capacity and demand remains under debate, CRC figures show if a new bridge were built without tolls, the number of people crossing the Columbia would increase dramatically, versus the no-build option. Figures show that without tolls, a new bridge would carry 225,000 passengers a day by 2030, while the current bridges, if left in place, would carry only 184,000. The difference of 41,000 is the “induced travel” generated by the newly built capacity.
If, as the task force proposes, the new I-5 bridge is tolled, and an adjacent light-rail, bicycle and pedestrian bridge is built, that combination would reduce traffic by 47,000 car trips, leaving only a small net reduction—6,000 trips from the no-build scenario (see chart below).
“Unfortunately, the added lanes [on the bridge] are projected to erase most of the benefits of tolls and light rail, reducing the gain to just a 3 percent improvement,” Baumann says. “For $4.2 billion, Portland should do better than a 3 percent improvement.”
5: The need for a new bridge is predicated on a massive increase in traffic—but current behavior raises questions whether such assumptions are valid.
There’s a flip side to a new bridge creating more traffic demand. That is, people may already be changing their driving habits, according to Portland economist Joe Cortright.
Cortright, who is part of the SmarterBridge group, is no highway engineer. But he is a nationally recognized expert on economic behavior (a report he did in 2002 for the Brookings Institution correctly predicted OHSU’s bio-tech hopes were a pipe dream, for example).
He says CRC backers’ underlying assumptions are opaque, and probably wrong when they project traffic congestion more than doubling, from six hours per day currently to 15 hours in 2030, if nothing is done.
For one thing, the price of gas is now an attitude-adjusting $4 per gallon and could go a lot higher. And, Cortright says, the CRC models seem to assume people will continue blindly moving to and commuting from Clark County to Oregon regardless of increasing congestion.
CRC staff have punched back at Cortright, charging that he cherry-picks data to support his arguments. But data released by ODOT recently tend to back up Cortright’s case. They show Oregonians are driving less and using the I-5 bridge less. Highway miles driven decreased from 20.9 billion in 2002 to 20.6 in 2006, even though the state’s population grew about 4 percent during the same period.
“This project is predicated on the assumption that traffic will increase at about the rate it did from 1990 to 2005, when we had declining real gas prices that averaged maybe $1.25 a gallon,” Cortright says. “People adjust their behavior when the world changes significantly.”
6: Greenies and land-use advocates stopped the Mount Hood Freeway in 1974 and a proposed Westside Bypass in Washington County in 1988. Why, with so many questions remaining about the CRC project, does it appear to have the momentum of a brakeless log truck careening down a mountain pass?
One of the five options the CRC task force evaluated was doing nothing. That’s a nonstarter with road builders, manufacturers, shippers and trade unions represented on the CRC task force.
At a Portland Planning Commission hearing on the CRC project last week, Corky Collier, director of the Columbia Corridor Association, which represents more than 100 local manufacturers and shippers, noted the unusual nature of many of the public comments.
“What you have here is a roomful of business leaders asking for more government spending,” Collier said.
“This [the CRC project] is the No. 1 transportation priority for us,” testified the Portland Business Alliance’s government affairs director, Marion Haynes, at the same hearing. Haynes noted that every major business group in the region supports the project. Construction trade unions also love the new bridge.
Democratic governors, Democratic legislatures and overwhelmingly Democratic congressional delegations control both Oregon and Washington. Democrats win elections with union money. A $4.2 billion construction project would create thousands of union jobs, which helps explain the lack of political opposition.
“There are no fiscal conservatives when it comes to transportation projects,” says Metro’s Liberty.
Next month, Metro will vote on a preferred option for the CRC. It is unlikely the Metro Council will block the project at this stage.
And later this summer, Portland’s City Council will weigh in. While Adams and Commissioner Randy Leonard are leaning toward the project, Mayor Tom Potter and Commissioner Dan Saltzman both say they have serious questions about its financial feasibility.
If global warming is a dire threat—as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and most climate scientists say it is—you might think there would be serious debate about spending $4.2 billion.
But this is a country in which sacrifice is for other people, as shown by two of the three remaining presidential candidates suggesting a summer gas tax holiday and most citizens’ total disassociation from the Iraq war.
Burkholder says critics are coming late to a debate that started even earlier, with a 2001 bi-state freight mobility task force that also recommended bridge replacement. He says he’s already asked all the questions his critics now want examined and found the greenest and most efficient solution is a big new bridge.
For his re-election bid this month, Burkholder accepted $500 contributions from the Portland Business Alliance and Oregon Truck Political Action Committee. Nobody is suggesting those modest checks bought his support, but they reflect a puzzling duality in a politician known for ideological purity.
Maybe, as Metro watchers suggest, he’s moving toward the political middle in preparation for a bid to replace Metro President David Bragdon in two years.
Or maybe after dozens of meetings with highway builders, business lobbyists and the representatives of commute-weary Washingtonians, he’s suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Burkholder says he’s simply changed his thinking based on facts.
“I’m open to learning, and after three years on the task force, I’m convinced there’s a serious problem,” he says. “It may not affect Oregonians, but building a new bridge is the right thing to do.”
His Metro colleague, Liberty, says the bridge is a litmus test, not only for Burkholder but for all politicians who’ve swaddled themselves in green.
“The fate of this project will tell you about whether Oregon is serious about reducing carbon emissions,” he says. “Or whether all the talk is so much greenwash to help get politicians elected.”
