As a resident from WashCo, I'd be pretty happy if WashCo's plans for highway expansion get cancelled.

I'm pretty confident that Portlanders will step up to try to kill the CRC, but I don't think the same about WashCo residents.

Well as another resident of Washington County, I would be rather unhappy if 26 doesn't get those lanes. In my observation the minimum functional width of a freeway is 6 lanes -- less is just a an expressway.

I should also point out the Washington County lobby will not be happy, and pissing off the richest county in the state may not go over so well. Some of the mucky-mucks are already unhappy at being passed over on 217 improvements during the last Metro grant process. This will be icing on that cake.

I'm pretty sure Washington County must have already signed off on what I assume is just a delay in the Sunset project. What I wonder is whether they appreciate the impact the CRC could have on their future ambitions (like 217 or the 99W connector).

When I lived outside of the metro area (Yamhill Co. from 1997-99), it was very clear they felt that statewide dollars spent totally in the Portland Metro Area were responsible for the lack of improvements elsewhere in the state. And this is without getting anyone out there started on light rail.
And, with continued rising gas prices and increased public transit usage (among those who have that option), what if approval of the CRC project means it's the *only* transportation project built for the next 30-50 years? I mean, what if something huge like Powell Blvd. goes gravel in that amount of time because there's no money to repave it (state/region/counties/cities legally required to repay CRC debt or risk investor-driven default status)? Is this the "worst-case scenario?"

Build the bridge,
widen the highway,
GET THE [EXPLETIVE DELETED] OUT OF IRAQ!

Which side of the napkin is the front, and which is the back?

"Which side of the napkin is the front, and which is the back?"

This is the front ------>
This is the back

Hope this clears up any confusion.

the arrow going the other way won't print out for some reason...

anyway, there is an arrow pointing the other way in the previous post

the arrow going the other way won't print out for some reason...

If you tried to make the arrow the same way you made the one above, that is an HTML operator for either a code comment, or the beginning of an embedded script. Clearly the comment submission doesn't handle it very well.

> Well as another resident of Washington County, I would be rather unhappy if 26 doesn't get those lanes. In my observation the minimum functional width of a freeway is 6 lanes -- less is just a an expressway.

The '26' you are referring to is actually 'Highway 26', which is a highway, not a freeway. So less than 6 lanes if fine. (And less than 6 lanes is kind of necessary if we want to reduce our greenhouse emissions, too. We can't expect to continually expand roads and have every increasing amounts of cars driving around and still reduce our emissions to a safe level.)

If the legislature can find $250M in lottery dollars for a new bridge across the Willamette for light rail, streetcars, bicycles and pedestrians; then the legislature can also find funding for roadway projects from lottery dollars including for the I-5 freeway crossing the Columbia and the for Sellwood Bridge. Both of these projects are far more important to the region than a bridge between SOWHAT and OMSI. Since neither transit riders or bicyclists will be helping to pay for the rail bridge, maybe even the money already committed could be transferred to the two roadway bridges. Since the Hawthorne Bridge deck was strengthened to accommodate rails at an extra expense to taxpayers when it was replaced a few years back, Milwaukie Light Rail and the Eastside Streetcar (if built) could be routed over that bridge instead of building a new one.

Moreover, a bicycle tax so that bicyclists pay their own way and a transit fare increase that better reflects the actual financial costs of providing the service must be implemented before any increase in the gas tax is even considered.

If the legislature can find $250M in lottery dollars for a new bridge across the Willamette for light rail, streetcars, bicycles and pedestrians;

Since neither transit riders or bicyclists will be helping to pay for the rail bridge,

Terry's latest bizarre notion: people who ride bicycles or use transit never buy lottery tickets!

Peter wrote: The '26' you are referring to is actually 'Highway 26', which is a highway, not a freeway. So less than 6 lanes if fine.

According to ODOT, Highway 47 (U.S. Highway 26, the Sunset Highway) between mileposts 61.04 and 73.75 is designated an "12-Urban Principal Arterial-Other Fwy or Exp"

If ODOT were smart, ODOT would apply for Interstate recognition of this route, as it would bump up the eligibility for federal funding (it's already a designated National Highway System component road). Interstate 305 sounds nice.

