Amen!

a tube is the best answer for all weather no intruption service, but must be suitable for transport both ways, allowing Oregonians access to the jobs in Clark county...

a tube is the best answer for all weather no intruption service, but must be suitable for transport both ways, allowing Oregonians access to the jobs in Clark county...

Whats really needed is less reliable transit service with unpredictable travel times. These are clearly rhetorical questions. This is question is would be called a "push-poll" in politics. What we appear to have here is a publicly funded million dollar a month advocacy project for a new bridge.

“More reliable transit service with predictable travel times is needed between Clark County and Portland.”

Again it boils down to affordability and who pays for it. If transit riders are willing to directly pay for the costs of more reliable service without subsidies from other sources such as motorists, then such a statement make sense. On the other hand, if transit riders and advocates expect huge operational subsidies and expect motorists and other sources to pay for the infrastructure to make the service more reliable, then I disagree with the statement.

another idea, use existing tracks and diesel rolling stock [Colorado Rail] to provide service to Longview, and all the smalltowns on the way on existing BNSF tracks, has worked elsewhere.

If you are looking at reliability and weigh it against time that it takes for a commuter to go from home to work there maybe breaking point where reliable transit is not as important.

In Clark County if you were to compare the implications of accepting a Bi-State Transit Taxing Authority that has controlling interest and authority coming from Oregon entity like Tri-Met to fund operation of a MAX Light Rail through Vancouver the majority would vote down that proposal cold. There are to many ex-Oregonians that excaped from the "Peoples Republic" as Sam Adams called at a recent meeting.

Many people in Clark County left Portland and Oregon for a reason and they would not agree to a Bi-State Taxing Authority, controlled by Oregon entities or people who support socialist ideas associated with what are preceived as coming from left leaning people. The majority of the elected officals across the County are Republicans with Democrats in close in Vancouver.

It would take a vote of all Clark County residents to get an approval on the CRC Project. A lot of elected officals will be in a CYA mode in the county and when they see and hear statements like that the CRC Task Force wants to reinstate the HOV lanes and extend them all of the way out to 134th you can cross off all of north Clark County from supporting anything coming from the CRC Task Force.

When Clark County voters hear that the CRC Task Force wants to place a tolls on their ability to go across the bridges (I-5 and I-205) a majority will vote against anything, any recommendations coming from the CRC Task Force.

When Clark County voters hear that the CRC Task Force wants to place a tolls on their ability to go across the bridges (I-5 and I-205) a majority will vote against anything, any recommendations coming from the CRC Task Force.

Maybe, but I doubt there is going to be a direct vote. The question is whether the elected officials think they can survive approving of tolls if that is the price of fixing the bridge. My guess is that there will be a lot of promises made to get the bridge built that won't have any political legs once the traffic is across the river. To be fair, if light rail gets across the river without widening the bridge, there won't be any political will on the Oregon side for accommodating more traffic from Clark County.

another idea, use existing tracks and diesel rolling stock [Colorado Rail] to provide service to Longview, and all the smalltowns on the way on existing BNSF tracks, has worked elsewhere.

Except that the lines are almost completely FULL with freight throughput. The fact of the matter is it is more important for IT to get through than passengers. Relevance dictates that as an obvious.

Now if BNSF could be encouraged to add trackage, that would be great. I gaurantee that would be the smartest way to add trackage too because they'd get it done about 2-5x as fast as some publicly allocated builder. Get BNSF to add trackage with gaurantees of overruns running on the extra tracks with passenger trains having REAL priority on the extras and you'd have a deal in no time.