The $44 million spent so far on CRC studies is nearly one-third of the projected $140 million cost for replacing the Sellwood Bridge.
The CRC’s 70 staffers work in Vancouver. And the Washington Department of Transportation has kicked in most of the $44 million spent so far on studies.
In 2005, state figures show Clark County residents paid $145 million in Oregon income taxes.
The public comment period on the project ends July 1, 2008, after two open houses discuss the CRC options 5-8 pm Wednesday, May 28, at the Red Lion at the Quay in Vancouver, and 5-8 pm Thursday, May 29, at the Portland Expo Center.
I believe it was Washington voters, not short-sited planners, who voted down the light rail to the Couv. If only...
You may be the exception, but the rule of suburbanites and suburban attitudes hold strong. Big bridge says "Move here!" which thus results in more traffic. 75% single drivers?! Somebody create a good car pool program. Please. Or I know, a stiff toll to discourage drivers... oh wait
Based on the way MAX operates - no express line, LR from Clark County is pointless and it would be voted down. Most people that live in Clark County and work don't work in OR. Secondly, LR takes too dang long to get anywhere because it stops too much. It's already 30 minutes to the Expo Center from Pioneer Square. That's 30 minutes for 7 miles and 14 mph isn't very fast.....
I wholeheartedly agree... it's not my problem. If Clark County is concerned aout their single passenger commuting population, let them finance the whole thing. I pay to live in Portland so that I can walk to work, walk to run errands, and do my best to offset the CO2 emitted by people who drive to work. I would be happy to pay for light rail to/from Clark County, but not for more roads so that they can "save" money by living in Washington State. I can't wait for $6 a gallon gasoline!
You make valid Points Doug. In reference to "explosive growth" in Clark county you can thank W for allowing banks to run rampant giving loans to people who had no business buying houses in the first place. Now, thousands of SW WA homes lie fallow awaiting buyers that will never come yet be able to afford the gas to get there. Last time I check there was a huge # of months of unsold clark county homes. Additionally, none of the "growth" in Clark county has come from employers, I recently read (yet i cannot source/quote for sure) that employment growth had been very slow in Clark County. Portland is the place that people want to work. Not to mention with $4 gallon gas who wants to commute too far? Suburbs must adapt (i.e. support light rail) if they are to adapt to our every changing world. There is ONLY SO MUCH OIL that we can pump out of the ground.
None the less, I commend you for being a c-tran commuter.
Clearly Stock Guy has never lived in a large city. In New York it can take you over an hour to span Manhattan (roughly 23 sq miles) on the subway. Mass transit is useless if there aren't frequent stops.
Hey Doug, check out this idea:
I lived in Sweden for a year. I was taught that the entire metro area of any city in Sweden belonged to "The Commune". So everyone pays the same tax, regardless of where you live in the metro area. All work toward a common goal since everyone is interdependent on one another anyway.
I believe that if everyone in the Portland Metro Area paid for their fair share for enjoying to live here and if we all worked toward a common goal together, we wouldn't be having this debate now.
We all live here because we like it here. Vancouver wouldn't be up there if it wasn't for Portland. I also realise that Portland and Oregon taxes and laws have drove many people to live up there.
So you see? Vancouver needs to be annexed into the Portland Metro Area commune. Then we can stop this "we and they" debate.
We are ALL in this together. We all should work together on this.
If not I would like toll booths on every bridge and road coming into Portland. If people want to enjoy what Portland has to offer they should pay the price!
"Welcome to Portland, Ten bucks please!"
With both human caused Global Warming and "induced demand" being complete bullshit the Portland car haters are on yet another delusional crusade.
The I-5 choke point at the Columbia is not disputable and will worsen for at least another 15 years as remedy is delayed by these fanatics.
The problem is getting from point A to B in a timely manner without choking out the locals. Global warming aside, local air quality is a very real concern. If you can't recognize the stench on a calm day you need to get out of town more.
At some point we'll have to address congestion issues beyond just adding new lanes. Creating more bottle necks won't solve the problem (talk about delusional?). It'll just move it around a bit.
Public transport is the inevitable solution. Call me a lunatic, greeny, car hater, whatever makes you smile, but not until you do the math.
This article is typical of the SO CALLED PROGRESSIVES, that are exactly the opposite of the LIBERAL is NOT a Dirty word, and it's NOT an insult. It's what most of you are. You're not proggressive because proggresive involves being interested in ideas BESIDES the ones that apply to your lifestyle.
Doug Pearson is right on. SHOW ME how any of the people sitting in traffic wasting more fuel than they would if traffic ran smoothly (as it will when Portland re-vamps its exit ramps, and this new bridge is built) are tax refugee's when they are all paying OR taxes.
The WW once again proves that it's one time Pulitzer Prize was a total fluke, and they exercise the WORST kind of journalism (if you can call it that) that panders out to the elite Downtown and inner city Portlanders.
The Transportation commision in this city is so F-ed up.
I don't like to critisize Obama, but he was clearly spouting rhetoric this week when he commended Portland's Mass Transit system. It's the WORST Mas Transit system in any city I've ever lived in. If you people were Truly "Progressive" you would look to succesful Mass Transit systems in other cities, and utilize those lessons.
People are gonna drive , I don't I ride my bike to work 4 out of 5 days a week, BUT people are gonna drive. We're gonna find alternative fuels, and continue to driive, so we need the new bridge.
I don't have time to address all of this asinine article now, because I'm working. But I'll be back.
