Comments

1
The bridge supporters didn't resort to name calling, they misquoted him by a few words, (although, still got the meaning right.) And when pointed out that there was indeed tons of evidence for why fewer lanes was a good idea, (including by such "weird" groups such as the US EPA,) Leonard simply ignored it.

Leonard isn't doing what is best for the city, he is doing what is politically convenient for him. Yet I don't see anyone calling him out for abuse of power or anything, in fact, where is the recallRandy.com website? Nowhere. Hummm, I think that might prove a few points about what is really important to people. SEX.
2
'snatches of amour fou in city hall restrooms' is one of the most gag inducing sayings I've heard in a long time.
3
As I understand it, no snatches were involved.
4
Know what's better than a bridge?

Monorail!
5
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth
Like a genuine,
Bona fide,
Electrified,
Twelve-lane
C - R- C!
What'd I say?
CRC!
What's it called?
CRC!
That's right! CRC
[crowd chants `CRC']
I hear those things are awfully loud...
Cars glide 'cross softly as a cloud.
Is there a chance the bridge could bend?
Not on your life, my Janzen Beach friend.
What about us brain-dead slobs?
You'll be given cushy jobs.
Were you sent here by the devil?
No, good sir, I'm on the level.
I swear it's Portland's only choice...
Throw up your hands and raise your voice!
CRC!
What's it called?
CRC!
Once again...
CRC!
But MLK's still all cracked and broken...
Sorry, Randy, the mob has spoken!
CRC!
CRC!
CRC!
Mono... D'oh!
6
Nice work, Number Six! And the passenger, on the maiden crossing... was Gallagher.
***


"provide statistical support for their arguments for fewer lanes"

I'd be interested in seeing some of that myself. According to Adams and Bragdon, you just take a trip to Stockholm and it all becomes painfully obvious.
7
Build the bridge with all the lanes possible.
It's the only logical thing to do.
8
1. Leonard takes lots of campaign money from construction workers union.

2. Construction workers union stands to make a lot of money from the bridge being as big as possible.

3. Leonard votes to make the bridge as big as possible.

Where I come from, that's called blatant corruption.


The whole point of publicly-funded candidates was to stop them being beholden to these special interests. Therefore the only right thing to do is for Amanda Fritz and Sam Adams (the two publicly-funded people on council right now? - I've not fact-checked that bit!) to ignore Leonard's opinions completely and do what they think is best for the general public. Whether 8, 10 or 12 lanes is best for the public is for them to decide of course, but Leonard's objections aren't worth the paper they're not written on.
9
No, NOT Stockholm! Save your money. Go to Atlanta, Dallas, Sacramento or Seattle and THERE the evidence is painfully obvious: build twelve lanes without tolls, and they will fill up with enough traffic for fourteen. But build sixteen lanes, and they will fill up with enough traffic for eighteen. Build twenty, and they fill up with enough traffic for twenty-two. And then the whole system, including the bridge, fails - motorists have to suffer as much or more congestion as there was before the widening which was supposed to solve the congestion. (That's not speculation; that is the experience of other places, which is why it's so bizarre that the state DOTs brought in experts from those very places to corroborate how we should do it here.) The key - which could even make even a twelve-lane bridge function right - is tolling, which moderates and modulates the traffic, to keep things flowing and makes the bridge perform the way it is supposed to, as well as apportioning a portion of the costs to the users. But without that, I don't believe the claims (forecasts not facts) that a twelve lane bridge would be less congested than a ten or eight lane bridge.
10
That was awfully sporting of the Mercury to offer the Mayor's sustainability adviser the opportunity to write an op-ed about the bridge. Oh wait...
11
Mr. Bragdon, I'm not sure where to start with your logic. I agree that traffic will eventually increase to fit the capacity, but you seem to be saying that after 20 years an 8 lane bridge and a 12 lane bridge would have the same amount of congestion. That's ridiculous. The congestion on the 8 lane bridge will be all the worse.

By your logic, we should never increase the size of any street ever again, because it will increase traffic. Is this what we elect you guys for? To make driving miserable?

You're getting your choo choo train. Why not stop the obstruction?

I'm unclear on why elected officials in Portland and Metro get to make growth decisions for Vancouver anyway. If they want to add 2 million people, tough crap for you. The self-importance around here is ridiculous.

Did you and Adams feel as silly at that Vancouver meeting as you looked?

12
Stu, Adams didn't take public funding. He took a butt-load of special interest funding.
13
Blabby - if two million people want to move to Vancouver and spend all their time there, working / shopping etc North of the river, then that's none of Portland's business to interfere. But that's not the reality - if it was, they wouldn't need the bigger bridge. They're going to be coming to Portland, which means using Portland's city services. That's why it's only fair that Portland has a say in how many of them come.


If, as a result of having a smaller bridge, jobs move to Vancouver instead of Portland, then that's something the Portland city council have to consider, in favor of a bigger bridge.

On the other hand: a bigger bridge will (non-controversially) increase existing congestion around the Rose Quarter, and I5/I405 junction. Having more lanes on the bridge but not all the way to downtown may actually increase travel times for Vancouverites; and it will certainly increase travel times to downtown Portland for residents of N and NE Portland who use I5. So there's a very strong argument there in favor of fewer lanes on the bridge.

Only fools see valid points on just one side of the argument. Our elected officials' job is to consider all the valid points on both sides, and then make the final decision one way or the other.
14
"Our elected officials' job is to consider all the valid points on both sides, and then make the final decision one way or the other."

You sure that's happening here?

Most of the people moving to Vancouver are from Multnomah County. Getting out of here.
15
I'm a bit confused here. Say you build a 12-lane bridge right, but your connecting to a 6-lane freeway, and there's no money and no room to make an 8-lane freeway let alone a 12-lane freeway, and I don't think many (although considering vantuckyians, probably a few) are going to drive on the bridge turn around and drive back continuously....somebody help me with the math, but I fail to see the logic.
16
lordylordy, you are correct. That is why it isn't just the bridge that is 12 lanes, but it takes about 3 miles on this side of the river to thin the freeway down to 6 lanes, via several on/offramps that connect to MLK, Williams/Vancouver and Interstate Ave. Now, at rush hour, when the bridge is backed up, and the freeway is stopped, guess which roads won't be moving either: Yes, Interstate Ave, MLK, and Williams/Vancouver. Those streets effectively become the other 6 lanes of the freeway. If you live in North Portland, and used to be able to get home at rush hour in a reasonable amount of time via a "side" street, you won't be able to anymore, they will all be full of cars.

This isn't some secret or something, it is right in the DEIS that there are clear, measurable, increases in traffic from building a bigger bridge all the way south to the Broadway bridge, (and probably further south, as well, but they didn't study any further than that,) which just happens to be the place where I-5 south only has 2 lanes right now. (Who would have guessed that trying to funnel 6 lanes into 2 would cause problems?)
17
Matt makes the same mistake Jaquiss does--claims Adams has reduced clout (as with the couplet, which was nearly dead already in the first place) without suggesting how. There's also the subtle accusation that were Randy and Adams still personal friends, Randy would have cut a deal for an option he seems clearly opposed to. If that's the case, God Bless their fracture if it means Councillors will vote their conscience instead of their political advancement!

And the science on more lanes = more congestion is pretty easily available and thorough. You should let someone explain it to you, Randy--I agree it's counter intuitive, but that doesn't mean it's incorrect.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.