The fix has always been in. After all Goldschmidt cronies stand to pocket billions at the expense of the rest of us to build a worthless light rail line.

Especially cynical is their plan to screw working families, who work across the river, out of $1000-4000 per year so that they can pocket 3-4 Billion.

They are truly evil people.

Thanks
JK

Tom showed that he is just another Goldscmidt hack in the columbian when they quoted him as saying:

“What the Vancouver folks have said to me clearly ... is no bridge, no light rail,” Hughes said “What we’ve said to them is no light rail, no bridge. So we have both. That’s the only way we can move forward on this.”

So, against the wishes of the majority of people he wants to spend a BILLION dollars on a toy train that has NO TRANSPORTATION PURPOSE, only as a catalyst to giving away tax money to increase density in our neighborhoods. Tom does not care about people, only about enriching Goldschmidt's cronies.

thanks
JK

I support light rail, but I am curious how Hughes thinks a light rail connection to Vancouver benefits people in Oregon. In theory light rail will reduce traffic in Portland neighborhoods, but this project as a whole will create a massive increase in traffic. Hughes needs to explain why massive highway expansion with light rail is better than no expansion and no light rail.

My take is this really is a "faith based" decision. And Jim is partially correct. This is being driven by the folks who stand to make money from it. The construction industry, members of building trades unions and Clark County real estate developers. And, of course, the engineers and planners at ODOT and WashDOT and their consultants.

I never thought I'd miss David Bragdon so much.

The existing bridges are decades past the safe design life.

Light Rail is the future , and as much as all the dinosaurs want to insist on single occupant gas powered pollution generating cars , it is still going to be the future. Anyone who burdens the city with subsidized freeways and life shortening air pollution should pay a toll every day.

We have likely passed PEAK OIL , dudes , get over your car.

I noticed in the compiled "Citizen Alternative Proposals" for the CRC, Jim's support for a Southbound-only bridge. This reduces the number of interchange reconstruction projects in Washington State as well as cutting the Main Span project roughly in half. Also, Spencer Boomhower's proposal calls for I-5 to "make a straight shot across Hayden Island" with access via Marine Drive, similar to Concept #1 Off-island Access.

I figure these two alterations reduce the CRC project cost by approximately $1 Billion, enough to eliminate or certainly reduce any toll charge. More important, the alterations reduce injurious impacts and improve land-use & development potential for Hayden Island.

Tom Hughes "fumes" on the Metro dias as if his word is uncontestable. How dare anyone question his authority. Yet, Metro failed the public on the South/North MAX project by refusing to regard public concern over its impact and cost. Metro failed Vancouver on the first design for MAX. The current route is improved and the service would be incredibly valuable for both cities.

The CRC is however a highway project, the territorial domain of the most powerful business interests rather than a local jurisdiction attempting to circumvent highway department dictatorial control over our somewhat democratic government agencies.

PS: Wsdot's bored tunnel proposed for Seattle will lead to the demolishment of numerous historic buildings in Pioneer Square and elsewhere along its length, perhaps before they collapse suddenly, perhaps not. If people die in the collapse, blame terrorists. What's this Jim Karlock guy's background? Who is this Art Lewellan?

Something I wholeheartedly suggest to those who oppose Metro Council decisions and also have the time and energy:
http://web.multco.us/news/september-8-2011-1st-day-candidates-can-file-may-2012-primary
(My personal opinion does not necessarily reflect that of anyone else and is not meant to support/oppose any candidate/issue.)

So does this mean you won't be able ride your bike on a 14 mile trek from Vancouver to the Silicon Forest? It's just plain dumb to be limited to two routes across this River.

From the article:

"As far as doubts that the Oregon Legislature would fund a bridge replacement project, Cotugno pointed out that the state has paid $1.8 billion to replace bridges in the past decade."