One more point Irresponsible writings like this only furthers the divide between people that want to change global climate change, and those who think the whole thing is a farce.
In Short WW you're not helping
"It's the WORST Mas Transit system in any city I've ever lived in."
Please provide a list of cities you have lived in for reference.
Please don't bother addressing the rest of the article later. You have max-ed out on comments for the day. Also, if you have WW so much, you shouldn't read it. YOU have the choice.
Ww = infotainment.....not real news
How is building bigger roads for more cars a progressive way of thinking? You're caught up in the semantic BS worse than progressives.
The principle of less cars, mass transit, cycling and/or living where you work isn't a progressive idea that has come and gone. It hasn't really arrived yet. We keep harping on about it because we want to see what we can accomplish if enough people get on the progressive train of thought. 10 years of westside MAX this year and only conservatives would consider that having been a bad move.
Global warming or not….it really does not make a difference. People are going to drive until we blow ourselves up. Even if we all drive little solar powered go carts, the fact remains that congestion wastes energy. If cleaner and greener is wanted start by ridding this city of the obstacles that bog so many commuters down. Busses cause pollution and waste as cars line up behind them. Smug bicyclist cause polluting and waste energy as they gleefully block traffic. It seems any improvement that can be done to lessen the stall time is better than nothing.
There is an Art Exhibit of Pastels illustrating a Green Park-Covered
Columbia Crossing Bridge at The
Lucky Lab Pub in NW PDX on Quimby St, above 19th in the Event Room. Please visit and maybe have a great beer too!
This article clearly blurs the line between journalism and opinion. How come there were no quotes from anyone on the side of the bridge? Didn't the feds basically tell Metro last year that unless they build the bridge that they will get no more federal funds for transportation?
And this "author" of the article......unless he lives in a teepee and weaves his own clothing and grows all of his own food, expanding the bridge is necessary to the flow of goods up and down the west coast. But of course this does not matter to the author. He is too caught up in the whole global warming fraud that he neglects to see the necessity of goods and services (and people) being able to travel freely between Wash. and Oregon.
I encourage anyone who has concerns about this project to visit The Coalition for a Livable Future's website Creating a Climate Smart I-5 Columbia River Crossing, get educated, and sign the Climate Smart CRC Pledge of Support.
BTW What I meant to say in my first post about progressives was that most of the people that prefer to call themselves "progressive" do so inaccurately. AND they do so because they let people like Bill O'Reilly scare them into thinking Liberal is a bad thing. It's not a bad thing. BUT calling yourself a progressive, when you're clearly not open to progressing past your own conceptions of whats right is Hypocritical...Not progressive.
WW I'd also like to point out that you didn't print any of the objections to the equally mis-leading and polarizing article about your 7 punitive ideas for being a greener place. And I'll bet than in next weeks edition we wont see any of these letters from truly progressive (god how I hate that BUZZ WORD) Liberals that are criticizing this inane article.
I'm gonna go read the Mercury, at least they know that they aren't real news.
Heard the news? Oil soared $5 to $135 a barrel today. Oil is soaring daily to new highs because global oil demand is now higher than supply.
China is adding 5 MILLION drivers a day. Gas will soon be $12 a gallon which will radically change everything. That means that $4.5 billion bridge will cost more like $30 billion as steel and asphalt soar with oil.
The way the ENERGY CRISIS is going we will be lucky to build enough solar and wind farms with the remaining oil we have left let alone bridges for long distance car commuters which probably wont exist in 5 years anyway!
EVERYTHING is going to be more expensive. Oil hungry airlines are all going bankrupt and trucking freight will be a thing of the past as trains take over. So even freight trucks wont need it.
There's plenty of oil (for now anyway). Supply is not the issue. The Dollar is. Everyday the headlines claim "oil is up on supply concerns". The joke is on us. Oil is traded in US Dollars. As the Dollar tanks, the price of crude goes up to compensate for loss in the Dollar's value. No amount of oil will change this.
I don't doubt the price of a gallon of gas will go up vastly ($12 a gallon? scary and remotely possible) but the China/India/supply explanation is a sham. Our failing economy is directly responsible. Maybe we'd be better off trading oil in the more stable Euro. Of course the Feds won't have it. Iraq tried 2 years before we invaded. Iran is trying now. Guess who's getting invaded next?
Tell me about the tinfoil hat (for dullards who think worn out cliches are cheeky) but it's common knowledge to anyone who takes the time to look beyond the headlines.
We need to recognize the problem before we can fix it.
As for the bridge expansion- it's an exceedingly stupid, incredibly expensive idea with no long term benefit. By the time it's finished any I-5 commuters in favor will have pulled out most of their hair waiting for the flagger holding the stop sign to turn it to "slow". That's when all these hairless fools will wonder why they're still stuck in traffic. The bottleneck can be moved but without 12 lanes built across the entire corridor it can't be done away with.
Erik, you wrote "China is adding 5 MILLION drivers a day". Dr. Evil wishes to correct you. It's 5 BILLION drivers a day.
Actually Rex Burkholder has never been as green as he says. He scored a miserable 55% on OLCV's 2005 Scorecard:
The west side Hwy 205 beltway and third bridge were scheduled to be completed 15 years ago, which would have removed the extra traffic on the I-5 bridge and 217 during that time. Instead we got west side max with more congestion. Wake up people, we need the transportation capacity to move goods, services, and workers. Oregon is now so far behind in road infrastructure investment it has caused a competitive disadvantage to attract large new business, and we may not recover for generations. During the past 20 years Oregon government regulation and policy has done a great job shifting new businesses and jobs away from Oregon so we no longer have a viable and sustainable growing economy. And we now have 25 of 36 counties heading toward bankruptcy (see www.Oregon.gov county economic statistics.
