IF IT WERE up to the Portland City Council, a new bridge connecting Portland and Vancouver along I-5 would be the “smallest bridge possible,” employ the “highest-quality architecture,” have a “world-class” facility for bicyclists and pedestrians, and include tolls based on congestion “in perpetuity.”
There’s more: The council’s dream Columbia River Crossing (CRC) bridge reduces the amount people drive, has light rail, won’t impact transportation funds available for other local projects, and won’t be built until project staffers commission an “independent analysis of the greenhouse gas and induced automobile travel demand forecasts for the project.”
In other words, if the CRC’s staff—and the two states’ departments of transportation—follow the city’s directives, there’s almost no way the current 12-lane behemoth bridge can ever be built.
According to the CRC’s own projections, a 12-lane bridge with light rail and tolls increases how much people drive in the long run, so it’s a non-starter for the Portland City Council. A second draft of the CRC proposal could look drastically different to meet the city’s demands—plus the demands of other jurisdictions involved in the project, like Vancouver and Metro.
At least, that’s the hope. Moments before the city council kicked off a hearing to discuss the $4.2 billion, 12-lane CRC proposal last Wednesday, July 9, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) polished off a letter that was supposed to secure the city’s role as the project steamrolls forward.
ODOT’s letter, however, was tepid and vague: Calling the relationship between ODOT and the city “as strong, or stronger, than at any time I know of,” Director Matthew Garrett wrote that the “vital partnership will continue to direct the course,” and that the “City of Portland’s continued input, vision, and counsel will be critical to delivering a project which improves the safety and efficiency of the interstate, offers transportation choices, and represents the values and needs of the Portland citizenry.” Nowhere did Garrett write that the council has a final say.
But Portland’s Mayor-elect Sam Adams says he’s confident that “nothing will move forward over our strenuous objections,” and he’ll vote against the bridge down the road if it doesn’t meet the city’s criteria.
It’s ridiculous that Portland thinks it can dictate this sort of nonsense to the rest of the country.
This is US TAX dollars, not city/county tax dollars.
The usual Portland stupidity, America’s Beirut.
Keep penalizing the average Joe for having a car, god, I can’t believe this city sometimes!
Sir Al M:
You must not follow the news, or, perhaps you only watch Faux News.
Heads up, now, this fact is coming at you pretty dang fast so you must pay attention: We’re out gas.
That’s the stuff that you put in your car so you can drive back and forth from your parent’s house and the tavern you frequent.
And just to clarify, the Feds are offering this money to us. If we don’t take it, some one else gets it. The government will spend this money one way or the other. The will not put it back in your pocket.
Please stay at home in Van-tucky and leave us alone.
I remain your humble servant,
Jacomus
P.S. I may be a village idiot, but at least I’m not a mis-informed horse’s ass.
Sir:
An afterthought:
Is “Al M” some sort of Arab moniker? Should we be turning you over to someone, say Domestic Security or the FBI or the Girl Scouts or some such organization?
N.B. As you probably don’t read or speak Latin, d’Paganus-Fatuus is a sort of pidgen-Latin mixed with French, and it means: the Village Idiot.
Also, N.B. is a short-hand way of saying: Noto Bene, again in Latin, which roughly translates as “please note.”
I explain these items as I do not want to cause you more confusion or embarassment over the obvious baseness of your education, or as they say in Van-tucky, “edication”.
I remain your humble servant,
Jacomus
Monsieur Jocomus,
Do I detect some small hostility?
I suggest you seek professional help to get a better handle on these outbursts of hostilities.
It seems to me, just a humble horse’s ass, that we are on the same side here, build the bridge.
Now, when a horses ass communicates with the village idiot, there might possibly be miscommunication.
Faut péter dans l’eau pour faire des bulles.
BTW monsieur Jocomus
Ferme ta bouche quand tu parle!
Pauvre con!
Sir:
I note you do not dispute the facts stated in my commentary. Rather, your response is ad hominum. How provincial.
I remain your humble servant,
Jacomus
Excusez-moi Monsieur Jacomus d’Paganus-Fatuus, je fogot de mentionner, mon collège sont de degrés University of Massachusetts and Antioch College.
Pas complètement stupide que vous voyez.
Vous voir encore, je suis sûr!
As fuel and carbon charges increase trucks will be leaving the highway as the only economic way to move freight distances is rail and barges. Only local trucks will be on the I-5 when the new bridge opens in 10 years.
The carbon tax world is back to the 1940’s for transport.
How did the 205 get its funding? I don’t remember a toll on the I-5 to pay for that bridge. Why not repeat or at least look in to that plan before forcing increased taxes and tolls to pay for the new I-5.
Also, gas may be dying out as a fuel source, but that doesn’t mean people won’t drive. Once more eco friendly fuel sources are available like electric, and hydrogen people will drive even more. It’s silly to think we can’t develop these technologies and short sided to think we won’t need the lanes in the future.
If they do toll the bridges, then they should toll the pedestrian and bike paths as well. ALL the people who use the bridges should pay for the bridge.
The energy to build the light rail portion will take energy, lots of energy. It won’t be a green building project. It’s not fair to say that cars are not eco friendly when it will take about 40 years to off set the energy and carbon footprint of the light rail construction.
We all want more transportation options. Light rail, bus, bike, ped, and car should all be given top priority. The car people are not served by the current public transportation options. It’s not fair to impose limitations on them or ask them to pay for all the other pet projects.
Vancouver’s city counsel and mayor need to be very careful on how they fund this new bridge. It may cost them a future election.
Sir:
Your commentary failed to include natural gas, a resource we appear to have in some abundance in N. America. Mr. T. Boone Pickett suggests natural gas as an option for vehicles, transitioning to wind power for electrical generation. N.B. Mr. Pickett has and is investing heavily in “wind farms,” thereby protecting his position.
Charging tolls to all users is certainly democratic and preferable to placing the load on just one class of user. The only concern here is devising a suitable toll to charge the ghost seen crossing the current bridge North to South some evenings.
I remain your humble servant,
Jacomus
If your my humble servant than please get me a beer!
Al M
“Charging tolls to all users is certainly democratic and preferable to placing the load on just one class of user.”
Are you actually putting forth the argument that it is “fair” to charge the working class laborer who makes 9.50 an hour the same amount to cross that bridge as it is to charge the executive making 150k a year?
TOLLS HURT THE WORKING CLASS!
NO TO TOLLS!
NO TO ANY NEW TAXES!