Posted by: Emily George - July 8, 2008 11:37 AM

What do I think of the current proposal? It will be a mind-boggling mistake to spend $4.2 billion on a 12 lane bridge that will only move the congestion down the road a bit, all based on traffic models that don't make sense given $4 gas and global warming. And all based on a model that assumes the new bridge won't cause additional growth in Clark County -- an assumption contrary to reality.

I keep thinking "this project is just so dumb of course the region will scale it back" but the big-money behind the bridge appears to be pulling out all the stops to strong-arm our elected leaders into turning over the region's $$ and future to the road-building kings. Throwing in light rail doesn't make a bad project good -- it's just putting lipstick on the pig. It's still a pig.

There are better alternatives that will increase bridge safety and reduce the region's reliance on the automobile, but they haven't been adequately considered.

Posted by: Art - July 8, 2008 11:49 AM

No No No. Time to figure out alternatives to all those cars going back and forth every day. We absolutely should do nothing to encourage more cars, and we need no more developement that requires more gas guzzling traffic.

Posted by: Esther - July 8, 2008 01:38 PM

The peninsula is already isolated from the rest of Portland by the Willamette to the West and by I-5 to the East. Getting through that northbound and southboudn traffic at rush hour is practically insurmountable, and just plain wasteful. We need to find better ways to funnel people through this district. Light rail, drastically improved carpool and bike/pedestrian/multimodal facilities, and tolls are all options. Adding more traffic? Not so much.

Posted by: Terry Parker - July 9, 2008 11:48 PM

Asking questions about how the public feels or what they think about CRC are more like questions of futility. There are people on all sides of the issue testifying at various public hearings (including myself) that in reality are only window dressing because the political mindset has already been formed within the various government bodies, and the politicians representing special interest agendas have already made their decisions well before the public is given a chance to comment,

However since you asked, and since you supposedly represent me as a constituent in your district, here is my “long-winded” soap box response:

The bigger issue/problem is that government at all levels is fast becoming more autocratic, little by little taking away the personal freedoms this country was founded upon. For example, since becoming a City of Portland Commissioner, Mayor in waiting Sam Adams has been flexing his muscles from the throne of PDOT with a bias one-sided tax and spend agenda that attempts to socialistically dictate lifestyle, housing and mode of transport choices. Taking it a step farther; Adams now wants to hose the motorists that are already getting hosed at the pump with tolls and congestion pricing on both the I-5 and I-205 Columbia River crossings. .With the sky rocketing costs of motor fuels, any tolling of motorists at all in today’s economy is for the wrong reasons at the wrong time. NO outdated, dictatorial and subsidized incentives are needed to promote alternative forms of transport.

The purpose of any bridge is to bring the two sides of the river closer together. Tolling motorists only divides the community farther apart and will negatively impact small businesses and the local economy. Interstate commerce crossing the Columbia is not just about big trucks carrying freight. It is about small independent business people too such as carpenters, electricians, landscapers, plumbers, service techs and others (often in plain non-descript vehicles) whom routinely do business on both sides of the river to make a living. It is about retail sales that take place on both sides of the river from customers on the opposite side of the river. Interstate commerce is also about that dreaded SUV (a pickup with a roof) loaded with merchandise for a trade or retail show at the Expo Center. It is about multi-day exhibiters at the Expo Center having overnight accommodations in Vancouver and eating at downtown Vancouver restaurants. The political dragnet for motorist paid tolls and congestion pricing is all about dictatorial control and emptying the wallets of commuters who travel to their jobs by motor vehicle. However, motorist only tolling will undoubtedly also have a negative affect, possible even a devastating effect, on the entire regional small business economy.- an affect that has not been properly addressed as part of the CRC agenda politics. .

A real bridge in a reality check world necessitates an equitable cost sharing financing plan. Therefore, “IF” tolling is implemented, it must have much a larger base than just motorists keeping the dollar amounts at the bare minimum and be all inclusive of all vehicular modes of transport including transit passengers and bicyclists paying their share of the bridge and associated costs. One estimate has the cost for the Max piece of the CRC project at $9.00 per passenger crossing. Transit passengers must be obligated to pay any proportionate local share of the transit infrastructure costs with a surcharge on transit fares. Instead of just providing lip service and the usual freeloading, bicyclists too must be expected to pay their own way with a bridge toll to cover any local match monies spent on providing bicycle infrastructure.