Damos said,
"""@ Steve-You listen to Lars Larson alot, don't you?"""
I do but I also contribute a lot as well as listen to air America,,, and read a lot of "Blue" things.
But more importantly I keep up on reality.
Human Global Warming is without question a deliberate retardation of science and "Induced Demand" has been thorouhgly debunked. It remains and is used by those who would prefer no roads ever be built again and believe any added capacity will only worsen traffic.
So while the Columbia River choke point worsens our electeds create another one at SoWa and other locales in the region.
@ Steve-
This statement from you:
"But more importantly I keep up on reality."
Followed by this statement from you:
"Human Global Warming is without question a deliberate retardation of science and "Induced Demand" has been thoroughly debunked".
Your "keep-up" on reality vs. "Global warming is a dirty liberal hoax!" seems to be at polar odds with one another.
The best thing for the entire community should be changing our transportation habits and saving 4 billion dollars in the bargain. Increasing the bicycle mode share, carpool like we mean it, and put in a light rail to the couv... watch both congestion and air pollution go down... but these things involve a bit of sacrifice and selflessness. Not our strong suit in America's microwave ready mindset these days.
There are federal laws limiting the rights of states to interfere with or hinder interstate commerce. Similarly there are international conventions that address timely movement of goods between countries. The I5 bridge over the Columbia is the single biggest problem on I5 from Mexico to Canada according to a decade of news reports, studies, and complaints by users, impacted local and state goverments and the feds. Oregon doesn't get to sit in its Portland Liberal Left puddle and dictate to the rest of the West Coast, the Nation and our two closest and most important trading partners if and how the I5 bridge problem will be resolved. The proper role is to make sure our values and concerns are considered and work cooperatively toward a quick solution. The only alternative I can see is for everyone who was not living in Oregon before 1970 to pick up and leave. I remember clearly how much easier it was to get across to some of Vancouver's blue collar bars back then. How about a population cap and removal of all the newcomers? That would get a lot of cars off the road.
So you moved here in 1970?
Just so you know, all through traffic from salem to seattle is signed to I205
News flash: having a million more people in the metro area in the next 20 years won't be so "inevitable" if we don't facilitate silly commutes from the hinterlands...
News flash: having a million more people in the metro area in the next 20 years won't be so "inevitable" if we don't facilitate silly commutes from the hinterlands...
The Reality: We need to let those million people live & work in the hinterlands. They don't need to get near Portland.
Remember: Density CAUSES congestion.
Thanks
JK
Basically, this new bridge is for easing daily long distance solo auto commuting from Clark County which has been foolishly subsidizing and encouraging rampant sprawl for decades especially during this latest housing bubble boom.
Why should we continue to subsidize this rampant sprawl with a $4 billion commuter bridge?
They fuelishly painted themselves into this corner so let THEM pay themselves out.
And when did they do this estimate? When oil was $60 a barrel? With oil going to $150 or higher soon that $4 billion will balloon to over $20 billion because steel and asphalt are oil cost related.
We Vancouver drivers happen to pay your state income tax, but can't vote...
This crossing will have a daily impact on my life. (and yes, I do carpool with a co-worker)
What happened to "freight mobility" as the state's highest priority? I mean rail, not trucks from Mexico. What will it cost in Oregon to create an exclusive N-S/E-W rail corridor to move interstate goods, as well as high speed rail for regional travel between Vancouver, B.C. and Eugene, OR? Seems to me we have a lot of at grade crossings killing a lot of people in cars and on foot. Time to think about the next 50 years first (will there be 2,000 lbs cars in 2058?). I say, charge a toll on BOTH interstate bridges and start watching the vehicle trips per day drop (of course, trucks would be free, and those from Mexico would get an extra $100 bonus for bringing us wonderful gifts from the southern hemisphere. Think globally by buying LOCALLY!! Why should we have to buy subsidized Vancouver BC greenhouse tomatoes. How about a local Oregon subsidy so we can have same-day delivery tomatoes in the store from our local growers? Just how much here in Oregon are we exporting rather than just collecting a toll in our ports and passing the merchandize along while polluting our waters (dredging) and fouling our air? That's commerce? For whom's benefit? Certainly not mine. Keep the energy circulating here in Oregon first and foremost. Quit exporting our raw materials non-manufactured goods and services.
There's quite a bit of ignorance going on in the number of articles I've seen regarding this issue (I saw something very similar a few weeks ago).
A number of Portlanders want to lay all blame on Vancouver and their citizens, and want to suggest no other people are impacted by congestion. But that is just not true.
Estimates suggest 16 "rush" hours per work day in a couple decades, without a new bridge. Today, there are around 4-5 rush hours per work day. This doesn't just increase congestion on the bridge, or pollution in the area; it increases congestion throughout the city of Portland. In fact, without a new bridge, we're looking at a HUGE problem down the road, even if in-town automobile traffic doesn't increase too much. With more stop-and-go movement, you will see a heck of a lot more pollution.
Another fact ignored is the number of trucks that carry goods along the interstate. They are going to increase in number, and they are FAR worse than passenger cars in the pollution department, especially in congested traffic.
