Can we have four new bridges then? I mean, if cost isn't an issue, I'd like to have the option of crossing at Troutdale.

Why stop at four? :-)

Come now, you are just being silly. We only need one bridge.

One 30 lane bridge.

DC has a 20 lane bridge, New Jersey has a 21 lane bridge. Lets put Portland / Vancouver on the map with a 30 lane bridge.

*sigh*

$4.2 billion is sooooo much money.

Can we have four new bridges then? I mean, if cost isn't an issue, I'd like to have the option of crossing at Troutdale.

Well if cost is off the table, I want a bridge where I can cross the Columbia River at Tualatin.

Hey, if we aren't concerned about cost, why can't you just build it 30 miles long, and 500 feet in the air?

Without reading the article again I beleive the poll failed to offer any alternative to lightrail, such as BRT and was only three questions. Then they only contacted 100 people. That is a real limited survey of little or no value except for newspaper headlines.

MHW

the existing bridges are quite adequate for interstate commerce and new capacity would accomodate persons choosing to live in Washington and doing the commute... do they need to be accomodated...really????

From the article:

The telephone survey of 504 randomly selected households asked three I-5 bridge-related questions:

"Do you think improvements to that bridge are needed?"

Do you "agree or disagree" with some who say the project needs to include light rail?

Do you favor or oppose a proposal to toll the "existing bridge" to reduce congestion and pay for future improvements?

the cost is NOTHING..

You want costs?

Here is costs:

A billboard in Times Sqaure counts the cost of the Iraq war starting at $134.5B and increases at a rate of $177M per day, $7.4M per hour and $122,820 per minute.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-26-iraq-war-clock_x.htm

That "Cost of War" clock is up to about $529 billion today:

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

PS... $529 billion is about 126 CRC projects, or 378 Milwaukie light rail projects (with new Willamette bridge), 44,000 track miles of streetcar, or 9,280 Aerial Trams.

"$529 billion is about 126 CRC projects, or 378 Milwaukie light rail projects (with new Willamette bridge), 44,000 track miles of streetcar, or 9,280 Aerial Trams."

I will take any of the above!

Money much more wisely spent then wasted in some foreign country doing nothing but killing innocent people.

Nice perspective, Al. Only 215 more days in hell.

44,000 of track miles of streetcar? Obviously operating expenses are excluded. A far more cost effective capitol agenda would be 88,000 street miles of electric trolley busses at the same price. However that still requires operating expenses all of which need to be picked up by the transit users and operates only when the wind is blowing.

44,000 of track miles of streetcar? Obviously operating expenses are excluded.

Yes, operating costs are not included. We were talking about capital projects, of course.

A far more cost effective capitol agenda would be 88,000 street miles of electric trolley busses at the same price.

Works for me. Just tossing out a few examples.

and operates only when the wind is blowing.

???

another thought---the new Diesel cars for the WES arrived today, consider runningmoRe of them on the BN tracks from Union Station to say Castle Rock, minimal cost and would see if Clark and other Washington State Counties would use the service...could even run them in the daytime while not in service to Wilsonville....

Don't forget the healthcare, mental health, broken families, etc. costs for our veterans (GOP doesn't seem to support them at home though, so its up to the Dems again to fix the mess.)

Don't even gauge the loss of our Goodwill.

How many trillions are we at now?

Ray

As much as I love the political philosophy of a regional government like Metro, I think that we can all agree Vancouver would look very different if it was included in Metro's reach.

Has the commuter rail to Vancouver from Union Station been explored? Seems like a relatively cost effective way to move commuters from Vancouver to downtown, considering the bridge and rail and stations are already existing. They could follow the Amtrak line, use what I believe is a park-and-ride station in Vancouver (that perhaps could be expanded?) and maybe run 5-10 trains in the morning commute. It might be important to study exactly where all those Vancouver commuters are going to in the city of Portland, but if it's downtown or the near east (or anywhere within a couple max stops) it's probably faster than the I5 parking lot.

(GOP doesn't seem to support them at home though, so its up to the Dems again to fix the mess.)

Since this thread has now gone completely off the rails, I'd just like to comment on this little gem of a quote.

If you think the Democrats are much better than the Republicans, why are the Democrats about to pass a bill giving telecommunications companies immunity to prosecution for helping out good ol' W's domestic spying program?

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/eff-obtains-new-fisa-bill-containing-telecom-immun

The House Leadership (DEMOCRAT) is bringing this freedom-limiting bill to the floor for a vote today, and they wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't going to pass.

Pretending that the Republicrats are any different from the Democrigans is just silly. They're all owned by their corporate sponsors and lobbyist handlers.

Ambrown -

My guess about not using commuter rail between Union Station and Vancouver is that UP owns the track and the bridge, and has a LOT of trains using it. They already sidetrack Amtrak in SE Portland in order to get freight through, so I can't imagine they would want anything with 30 minute headways on the line between the Port of Portland and all destinations northward.

Looks like the new bridge we really need is the RR bridge with a new lift span and a third track for commuter rail between Vancouver and Portland as well as more inter-city trains to Seattle and Vancouver BC.
It is older than the older Interstate span, probably as at risk in an earthquake, with no back up, and could be retrofitted with a couple of traffic lanes for freight and local traffic, even light rail.

Yeah, they sidetrack the Cascades route from the north in Vancouver as well. I just wonder if there's any way they can get buy in for a 1/2 hour slot in the mornings/evenings. And if not, the railroad as an local automobile arterial bridge that might somehow hit Hwy 30 into downtown portland... I guess that doesn't make much sense. Then again, neither does the CRC.

"Pretending that the Republicrats are any different from the Democrigans is just silly."

BINGO! BINGO! BINGO!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIO-tCPSfHA

MachineShedFred wrote: My guess about not using commuter rail between Union Station and Vancouver is that UP owns the track and the bridge, and has a LOT of trains using it. They already sidetrack Amtrak in SE Portland in order to get freight through, so I can't imagine they would want anything with 30 minute headways on the line between the Port of Portland and all destinations northward.

BNSF owns the rail from Union Station north to Vancouver. BNSF also is the operator of Sounder commuter trains in the Tacoma-Seattle-Everett corridor, as well as commuter trains in Chicago.

UP owns the rail from Union Station, across the Steel Bridge (UP owns the Steel Bridge), then in any direction from East Portland (north through Albina Yard, east through Sullivan's Gulch, south to Brooklyn and Milwaukie).

Proper investment would certainly allow the Portland Terminal to function more efficiently, and UP is working to define the uses of Albina and Brooklyn Yards so that there are not as many transfer runs between the two yards. Albina was always a UP yard, whereas Brooklyn Yard was inherited in the merger with Southern Pacific in 1996.

"UP owns the Steel Bridge"

They don't own it 100%. Even though the railroad pretty much built it they've given up some reign to the city, and the city thus has some responsibility of ownership. I'm not sure what the complete breakdown is, but I know they're not 100% owners. I've also heard that they've been willing to sell it to the city in the past, but the city won't buy it because they don't want to be responsible for it. My guess is the city likes to push as must of the cost for the bridge back to the railroad (UP) and not take any more responsibility for it then they have to.