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.
That's just a sign of how expensive the tram was. In relation to the importance of transportation, the new I-5 crossing should be about 100,000 times more expensive.
"Instead, that money could build 14,000 $200,000 apartments to ease the indefinite waiting list for affordable housing in Portland."
One criticism of the CRC is that if it's 12 lanes than the amount of traffic will simply swell up to fill it and traffic will be as bad as before. Unfortunately, the same is true of affordable housing.
While others, having the misconceptions of other thrust upon them, might weep in their beer.
Wah. Nobody owns the earth or has any more claim to it than anyone else. If your limited knowledge of history demonizes colonial america as the epitome of geographical robbery then it's time to crack a book. The world has a way of providing for progress and personally I'm happy with the progress that has come to this land.
As for the bridge, it seems to make sense to make it as wide as possible as we're constantly growing and perhaps in twenty years the city would have to pay for an expansion. However, it seems that Vancouver should be required to split the cost fifty-fifty.
Wait, did I read that right? A freaking BRIDGE is a CAR FRIENDLY OPTION? WTF?!!!!
People need to pull their heads out of their asses. Of course we need to build the bridge for the future, which means more people in the region. It is inevitable that we'll have more move here, barring the Rapture or some Mad Max scenario.... which may seem more likely these days.... A big bridge means more room for enviro friendly stuff like bike lanes, bus lanes, rail lines, hell, maybe a hemp patch. Twelve lane bridge does not mean it will for eternity have to be filled with Hummer lanes.
Like it or not, you can't force everyone to move to inner East Portland and ride fixies everywhere.
And since when did cars become the friggin' enemy?! Car emmissions have been cut 98% per vehicle through technology alone the past few decades, and they will probably be emission free ten years from now. What are you bike-Nazis going to complain about then?
The money is expensive because engineering a bridge carrying this type of traffic over one of the United States largest rivers isn't--and never will be--cheap.
Not even the staunchest bike advocates believe that the current bridge is adequate. It's not earthquake-proof; and the bridge lifts (caused partly by the mis-alignment with the rail bridge as has been pointed out elsewhere) don't help anyone, on a bike or bus or train or car.
The problems people have with the wider bridge are twofold:
1. Ideological opposition to car-based infrastructure
2. Fear that a wider bridge will actually increase congestion, not reduce it (or at very least, will just move the congestion down towards the Rose Quarter, an area of much higher population density hence the fumes from idling vehicles have even more effect than currently)
Sadly, most people on here are pre-occupied with arguing over the first one, an argument that neither side is ever going to win or even come to a compromise on. But really, the second is the more important one, since it's practically based and fact based, and is something people might actually be able to discuss and come to agreement on.
As far as the infrequent bridge lifts, they could be dramatically reduced by changing the downstream rail bridge at pennies on the dollar.
Those who support the MegaBridge ask "are there problems?" Those who support alternatives ask "what's the best way to spend $4 billion for the region?"
Most of the people driving single vehicles across the bridge because there is no other realistic option. Only a few die-hards are willing to take the underfunded bus/bike options. This just funnels more money to auto-advocacy groups like AAA. And the mass of cars is what impedes freight traffic (which we all depend on) not the number of lanes.
Stu, I am a bike advocate (as well as a transit and pedestrian advocate) who believes the bridge is just fine. If a seperate bridge were built either as part of the rail right-of-way or adjoining the existing hwy bridge for transit and bike/ped users the cost would be a small fraction and peopel would have realistic options. You also wouldn't have to contend with the mess of re-routing auto-traffic.
And by the way don't you just love it when suburbanites complain about people who can more easily buy a house because of the $7000 a year saved by not driving everywhere?
I used to make that commute and it sucked. I would have loved better options. The interchanges there are terrible and there are several unnecessary congestion points in both directions because of poor planning. Biking down I-5 is awful. It took me 1.5 hours by bus. The yellow line should obviously be extended across the river, too.