Think about more than your beliefs for once, folks. Portland's highways are already one of the worst places to transport goods in the nation... unless a brand-new interstate is built entirely around the Portland Metro area, without a new bridge across the Columbia, things are going to become much, much worse.
For your consideration... humans are an innovative species. Don't assume that we'll all be using the same cars in 50 years or so... building a large bridge DOES NOT MEAN that we have to rely on the current vehicular technology. A major river crossing would be beneficial to any mode of transportation.
Automobile technology looks to be changing such that electric plug-ins and hybrids will probably be dominating the fleet by the time a new bridge were built and in operation. For that matter, bicycles might transform to be partly powered by electric batteries. So, the "perceived" climate issue shouldn't carry much weight, in my book.
The 4.2 billion dollar price tag is daunting when you consider the annual mortgage payment on such debt, carrying say 5% muni bond like interest and 50 year term, would be some $230 million. If all you get out of that is 44,000 more car crossings per day, the toll each way for just the 44,000 cars would be on the order of $14 to $15. If everyone is charged a toll for crossing, it could drop as low as $4.
I've heard California is cutting costs on one new bridge quite significantly by outsourcing its manufacture overseas.
But otherwise, seems like maybe adding an additional smaller bridge for tiny electric cars and bikes, connecting to old Highway 99 on both sides, might be a more balanced solution.
Something in between "new-12-laner" and "existing only" seems like the solution.
I was born and raised in Portland, currently live in Clark County and ride the C-Tran bus to downtown Portland to work. My takes:
1. Robert Liberty from Metro is an idiot. I am not a tax refugee. I pay about $3,800 a year in Oregon income tax, yet I cannot send my daughter to OSU (my alma mater) at the in-state tuition rate. In addition, my employer pays Tri-Met tax on my salary, even though I ride a C-Tran bus.
2. Light Rail won't work well in Clark County. I catch the 199 bus at 99th street and I-5. My trip into downtown Portland is 30 minutes. Right now MAX taxes 30 minutes to get from Pioneer Square to the Expo Center, leaving me 5 miles short of my destination. Therefore, LR will take longer than my current bus ride. In addition, many Vancouverites work in areas like Beaverton, Lake Oswego, or Clackamas. Driving to a LR station and then riding LR to Beaverton would probably double the commute time.
3. The reason I live in Clark County is that the cost of a house in an area with decent schools in Portland is prohibitive. By living up here my daughter will get 13 more days of school every year. Multiplying that by 18 years means that she'll get more than an extra year in school than in Portland Public Schools.
4. The reason to build the new bridge is to move freight. UPS can't deliver packages on MAX and I certainly don't want a bunch of lumber or hogs on the bus with me.
I moved to Portland in 1975. The idea of the Mt. Hood Freeway was still being promoted and it the works or I wouldn't have known about it. The author needs to check their dates. It wasn't stopped in 1974 but later. The "story" was that Neil Goldschmidt put the money in light rail instead. That may or may not be true.
Fran:
Here's my summary of the freeway's demise, based on earlier reporting in WW and Jewel Lansing's excellent book, "Portland: People Politics, and Power 1851-2001"
In the summer of 1974, Portland's city council voted 4-1 to kill the Mt. Hood freeway. That vote sealed the project's doom; however, the one "yes" vote, then-city commissioner Frank Ivancie, and other supporters of the project subsequently tried to revive the project, through a failed ballot initiative and and through Ivancie's unsuccessful mayoral challenge to incumbent Neil Goldschmidt in 1976. Despite the efforts to revive the project, the freeway effectively died in 1974.
Has anyone thought about looking into a tunnel option? Seems that might be the least disruptive option. Also, I'd love to see an analysis done about how much traffic there'd be with $5, and $10 a gallon gasoline, which is where I believe we're headed and probably soon.
I live in Washington, but next year I'm going to PSU, so I'm moving to Oregon. My house is only 45 minutes from PSU in the middle of the day, but I have to live in Ptown because mornings and evenings it will take me upwards of 2 hours to get home from the South Park blocks. The congestion on the I-5 bridge is horrible, but I don't think i new one will solve anything.
What's needed here is a complete change in the mentality of commuting citizens, both in portland and clark county. I lived for 6 months in the UK, and I was very impressed by their excellent mass transportation system. Their network of trains to the suburbs, as well as the tube and busses in london, besides the lack of a fear of walking that so many American possess makes travelling to london a breeze. And I was living at the time as far from London as I live now from Portland, so it's not because "England is more compact" or anything like that. They have developed a different idea of how to travel.
And to the person who seemed to think we won't be reaching $12 a gallon in gas, let me tell you that every other country I've visited in the last year: England, South Africa, etc.., is paying at least twice for gas what we are here. America has held control over gas prices for its citizens for years now, but it's all starting to even out. And gas won't last forever. the world is not getting smaller. Like someone above said, millions of cars are being added to the road every day, and that won't stop until we realize that whether you believe in global warming or not, we are ALL eventually going to have to find a different solution. We need something short-term, and a long-term plan as well. Public transportation is a good option. So is developing new fuels. And here's a new idea: drive only so far, or take public transport a certain distance, then try this new thing that americans seem to have forgotten our bodies can do: WALK!
Most everyone on here won't understand how beautifully London had their transit determine their land use, which helped that transit culture.
Hopefully with all the transit oriented development going on, things will improve.
Our cheap oil era "Happy Motoring Disneyland" is painfully drawing to a close folks. Time to put away the party hats and take a deep breath. In 5 years this new bridge will sound about as silly and insane as Alaska's infamous "Bridge to Nowhere".
