There are a whole lot of Washington residents that don't want the new bridge (in its present form) either. What good does it do to build a multi-lane bridge that dumps into the I-5 congestion through Portland. Until that mess gets cleaned up, it makes no sense to build a new bridge of any sort. Actually, any new bridge would be just fine with eight lanes. Just one extra lane in each direction to alleviate the Jantzen Beach traffic problems. And let's not forget that there are a lot of Oregonians that are working in Washington. I see their license plates all the time if I'm trying to go south at quitting time. Thay can't all be shoppers over here.
I found the following quote from the article especially revealing of a prominant bridge proponents' strategy: "Here is a project, where if we make the investment, brings up to 20,000 jobs," said Oregon Department of Transportation Director Matt Garrett. "It will be a gift that keeps on giving."
The "gift that keeps on giving"? Lets not forget who's "giving" the "gift": its the public and their taxes paid. Why should the public sign up for construction and, more importantly, operating responsibility for a massive new road construction asset? Steel-on-steel rail lasts a heck of a lot longer than rubber-on-asphalt (or concrete). Over time, roads can cost more per-passenger-mile than rail. Is this building a massive automobile bridge a responsible use of our tax revenue?
With the huge volume of traffic that already comes through the Pacific Northwest today, the only real solution to improve the capacity and efficiency of this corridor is to divorce the public passenger from the automobile. Cars will /not/ lead us out of the forest of congestion.
Why doesn't Oregon Department of Transportation Director Matt Garrett see things this logically? What is blurring his vision for the future of the State's transportation infrastructure?
The "gift that keeps on giving"? Lets not forget who's "giving" the "gift": its the public and their taxes paid. Why should the public sign up for construction and, more importantly, operating responsibility for a massive new road construction asset? Steel-on-steel rail lasts a heck of a lot longer than rubber-on-asphalt (or concrete). Over time, roads can cost more per-passenger-mile than rail. Is this building a massive automobile bridge a responsible use of our tax revenue?
With the huge volume of traffic that already comes through the Pacific Northwest today, the only real solution to improve the capacity and efficiency of this corridor is to divorce the public passenger from the automobile. Cars will /not/ lead us out of the forest of congestion.
Why doesn't Oregon Department of Transportation Director Matt Garrett see things this logically? What is blurring his vision for the future of the State's transportation infrastructure?
-KM