March 26, 2010
I'm going to miss David Bragdon's sense of humor when he's termed out as Metro President.
They've done an April fool's day agenda (I suspect it will hit the web later today) for the Council.
I can only wish this were real:
7.3 Resolution No. 10-4140, For the Purpose of Getting Real About the Columbia River Crossing.
March 26, 2010 4:28 PM
Jason Barbour Says:
You missed the *best* one:
4.2 Ordinance No. 10-1239, For the Purpose of Taking Over Tri-Met.
March 26, 2010 10:56 PM
Douglas K. Says:
Shame they struck 6.2 from the agenda. Idaho would have made a great rural reserve.
March 28, 2010 10:08 AM
Resolution 10-4138. For the Purpose of Granting Council President Bragdon’s cat Meeko Technical Personhood and confirming her
appointment to the Metro Policy Advisory Committee.
Ordinance 10-1240. For the Purpose of Creating the Regional Acronym Planning Advisory Committee (RAPAC).
The Tribune printed an artist rendering of the 3rd downriver bridge I carry around in my pocket. Simple, low-impact on Jantzen Bch, I-5 capacity, MAX/Ped/Bikeway, probably least cost. There are a few more such low-impact proposals. Say No to the 10/12-Laner. Forget it, Rex.
Ordinance 10-1241A. For the Purpose of defining a “Successful Region” which includes appetizing cuisine, tasteful clothing and commits Metro council to work with Interjurisdictional partners to identify performance indicators, set targets and develop a decision-making process to involve such a framework. (Whaa?)
March 28, 2010 11:00 AM
I think Ordinance 10-1241A is so Metro bigwigs can eat good food and not have to pay for it.
If that's what they wanted to do, they should have gone into the private sector, where not only can your gourmet palate be charged to an expense account, its tax-deductible. :)
March 28, 2010 7:05 PM
Thanks Chris - the meeting packet is as legit as the agenda. I needed to see his satire one last time.
March 28, 2010 9:28 PM
Jason Barbour Says:
the meeting packet is as legit as the agenda.
Read and downloaded that, too. I like the added touch that nobody would notice if Metro took over TriMet. If the buses and trains ran more often, canceled routes and headways were restored, light rail lines and capital projects were not funded through bonded payroll tax and instead were alignments and services that voters of the region agree to fund through other revenue sources, vehicles were cleaner, newer, and cost less to ride, I think people would notice.
And, the thing about both the TriMet and CRC "actions" is this would be the perfect time to do both of them.
TriMet has no Director of Operations and soon won't have a General Manager. At the last Board of Directors Meeting (video is probably online thanks to the volunteers who record these), Fred Hansen said the search for a new GM was already underway through agreed on board policies and a recommendation will go to the Board of Directors next month. This was followed by "gotcha"-like comments from the Board that the Board never took up the issue or even voted on it! Hansen smiled and said these were 'existing' policies. Is having a transit system GM that takes an active role in the community, is the visible face of their agency and isn't hiding anything too much to ask for?
CRC is probably under the most amount of fire it's ever been, from both Third Bridge Now, who's found various technicalities with the process and things done to their own proposal to make it look inferior; as well as a very vocal and visible Coalition to Stop the Columbia River Crossing protesting at the meetings. It's obvious that the community agrees about one thing with CRC-nobody wants it. Unless you represent a government/civil construction contractor who stands to make big bucks building this monster.
March 30, 2010 7:46 PM
I want the CRC to be built. I want the elevated version over Hayden Island too. This will help the people and businesses in North Portland where I live. I have no interest here related to my job. It (obviously) will help the Vancouverites too. I am not a toll fan, but short of having an increased local sales tax and income tax (WA & OR, respectively), it would take a toll to get it done. Everyone has had a couple of years of "relatively" easy auto & bus commutes because of the Great Recession. Once traffic picks up, the commute will worsen and people will become interested again. This should have been built 20 years ago which makes it that much tougher to do it now. Millions of miles of out-of-direction travel to take I-205 instead of I-5 because of the faster commute.
On a lighter note, a friend of mine who actually enjoys parliamentary procedure was in tears after laughing so hard while reading the April 1 agenda and meeting packet.
March 31, 2010 2:16 PM
The CRC 12-laner is NOT a good plan. A 3rd Bridge downriver with MAX is simplest, least expensive and best. Reconfiguring the downriver railroad bridge is also a good idea. Washington State DOT has some splaynin to do.
March 31, 2010 3:27 PM
Dave H Says:
While I love the idea of doing something with the BNSF bridge, I had an interesting discussion with a friend's dad who has significant business interests in North Portland. I hope I have this right, but as he explained it BNSF would lose a lot of rights to the corridor if they allow another agency to rebuild their bridge or infringe on that ROW. Something to do with the agreement that allowed them to build the bridge in the first place (I wish I could remember what detail, it had something to do with commerce on the river though) precludes it from being transferred to other purposes while allowing them to keep ownership. Obviously, they want to keep ownership, so there's a hidden cost for the involved DOT's in trying to do anything with the railroad bridge that is private property.
I wish I'd been able to take notes, but it was a casual gathering, I was a guest of my friend, and I didn't want to be rude. If I get a chance I'll ask for some more details. I know that the City of Vancouver is opposed to anything that will dump more traffic on Mill Plain since they just rebuilt it, but it sounds like there might be more reasons the third bridge hasn't been too seriously looked at.
April 1, 2010 11:38 AM
Jason Barbour Says:
FYI, it appears they've since posted the real agenda for this afternoon's meeting.
Something to do with the agreement that allowed them to build the bridge in the first place...
IMO, if this is true then it should be brought to the forefront through the official process, versus the non-answer we keep hearing of 'a third bridge doesn't feet project criteria.'