GLV,
New York, & Washington D.C. granted it's not as if I have lived in 13 major cities in my life (I'm still pretty young) but those two cities have better Mass transit than Portland because...
1. The Mass transit system serves those who need it most, low income or poor people. In Portland more $$$ gets dumped into the Mass Transit for those who already have access to public transportation. Instead of putting $$$ into neighborhoods where people wait on average 20 min for a bus to come by. Our illustrious new Mayor wants to keep dumping $$$ into the downtown area while N. Portland, and the further east of Portland (all of who pay taxes too) get left behind.
2. In both of the cities I've lived in the public transportation actually helps to pay for itself by making the people who ride it actually PAY for it. Thats a novel idea. Just think how much more the Max could expand to reach poor and ethnically diverse neighborhoods, IF you were required to pay to ride instead of the NON-WORKING, punishment based system they have in place now of "The honor system"
For 1 thing,the Honor system doesn't work. People ride the max for free, and get off when they see ticket checkers get on board. This is A HUGE PROBLEM . The MAX will continue to lose $$$ and therefore not be able to expand to neighborhoods that need it until, either turnstiles are installed that make you pay before entering the platform, or stationing a ticket checker on each train, to collect the fare from everyone. (p.s. I'm sick of subsidizing people who don't pay to ride)
This will make the MAX cheaper as in a city like NYC(ultra high cost of living city) I can ride 10 times further for a cheaper fare than in (the MUCH LOWER COST OF LIVING CITY of) Portland.
It will also allow the MAX to expand to serve BEYOND the the downtown area.
gettin' off my soapbox now...
NYC and DC are some of the heaviest federally subsidized transit systems in the country.
What makes more sense, hiring a driver to drive into a singly family area every 10 minutes to pick up 2 or 3 people or have that driver go into a denser (downtown) area where the ridership is higher?
I do agree that funding should be spread out a bit more, but in all honesty its simple ecnomics, you have to put a priority on an area that has heavy use and increased incentive (business proximity) for people to use transit. Mass transit isn't going to catch on until more people learn how to use it, and the best way to see its benefits is in dense corridors with retail and residental.
The honor system isn't the best idea, but do you know how much it would cost to either hire a guard at every station or install some sort of a gate at those open air areas that the Max runs through?
After you install those systems the cost of Max will be much more expensive and then those low income or poor people you were worried about before will def. not be able to afford to ride. Then what? They'll probably sneak onto the max, get caught and have a huge fine, which they wont be able to pay.
The system is already heavily subsidized, and will remain to be so, it is idiotic to assume that if everyone pays their 2 dollars then there will be enough money to expand the Max beyond downtown.
The answer isn't improving the operation of the Max, but how things are being developed so that there is an incentive for Max use, car pooling, and other options for those single family areas. Transit oriented development can connect residents to transit areas for more reasons other than just riding mass transit and can get retailers to pay for it rather than the strapped public sector.
I couldn't dis agree more with just about everything you just said Alan.
I don't know how much subsidizing goes into NYC or DC mass transit, but I'd appreciate if you make that claim , to show some sort of proof that that is so.
"Mass transit isn't going to catch on until more people learn how to use it, and the best way to see its benefits is in dense corridors with retail and residential." - This is just the kind of elitist thinking I'm talking about The incentive for poor neighbor hoods to use the max is there...THEY HAVE NO OTHER TRANSPORTATION. to make an argument that in order for mass transit to to catch on it first needs to catch on with people who don’t need it???? It would ccatch on just fine in N. Portland. Just ask anyone who lives there. If they would like more tracks going east to west in N (or) S Portland. Ask them if they’d like more trains running, or just longer trains (Like the ones that go to Beaverton) .
The idea that Mass transit need to serve the business sector then the public is crap. it’s public transportation, not commuter transportation.
To answer your concern that charging people would make it hard for poor people to ride is also not true. The majority of people that object to the ONE TIME COST of installing turnstiles are Hipsters or whatever you call yourselves that CAN afford the fare, but CHOOSE not to pay it. Your argument is flawed because right now the only option in the more “ethnically diverse” or poorer neighborhoods is the bus. GUESS WHAT the bus driver doesn’t let you on till you pay. The same should be done for the MAX. With turnstiles we pay a one time cost that makes everyone who rides pay. Then we don't pay a ticket checker to ride the train (which BY THE WAY we already do. we pay ticket checkers to get on the train , and hand out fine to those without tickets. ) AND in my neighborhood, they are racially profiling. They do not get on to check fares until after the most affluent whites get off the train, and the train starts into the “black “ neighborhoods.) GO AHEAD think of an argument now, we already pay for what you said we cant, ticket checkers, the only problem is that they don’t start checking tickets until they get into poor neighborhoods. IF we are gonna have ticket checkers they need to stay on the train and check all tickets NOT just the Blacks, and Hispanics peoples tickets.
Back to the turnstiles, make them so that they cannot be gotten around. Ticket prices will stay lower, because right now a MAX ticket cost more than a NYC Subway ticket, to travel less distance. How is that better??? Why do I pay more to ride less in a city where the cost of living is HALF what it is in NYC?????