BridgeS. Plural. Decade. Are we going to forego replacement of ALL other bridges in the state for a decade in order to build this one?

billb Says: The existing bridges are decades past the safe design life.
JK: Oh, really?
Not according to ODOT’s own reports. The agency’s data show there are more than two dozen I-5 bridges in Oregon in worse shape than the Interstate Bridge, including the Marquam Bridge over the Willamette River. A Bridge Too False, Willamette Week, June 1st, 2011

billb Says: Light Rail is the future , and as much as all the dinosaurs want to insist on single occupant gas powered pollution generating cars , it is still going to be the future.
JK: No one knows the future, including YOU. However one can make an intelligent guess by realizing the following:
* Cars are faster than light rail and go door to door.
* Cars are less expensive
* Cars, under the latest Federal standard, will use much less energy than light rail.
So we ask: why would someone choose a slow, expensive energy wasting mode of transportation?

billb Says: and life shortening air pollution should pay a toll every day.
JK: Yeah, the pollution from the coal power plants that power light rail are pretty bad.

billb Says: We have likely passed PEAK OIL , dudes , get over your car.
JK: Get real dude, we are in the midst of an oil boom that will actually reduce our oil imports and might even free us from energy imports if the politicians will allow it. Haven’t you noticed that the greens are in a panic to find a way to stop it?

Even without the recent oil boom, history, economics and chemistry shows us that we will not run out of oil:
1. Economics because as price rises, supply increases and substitutes become economical. For instance according to the New York Times, December 24, 2010, is is now almost a dollar a gallon cheaper to make diesel fuel from natural gas than from oil.
2. Chemistry because we can make gasoline from both coal and natural gas,
3. History because Hitler ran a war machine on oil made from coal.

Thanks
JK

Above, I particularly noted agreement with Jim on where & how to downsize the CRC to save it. Compare the recently rejected bridge design with its replacement. How did (I say Wsdot) go from "enormous & clunky" to simple and view preserving? Obviously, (Wsdot) overbuilt the Main Span, but why?

The long list of interchange reconstruction projects in Washington can be minimized with the Southbound-only bridge. MAX & pedestrian/bikeways could be built on both sides. Why did (Wsdot) lead people to believe both bridges needed a lower deck? Answer: It's another sign (Wsdot) intentionally overbuilt the project.
How do you spell Ka-ching?

MAX to Vancouver however is a given, a no-brainer, a dynamic development patter that would vitalize the Vancouver economy.

Building the Southbound Main Span with MAX/ped/bikeway creates NEW parameters for determining the design of the northbound Main Span AND Washington State interchanges. It needs NO lower deck and can be built light enough for an elegant cable-stay design that's not too expensive.

The powers that be aren't listening, just like they weren't listening when they forced voters to reject the South/North MAX. I'm not surprised Mr Hughes has become the board bully with his "This project MUST be done!" Oh really billy?

Has there been an independent study of the development that has occurred along the MAX lines?

If yes can you link it here.

(I'm sure there must be a study out there)

Wells: MAX to Vancouver however is a given, a no-brainer, a dynamic development patter that would vitalize the Vancouver economy.
JK: MAX didn't revitalize Portland, why do you think it would Vancouver.

However giving developers oodles of public money and tax breaks did revitalize Portland. See:
>>portlandfacts.com/transit/lightraildevelopment.htm
>>portlandfacts.com/developersubsidies.htm

Thanks
JK

>>portlandfacts.com/transit/lightraildevelopment.htm
>>portlandfacts.com/developersubsidies.htm

~~~>That's good info, does anybody have the other point of view on this subject?

There are always two sides to the story.

Do you know what comparable US metropolitan area has the same number of Interstate crossings as Portland? Memphis, Tennessee. Which has roughly the same urban population as Portland. Across the Mississippi River is Crittenden Co. Ark. pop. 57,000.

But, across the Columbia River from us is Clark Co. Wa, pop. 425,000. See a difference?

Cincinnati Ohio, again the same pop. as Portland has FOUR Interstate bridges. Cities like St. Louis and Philadelphia each have several.
We can't just figure on population growth and development in the Portland area, no matter what METRO says.. We happen to be a node in just one single major Interstate Highway serving nearly 50 million people...and growing. Don't you think other cities utilizing I-5 are going to be growing and adding more traffic that must pass through Portland?

We can't have merely two Interstate routes through here. That's just plain NUTS!
Welcome to W. Memphis, Oregon, y'all.

How much money have they spent on this bridge so far?

Millions right?

And there is N-O-T-H-I-N-G to show for it!

What else do we need to know?

“Clearly our priorities are perverse. Our government punishes the good guys and lets, in some cases, the really bad guys help run the show and set the agendas.”

{Danielle Brian}

Has there been an independent study of the development that has occurred along the MAX lines?

I doubt this is an independent study, pretty much looks like it was spoon fed to the author by our local "professional planners". (term used very loosely of course)

But it appears to answer my question, however I can not read it!

Cause its in French!

Portland: a public transit and housing model for Montreal? | Montreal Gazette Blogs

Montreal already has a subway. What would they need MACQUES for?

Montreal already has a subway. What would they need MACQUES for?