Alexander Craghead wrote: Well as another resident of Washington County, I would be rather unhappy if 26 doesn't get those lanes. In my observation the minimum functional width of a freeway is 6 lanes -- less is just a an expressway.

First of all, I want to say that having chatted with Mr. Craghead on other forums, I know that he knows what he is talking about and if he is making a comment that is complimentary of highways, he has a damn good reason for saying it.

I've frequently cited the need to expand U.S. 26 between Sylvan and Cornell as an example of the need - despite MAX. We were told MAX would solve our congestion problems - and it didn't. The argument that "we were planning on widening the highway all along" does not mean squat; the argument for MAX is less congestion and less highways and it failed.

What MAX did succeed in was encouraging tax-sheltered growth along the MAX line, most of which only fed into Cornell Road and Cornelius Pass Road, which fed into the Sunset Highway. The only benefit? Traffic on T.V. Highway remained flat from 1997 to 2006, about 39,500 ADT which is the same level for both years. However Washington County has, for the last decade, widened numerous roads that have received the increased traffic from so-called transit oriented developments (notably Cornell Road and Cornelius Road, but also Baseline Road) to serve these urbanized, unincorporated communities.

Now we have a $117.5 million dollar project between Beaverton and Wilsonville (funded in part by Washington County) that is supposed to mitigate traffic congestion on 217. The problem? 217 is open 24/7. WES will be open three hours in the morning and three in the evening, weekday rush hours only. If widening I-5 for several miles will only cost $150M (considering the vast amount of land that will have to be purchased), 217 could have been widened and provided a much greater benefit to Washington County for the same cost of a weekday-rush-hour-only-commuter-train that is little more than two busses grafted together and uses steel wheels on steel rails.

Metro is headed into bad water by actually encouraging ODOT to spend less money on highway maintenance. "Modernization" is not a buzzword for "widening". After all, if "modernization" is a bad word, why are we bringing back "modern" streetcars? What was wrong with the poorly maintained narrow gauge cars of the 1940s?

Erik Halstead: "If ODOT were smart, ODOT"

Well, that's the problem right there! ODOT is incapable of doing anything other then leaving potholes in roads.

To be fair though WSDOT is completely laughed at in Seattle the same way we ridicule ODOT down here from what I hear from customers in the Contact Center that I work for.

Metro is headed into bad water by actually encouraging ODOT to spend less money on highway maintenance.

I don't think this is Metro's doing. This is simply Metro affirming ODOT's choice of how to achieve the reductions mandated by the Legislature.

Robert wrote: ODOT is incapable of doing anything other then leaving potholes in roads.

I might agree, except that if I compare ODOT to TriMet:

I reported a problem with a number of ODOT maintained streetlights located near my home through an e-mail. I had a response within 24 hours with a promise that they would be fixed. The next day I received a follow-up e-mail, apologizing that the work had to be rescheduled. But the work was actually completed on the original schedule and the lights replaced. (I was concerned about the lights, because they illuminated the area where I got on and off the bus, and in the winter it was dark.)

When I alert TriMet of a service issue, it takes usually 4-5 days to get a response, and more often than not I get a lukewarm "apology" and an excuse. One time I got a rather honest apology (having to do with a severe overcrowding situation on the Yellow Line, when two major events at the Expo Center were going on but the trains were only single-cars). But generally it's of the "we're sorry but this is how we do things" responses.

ODOT isn't perfect by any means, but I get the feeling that they actually try. When there are problems, they fix them.

Chris - I don't think it's a legislative issue. It's Metro's strong-arming ODOT into doing what they want, and having a small power rush from controlling the MTIP. Unless, of course, you want to quote the house and senate resolutions that specifically reduce ODOT's budget.

"having to do with a severe overcrowding situation on the Yellow Line, when two major events at the Expo Center were going on but the trains were only single-cars"

And from this comment
"Considering that the vast number of Expo Center patrons do NOT ride MAX."

Pick one. Either people do ride MAX to the expo center and TriMet should be running 350 person trains up there, or they don't, and they should run 175 person trains there. But pick one, don't post two comments 6 minutes apart that say opposite things.