“The answer isn’t improving the operation of the Max, but how things are being developed so that there is an incentive for Max use, car pooling, and other options for those single family areas. Transit oriented development can connect residents to transit areas for more reasons other than just riding mass transit and can get retailers to pay for it rather than the strapped public sector.”- spoken like a typical “HAVE”
well, Alan the people without cars and the “have not's” that would gladly pay to ride the MAX (but can’t because that idiot Adams wants to dump more $$$ into a walking Bridge , or new streetcar in DOWNTOWN, instead of exp[anding the MaX to those people that NEED IT.
AND it would be nice if sustainability was something Portlanders actually believed in instead of using it as a buzz word to sell things, and make them sleep better at night. TRUE sustainability would be to let the MAX help sustain itself, instead of saying it can’t and letting it not live up to what it could and is supposed to be. Help make the max sustainable , be truly progressive, think about others besides the haves.
AND don’t put the burden on retailers. I may want to ride the Max across town to see my family not just to buy stuff. This idea that business people need to pay for everything is close minded and ignorant. Because in the end they will raise prices and we will pay anyway. Take responsibility don’t just buy into that typical Leftist way of thinking business should pay for stuff.
First, heres a report about federal subisidies towards transit systems
www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/...
Second, you're idealist thinking is not practical in the real world. All cities from NYC, DC, LA, Curitiba, Bogota, London, and every other city with a transit system has to put an emphasis on business first because they need to provide service in the most used areas. Restaurants don't cook food when there are no customers. Restaurants with fewer customers tend to charge higher prices or go under.
The big differenece between NYC and PDX is the proximity, therefore you can't expect PDX to have as many bus trips to single family areas as DC or NYC. The land was designed drastically different as well, therefore comparing them is talking apples and oranges.
As for your turnstiles, the large gated kind found in NYC subways are 20k each. That's without installation, a computer system, labor, maintainence, that comes out to around 4 million for implementation over the first 2 years. But the fact that the Max stops are usually outside, turnstiles aren't a practical choice. But you might not realize that all mass transit systems in America runs at a loss, and in a sprawled out area like PDX if the system doesn't become more effecient for the primary riders then it wont increase ridership.
As for ticket checkers, with the number of trains running how many people will you need to hire in order to maintain that sort of a system including benefits, retirement, sick days, etc? The Max is also crowded at different times so you will eventually pay for them to sit on the Max doing nothing at times. If one ends up adding up the cost to create such a system and look at a model for how much you're losing, you realize the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
I agree that it's not fair the transit system isn't easier for those with less money. But you can't please everyone and the transit system here is not trying to be a social service, but instead an competitive alternative that can compete with an automobile to increase ridership. If you want to see a social service transit go down to Los Angeles into the lower income areas, the bus ride on those corridors is downright intimidating.
The Max is a decent system, its not the best, but you can't blame the service for previous land use policy and lack of density to increase routes. Transit is an expensive system, and if NYC can't sustain its own system, which is the most commonly used, how can you expect Portland too?
I agree with your arguments, but they're simply not practical, and theres no reason to complain about moral goals when talking about real life issues.
megan :)
Sorry if you don't like what I have to say. I do disagree with much of what the extremely biased WW has to say, and thats why I choose to read it. I like to know what kind of horrible agendas are trying to be passed under the guise of legit journalism.
Your attitude of trying to tell me that I'm not welcome to comment anymore is a completely close minded and NON-progressive way of thinking. Truly progressive people are open to all points of views, especially when they don't agree with them. It's good to be challenged and not swallow everything you're being spoon fed.
I believe in the global climate crisis, I just think we need to take in all points of view of how best to address it, rather than blanket statements like "Lets all give up our cars, man"
I will continue to CHOOSE to read the rubbish the WW publishes , and in fact I'd say thats what they are counting on. They know the crap they are spewing, and keep spewing it to sell advertising. thats capitalism folks.
I have never seen a more closed minded city , with the little brother syndrome ever, than Portland OR
It's a cool place, but it is not what it says it is. It is not progressive, That would mean being open to new ideas, and looking elsewhere for what works and what doesn't. Portland is so caught up in trying to be cooler than other cities and being different that it loses it's objectivity. It's not the peoples fault. It just happens when you live in a little bubble for so long. Don't be afraid to be compared to bigger, Older cities that you could learn from. Don't be afraid to learn from those cities. It doesn't mean your not good enough just because you learn a lesson from someone older. Rebelliousness will only take you so far, and being progressive TRULY progressive means adjusting and growing with change. Not just saying we're progressive, and this is how we do things so if you don't like it leave.
NEWS FLASH, the entire country is going through a growth spurt, NOT JUST HERE. It would be in Portlands best interest to learn what works best when having an influx of "immigrants" from other parts of the world or country. to make it continue to be a great city.
BTW don't tell me if I don't like it to leave it. Besides sounding like a close minded conservative, It won't work. I'm here to stay, I pay taxes, and I get involved. I'm here to bring about change....AND I'M NOT ALONE!
Yikes! What a mess this all is, both the river crossing situation and the forum..
Basically this is how I see it. Clark County's lack of sprawl-reducing planning is the proverbial hole in the swimming pool of the urban growth boundary. It's difficult to encourage dense development when folks are free to subdivide and build tract houses as they please. As others have pointed out, the layout of Vancouver is less than an ideal template for an effective mass transit system to operate in. That said, a fast, efficient, and safe light rail link from Portland to Vancouver is essential for the growth and liviability of the two cities and the general region. People like to complain that the MAX is a waste of money, doesn't work, doesn't serve them well enough, is unsafe, etc. Frankly, whenever I see a MAX train it's packed. More so in the past month or two, I'd hate to imagine all of those riders in single occupancy cars further clogging up the roads. Speaking of congesting, every major city I've been to has been congested, regardless of the public transportation infrastructure. It's just the reality of our modern way of living (even pre-modern as city streets used to be clogged w/ horse drawn carriges instead of cars). The point to remember though is that WITHOUT public transportation the roads would be further clogged, growth would be stifled, and I doubt many large cities would have grown into what they are today without the means to move large amounts of people quickly.
