ODOT Announces CRC Shutdown

Speaker Kotek threw in the towel and the legislature adjourned without passing funding. ODOT has announced the project office will shut down by May 31.

But is the Zombridge really dead?

16 Comments

16 Responses to ODOT Announces CRC Shutdown

  1. Jason Barbour
    March 7, 2014 at 9:35 pm Link

    This is truly excellent news; as far apart as the public is in Oregon and Washington we may as well have tried to bridge the Pacific Ocean.

    If and when this comes back to light, other projects, including but not limited to “Third Bridge Now” should be given a fair chance for consideration.

    • Reza
      March 9, 2014 at 4:36 am Link

      Why don’t we just bulldoze Forest Park and Sauvie Island, too? Because at the end of the day, all the “Third Bridge Now” advocates want is a foothold to building the full Western Bypass.

      • Anandakos
        March 9, 2014 at 11:24 pm Link

        Reza,

        Well and precisely said, sir. That is what they want, but only if it’s paid for by SOMEbody, ANYbody else.

  2. Douglas K.
    March 7, 2014 at 10:19 pm Link

    Really dead?

    well … have they left it in soaking in holy water all day under sunlight, run a wooden stake through its heart, decapitated it with a silver blade, salted and burned its remains, and scattered the ashes on consecrated ground?

    If not, I’m guessing it will be back.

  3. Dwaine Dibbly
    March 8, 2014 at 10:51 am Link

    Let’s see where Patricia McCraig ends up. That’ll be telling. Personally, I’m hoping for Florida, or maybe Texas.

    Give the Clark County commuters a few years stuck in traffic and maybe next time they won’t be so against light rail. And maybe the elected leaders of that future won’t be so crazy about turning it into a mega-project.

    • nuovorecord
      March 10, 2014 at 2:56 pm Link

      Give the Clark County commuters a few years stuck in traffic and maybe next time they won’t be so against light rail.

      The ones that choose to remain over there, that is. I predict Clark County will be an increasingly less-than-desirable place to live if one has a job on the Oregon side of the river. Particularly as more Millenials enter the work force.

      • Chris I
        March 10, 2014 at 3:00 pm Link

        Already happening. Quite a few people I work with live in Washington, but basically all of them are over 40. The few that aren’t always get strange looks from the under-40s that mostly live in Portland. Vancouver is seriously uncool among the Millennial crowd.

        • Dave
          March 10, 2014 at 3:07 pm Link

          You’re half right. I worked in Clark County for about 10 years. The single folks and couple with no children mostly lived in Portland. It seemed like once they had kids, the suburban lifestyle and well-funded schools attracted families up north.

          • EngineerScotty
            March 11, 2014 at 10:44 am Link

            It is an interesting irony that the best-funded schools are in the more conservative part of the metro area–because the state of Washington provides a more stable funding base for schools than the state of Oregon does.

            • Anandakos
              March 11, 2014 at 2:37 pm Link

              Scotty,

              Don’t forget that it’s rich “Socialists” in King County who pay for all of the capital costs and a significant portion of the operating costs of Clark County schools, perhaps half. Without King County the would NOT be “the best schools in the metro area”. Not by a long shot.

  4. billb
    March 9, 2014 at 11:03 am Link

    No way it is dead til Kitz is not Gov, and Patty Murray is out of her powerful spot in Congress. Where do I get a bet down on it coming back.

  5. Dave
    March 10, 2014 at 11:22 am Link

    For everyone who thinks this is good news, a reality check.

    The so called leaders up in Washington will not support anything unless it’s a car centric bridge. Perhaps a car only CRC or a third bridge. Light rail is a non starter for them. If it includes the train, it’s an automatic no. They’ve made that pretty clear.

    The Oregon side seemingly will not support a CRC without light rail. As for a third bridge, I really don’t see Oregon building a road to support. It’s no clear where it would go. The Washington folks seem to want one in the area of 164 or 192nd. There’s really no Oregon roads built that would meet up with it.

    Personally, if both sides would just agree to replace the bridge (tunnel is my personal choice) in the same spot, and not make any other highway changes (and no light rail at this time, then I think we might have an opening.

    Otherwise, this project is dead until the next generation of leaders on both sides get into office. Minimum 10 years, more likely 20 years away.

    • Anandakos
      March 10, 2014 at 1:30 pm Link

      Replace, but not expand. Please be very clear on that.

      The CRC as designed would have resulted in a 60% increase in cross-river traffic capacity, and that would have led to enormous sprawl in northwest Clark County. It’s already happening to some degree but is currently limited by the two hours a day commute to and from downtown or three to the tech corridor.

      Eliminate the major chokepoint and you’ll see solid houses as far north at Woodland.

      • Dave
        March 10, 2014 at 2:04 pm Link

        Anadakos – but here’s the real issue. Clark County is fine with sprawl. Those on the Oregon side may not be. Clark Country is basically the relief value on urban growth with cheap land and inexpensive homes and they are just fine with that. It acts in the same way as towns like Newberg, Scappoose, Sandy, Canby, Forrest Grove and others.

        So unless we can find middle ground, nothing is going to happen. That’s why I think a new bridge is now at least 20 years off. There appears to be little common ground on which to build upon.

        • bjcefola
          March 11, 2014 at 6:45 am Link

          Differing values happen. So long as Washington and Oregon have much different ideas about the future a good fence (or a river) may be the best thing.

        • Anandakos
          March 11, 2014 at 2:35 pm Link

          Dave,

          I know Clark County is fine with sprawl; I live here. And that’s exactly why I hope Oregon will stand firm against any expansion of general traffic capacity across the river, no matter how configured. Some sort of transitway for buses rather than MAX with limited HOV access (3+ during the peaks) would be fine to add, but it still doesn’t answer the question of how to handle the ridership on the Oregon side of the river.

          Suburban folks are unlikely to be willing to drive to a park and ride, transfer to a bus — even a no-stops express — that dumps them at Delta Park from which they then have to ride the Yellow Line downtown. That’s the model of the 65 Parkrose Limited, which connects to the Red Line and is very popular throughout the day but overshadowed in the peaks by the 164 Express direct to downtown. A relatively few west side Vancouverites today — about ten bus loads per hour or 450 — are willing to take the express directly from one TC or the other to downtown to avoid parking costs. In the absence of large development in downtown Vancouver — and that won’t happen in the absence of the MAX crossing — most development in Vancouver will be of the current nature and still require people to drive to the P’n’R. If all that is done is to run the buses in mixed traffic on either side of the bridge as it is today, the only transit market will be for people who want to avoid parking costs. No increased modal share can be expected.

          So, some sort of priority has to be provided for the Clark County express buses on both sides of the river in order to access downtown independently of the Yellow Line, no matter how the river crossing is handled. That’s a pretty tall order and one that neither state is likely to be willing to fund.

          It’s a problem.

          BJ,

          I like your implication that “good fences make good neighbors.”

Leave a Reply

By posting a comment, you are granting a license to Portland Transport for your comment. Please refer to The Rules.