As it now stands, the cost estimates are 1.2 billion to replace the I-5 bridges with the interchanges and light rail costing another $2.4 billion (source; Metro Councilor Robert Liberty’s News Letter). The price tag to provide bicycle infrastructure along with any authentic numbers of projected bicycle crossings using the bridge has been concealed from the public. This undoubtedly is a politically motivated cover up that is catering to the special interest bicycle agenda because it is highly probable that any bicycle infrastructure constructed will not pencil out as being anywhere close to being cost effective. Furthermore, any posh ultra expensive so-called world-class bicycle facility must NOT be subsidized by motorists or taxpayers, and MUST be paid for only by the bicyclist users themselves with even higher mandated and pricey pedal pusher tolls.

As consumers, we do not know how the next generation of cars and trucks will be powered or what the fuel source will be. Development is still occurring on that front, but it is highly likely the vehicles of the future will be both more efficient and more eco-friendly. Applying all that to the CRC project, planning for personal powered vehicles using the freeway crossing MUST continue to be a primary factor in the decision process. The costs of the project and what the region can afford are another big factor that MUST take center stage.

Taking this all into consideration, from my prospective, the No-Build alternative does not have enough capacity for either motor vehicles or transit in addition to lacking the safety requirements of a modern freeway. The big new bridge concept is too expensive with a footprint that is too massive. As currently proposed, with the supplemental bridge alternatives, Northbound freeway traffic still must deal with a lift span making them nothing more than a sham, a pointless folly that appears to be specifically designed for the purpose of politically eliminating any type of less costly option that would reuse the existing historical bridges. Under NO circumstances should energy be wasted (that will take more than a century to recover) to construct a separate bridge structure for the chosen transit option, bicyclists and/or pedestrians.

My two-fold suggestion to the CRC and part of a six page response to the DEIS is a compromise. The highlights of this compromise include constructing a new freeway bridge for I-5 through traffic with six “full service” travel lanes, three in each direction, and all the necessary safety requirements; reusing the existing historical bridges for slower local and interchange traffic, bicycles and pedestrians, and possibly transit; minimizing the construction disruption as compared to a total replacement alternative; reducing the amount of energy needed for construction by replacing it with the synergy of combining modes into the same structure(s); decreasing the footprint of the project in part by combining some interchanges; and adding to the eco-effects on the positive side by preserving and reusing a valuable historical structure at approximately the same price it takes to demolish it - all of which equates to a SAVINGS for TAXPAYERS while still building a workable project that will meet the needs of the region, interstate commerce and the West Coast international I-5 Highway corridor.

Finally, to all the eco-critics that suggest the number of lanes on an expanded motor vehicle crossing will lead to more sprawl, get real - it is population growth that compels sprawl. Just like the spotted owls that scientists say need a range of old growth habitat, the elephants at the Oregon Zoo where zoo keepers claim they need a larger compound to roam around in; and with an exception of the singles hipster crowd, most (family) people rebuff the confinement of cubical living associated with high density heat island people warehouse districts; moreover aspiring to single family homes that have full attached yards for family activities. Therefore the primary method to address sprawl is to stop ignoring, start talking about, confront and address the real issue; the necessity to reduce and stabilize population growth.

Posted by: Angel in Bluejeans - July 17, 2008 06:23 PM

Wow, I cannot begin to imagine how to build roadways after the crowds are already here. It seems to me that we spend alot of time and effort inviting people to move and live here then get mad when they use our roadways.
There is nothing so crazy as to be stuck in traffic from 2pm-7pm while trying to go north on I-5 to Vancouver. I worked at Jantzen beach center for 20 years and each year the lines get longer and longer just trying to get off the island. People are never going to stop driving on our roads, we cannot live so blinded by our growth factor and now we face a meltdown in our mortgage market, job market, economy market and especially in our health care markets.
Sam Adams promised more taxes during his election. We somehow again voted for someone to turn our lives upside down and now we complain. All accross the midwest and east are toll bridges and highways. We still do not have a sales tax. The money retreived from everyone passing through would pay to keep our highways free from ice and snow during the winter. Our air quality control problems are growning because people must drive even three blocks to the store. We need to not drive our cars when we can take mass transit. I have given up driving for over 20 years now so that I can help the air stay a bit cleaner. Without a new bridge the traffic problems will go longer into the night with more people driving. Since we live in a free country we cannot stop progress. We must however keep up and that we are way behind on with the traffic issues down I-5.

Do yourselves a favor and show up for the town hall meetings for the people who are promoting this bill and you will be surprised as to how many other important projects these certain people are involved in.