~~~>Cause then they can get into the (Drum roll)
THE CHURCH OF LIGHT RAIL!

(Godly Hymm)

AL M Says: Has there been an independent study of the development that has occurred along the MAX lines?
JK: I’d settle for any. You can usually sort though the exaggerations and outright false claims. (Like the streetcar development report listing several Portland State buildings and an underground parking lot as caused by the streetcar and failed to mention any tax incentives.)

Thanks
JK

Al, you can start your research with this TCRP study. It's dated, because it's from 2004, but there's probably more information in there than you really wanted to read. You can skip down to Chapter 17, which starts on page 355, for specifics on Portland metro area.

http://tinyurl.com/ckk8oz

That's TCRP document 102. TCRP is the Transit Cooperative Research Program; my experience with TCRP's research is that it is very solid and objective.

Jeff F Says: Al, you can start your research with this TCRP study.
JK: That's over 500 pages!

Any idea were (page numbers?) it reports data on the performance of TODs and how well they meet their goals?

Thanks
JK

JK, I pointed to the specific information about Portland, which is what Al had asked about. You may have to read the whole thing if you want to know what their conclusions were and how they got to them.

Jeff F Says: JK, I pointed to the specific information about Portland, which is what Al had asked about. You may have to read the whole thing if you want to know what their conclusions were and how they got to them.
JK: Mere descriptions of TODs are a dime a dozen.

Real data about their real world performance seems to be scarce. I am merely asking if this paper is just 500+ pages of dreaming, or has real data about real world TOD results.

Again does anyone know of any real data of results in this report? Otherwise, what is its value?

Thanks
JK

JK, it's chock full of data. In my experience, studies like this do not reduce to a single page. There's no real alternative than to slog through it, certainly before one can make any judgment about its value.

Jeff F Says: JK, it's chock full of data. In my experience, studies like this do not reduce to a single page. There's no real alternative than to slog through it, certainly before one can make any judgment about its value.
JK: Thanks
I found the claim that transit travel to work increased and this summary of the Center Commons;

At the same time, the project has fallen short of its financial targets. According to one of the development partners, the private developers have struggled financially, and only PDC has not lost
money on the project so far. Financially, the project may have tried to accomplish too much on a small site.

Regardless, at the end of the day, the community has a well-performing, well designed mixed-income TOD. Whether others can afford to copy Center Commons without large subsidies
remains to be seen.

This raises the question of how many millions to spend to allegedly reduce travel a bit? The question becomes how much money should we be taking from schools, social services, fire and police protection in order to finance this sort of development. Just to increase publically subsidized transit usage a bit.

I do like the term “ahead of the market” instead of “building things people won’t use their own money to pay for”

Thanks
JK

JK, I'm sure you will find references to unfulfilled expectations, just as you will to successes. Like you said, it's over 500 pages and covers a lot of territory.

...“building things people won’t use their own money to pay for”

You mean like interstate highways and airports? Yeah, I'm not using MY money to build those boondoggles.

(that was sarcasm)

Aaron Hall Says: ...“building things people won’t use their own money to pay for”

You mean like interstate highways...
JK: Sorry you are simply wrong about that.

Here are the U.S. Department of Transportation, charts showing that interstate highway users pay MORE than the actual cost of those highways: portlandfacts.com/roadsubsidy.htm
The source document is Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation (link on the above page)

After you realize the greenies and transit lobby lied about this, maybe you would like to see that there is credible data indicating that all roads are MORE than paid for by road users. You’ll see several links on this subject at: portlandfacts.com/autos.html in the subsidies section, one written by the former CFO of the Los Angeles transit system (Users paid the full cost of roads + $17.3 billion, or 9.6% ).

Thanks
JK