We also need to remember that the I-5 crossing (and south to the Rose Quarte) is a bottleneck for the entire west coast. It is pretty ridiculous that the major north / south artery of the west goes down to two lanes either direction in Portland. This ties in to much larger problems though. WHERE ARE THE TRAINS?!? It seems like a no brainer that long freight trips should be by train, short freight trips by small truck. Too bad the last investment in rail infrastructure was when.... While we're at it let's have a dedicated high speed rail track built from Vancouver B.C. to San Diego. Can you imagine the furor that would erupt when it came time to seize land for the right-of-way...phew.
In the end, solving our traffic problems will be difficult, expensive, controversial, and will ultimately have to coincide in an adjustment or our regional planning and dependence on cars.
Fill to capacity every car commuting daily across the river from Vancouver; THEN show me that we need a new bridge.
Vancouverites, like the rest or our country, need to embrace ridesharing.
Ride sharing is an answer to many things, besides high gas prices. Do it for obvious environmental reasons. Do it for capitalism: efficient commerce (freight traffic) and lower consumer prices. Do it to promote smaller goverment (tens of millons spent yearly in Oregon alone on roadway repair, or billions if we're talking about a new I-5 bridge).
Do it for patriotic reasons. We speak fondly of the WWII era, when American citizens sacrificed and united for a common cause. Unity of a country, as in a marriage, requires sacrifice and cannot survive without it. (It's perhaps more difficult in this case because the enemy seems to be ourselves.)
Whether our individual motivations are environmental, capitalistic, patriotic or personally economic, we must unite for the good of our country. Let us challenge ourselves to take the initiative before circumstances or government regulations require it.
And let us return meaning to the word united our our country's name.
You speak so strongly of unity, yet you lay the blame on the people of Vancouver and their inability to rideshare. Born, raised, and paid taxes in Portland, and I can't say that the the average is any better here.
Tommy Hood, you need to chill bro. You've certainly got some good points, and some really bad ones, like MAX being the worst mass transit system in the US. I love MAX and ride it all the time. I also ride bus, my bike, and my wife and I share one car. We live soooo much cheaper than we used to in the supposedly lower cost of living Boise, Idaho, where there were next to no public transit options and you had to drive a long ways to get around, despite it being a much lower population that Portland. MAX is one of the reasons I moved here. It's certainly not the best, but it's not the worst either, and it's been much more efficient financially than many "nicer" systems around the country. This allows them to keep expanding, and eventually it will be a viable option for almost all Portlanders and hopefully many Vancouverites.
But you're right. We'll never completely get rid of cars. I believe that tolls are good and alternative energy is great--especially electric. What we need is a society where cars and public transit work well together.
Brian V,
you're right that I do need to chill ( a little) BUUUUT don't misinterpret my post. I didn't say "like MAX being the worst mass transit system in the US."
I said it was worse than the mass transit trains system in any city I've lived in. BIG DIFFERENCE.
I'm glad for your feedback, and I agree with you about living here. I like it a lot. It just gets frustrating when I see some of the hypocrisy that abounds here. On the subject o
As a Washington "tax refugee"--who somehow has been unable to avoid paying Oregon income taxes for about 18 years now without any right to vote in the state--my wife and I ride the bus every day to Downtown. As a life-long resident of Clark County, and a life-long Oregon worker, I have to chuckle at the incredibly naive tone of some of the critcisms noted in the article. I would ask those that have adopted the "it's Washington's problem" philosophy to assess the largest tax paying sectors of Oregon's economy....Hhhmm? Who's paying all that income tax but using almost no public services in the State? Also, I wonder why Clark County has experienced explosive growth? An unusually high birth rate among Washingtonians? Or, could it be Oregonians escaping in hordes across the river to find afforable housing and better schools?--thereby maxing out Clark County's own public services. So, I would ask folks to think in broader terms before becoming involved in public policy debates and accept that Oregon and SW Washington have a symbiotic relationship that benefits both states' tax coffers. I would certainly love to see daily SUV drivers forced onto buses with high toll fees, but I also live in the real world. Though it's sometimes forgotten in Portland political debates, all of us tax payers don't live in condos in SW or close-in SE. Also, frankly, I really don't want to ride a bike to work in the cold rain.... The "bridge issue" is about 30 years past due date of when alternative planning should have been seriously considered. And, now we're in this rediculous artificially created "crisis". We can thank our government officials for failing to have the strength of vision to address this problem earlier. I absolutely agree that planners are not being creative in problem solving this issue. When I was up in arms about the loss of the Southbound HOV lane in Clark County a couple years back, one regional traffic planner's quip was: "Hey, just hold on buddy, you're gonna get a new bridge"...I responded that that will be wonderful when I'm retired in about 30 years to see the new bridge being built. Planners seem incapable of supporting intermediate fixes like supporting mass improvement/expansion of existing public transportation or having the slightest political will to support even simple HOV lanes. Of course, massive public works projects are really cool and just think how many mid-level planners will be employed for the next 3 decades?