Speaking tonight at the Portland Spaces/City Club “Bright Lights” event, Earl Blumenauer said the the Columbia River Crossing was a metaphor for the lack of consensus for a transportation vision in our region, comparing it to “the desire for an eight-lane freeway from I-205 to Highway 26 that would turn I-205 into a parking lot and screw up the planning for the new City of Damascus”. Blumenauer was also critical of the lack of identification of local matching funds for the CRC.
Meanwhile, Governor Kulongoski has released his transportation budget (coverage in the Trib and DJC) and it does not appear to contain CRC funding beyond continued planning.
59 responses to “Earl: CRC is a Metaphor”
Is the audio available anywhere?
Unfortunately, I don’t think these are recorded.
(Blumenauer)
Thanks :-)
Hopefully Blumenauer is coming around to see that like the Westside Bypass to which he compares it, the CRC is an ill-conceived, outdated, unfunded, last century project that should go the way of the Westside Bypass.
Actually, I think he was comparing it to the Sunrise project.
Blumenauer himself is part of the problem – not the solution. He is a bias socialist masquerading in democratic clothing that continues to use ill-conceived earmarks and extorts motorist paid highway dollars for his outdated 1920’s agenda of support for the freeloading pedal pushers and costly streetcars. Both bicycling and transit infrastructure need to be paid for by directly taxing the users, not motorists or the public. Bicycle infrastructure on the CRC needs to be paid for by the bicyclists, transit infrastructure by the transit riders. If that requires bicycle tolls or additional transit user fees for those groups, so be it. If there is tolling of motorists (who already pay gas taxes, registration and license fees), it must be to help pay for the highway portion of the bridge only, not the infrastructure for other transport modes, and removed when the highway portion of the bridge is paid for. Moreover, if motorists are tolled, the users of the alternative modes need to pay the same proportion of costs for the infrastructure they use as motorists pay for roads and bridges. If lottery money is part of the funding mix, then it needs to apply to all modes with the proportions for each mode based on the mode usage split of the crossing.
Terry insists: If lottery money is part of the funding mix, then it needs to apply to all modes with the proportions for each mode based on the mode usage split of the crossing.
That’s doesn’t make any sense at all. Lottery money is intended primarily to be discretionary money which the legislature can use in a variety of ways (although there have been some attempts, successful and not, to permanently slice the lottery pie in certain ways.)
Lottery dollars, unlike other taxes, are voluntary — if you don’t like how they’re being spent, stop playing the lottery. Presto, you’re not being taxed.
In fact, if concerns about spending equity and fairness are so paramount, then the only equitable solution is that lottery players alone should be able to vote on how lottery funds are spent, and they should save their ticket receipts, with each receipt counting as one vote, just like shareholders in a corporation. QED.
If you’d like to start a crusade over tax fairness, you might want to explore the various reasons why the lottery, though voluntary, is such a regressive tax in the first place, paid disproportionately by the poor, and why it is occasionally used to provide funding for projects which ought to be funded from the general fund.
Call Earl what you like, he expreses the popular will…the numbers don’t lie.
Too bad he wasn’t comparing CRC to the Westside Bypass; I have not been following the Sunrise plan, but anything approaching a freeway will destroy the potential of Damascus.
Now that the election is over, we need to begin to talk about freeway removal, not widening, as an economic deveopment strategy. Liberating the most valuable land in Portland from the motor vehicles for more jobs, housing and commerce when the next boom hits.
“Blumenauer himself is part of the problem – not the solution.”
We live in a democracy, and elected leaders are “part of the problem” or “part of the solution,” based on the will of the people. And 74% think that Earl is part of the solution. To put that in perspective, only 72% think that 18 year olds should be allowed to vote in school board elections, even though they already can from the 26th amendment…
i like the idea to build a new parallel local road bridge with light rail and bike/ped path. apparently the biggest contributor to the traffic and congestion in this area is that local trips going to jantzen beach require getting on/off the freeway for one exit.
as for how to pay for this new bridge, i can see one option being a toll for ped/bike crossings, and a surcharge for transit trips crossing the bridge but how would you have motorists directly pay for the bridge? you put a toll on the local bridge and theyll continue to use the freeway bridge as it is currently used for local trips. you put a toll on the existing freeway bridge to pay for the local bridge and that wont be popular with certain people who use the freeway bridge.
The irony is in this statement:
the planning for the new City of Damascus
Instead of embracing that whole “new urbanist”, “dense growth” concept – Metro has actually embraced building a city where one doesn’t exist, on good farmland, with little to no transportation or utility infrastructure…
Meanwhile, there is a LOT of un/underdeveloped lands right here within our urban area and specifically along the MAX line.
I’d rather have the CRC than Damascus. At least the CRC won’t result in sprawl that doesn’t already exist.
Blumenauer was re-elected to office 1) because he had a “D” after his name and a “R” after a candidates name was a negative in this election where the D’s outnumbered the R’s in the electorate – in other words a party line vote 2) because of name familiarity 3) because there were no real challengers to run against him either in the primary or the general election 4) he received the bicycling community vote because he supports the bicyclists freeloading agenda including more bicycle infrastructure as long as somebody else pays for it 5) because he had a big bankrolled campaign fund to buy the election from any challenger if necessary. The people were not offered any real choice just as Blumenauer attempts to dictate choice to the people with his agenda. That is not a solution, it is a problem.
What!!! Good farmland in Damascus? It’s mostly hills people. How many of you have been in the neighborhoods out in the Gresham Buttes area? I went to meetings for the concept planning for Damascus/Boring. We did alot of work on it.
The City of Damascus has to decide how they wish their city is going to grow. The Sunrise Corridor is mainly for jobs people. Why does most of the people on this blog hate job creating transportation corridors? I use MAX every day. I chose to live in places where I can walk to many important designations. We worked the Damascus/Boring Concept Plan into a future urban planning model with parks on the buttes; trails everywhere; high density towncenters; job centers near by; and all forms of transportation so that people can live and work without using a car but the their production can be moved to areas outside the factory.
Why is funding job transportation corridors so hard to understand. Does everyone on this blog think Damascus is totally farmland?
Ray
“1) because he had a “D” after his name and a “R” after a candidates name was a negative in this election where the D’s outnumbered the R’s in the electorate – in other words a party line vote”
True, but not by 74%. Not by more people that thought we should follow the 26th amendment just because there was a “D” after his name.
“2) because of name familiarity”
That didn’t do much for Gorden Smith.
“3) because there were no real challengers to run against him either in the primary or the general election”
Who’s fault is that? Someone could have run against him if they had wanted to, I guess we can only assume from the fact that nobody “real” did that he is well liked. (And that the other candidates are actually figments of our imagination?)
“4) he received the bicycling community vote”
4% of the votes in that election went to the Green Party. I don’t know exactly who those people are, but if I had to guess, they probably aren’t Hummer drivers. In any case, I’m fairly sure that more drivers voted for Earl than bicyclists.
“5) because he had a big bankrolled campaign fund to buy the election from any challenger if necessary.”
That didn’t help Gorden Smith either.
“The people were not offered any real choice just as Blumenauer attempts to dictate choice to the people with his agenda.”
So Earl gets 74% of the vote, and you complain that people weren’t offed a real choice, yet more than 74% of trips are taken by cars, and you complain that any attempt to change that at all is a dictatorship?
Does everyone on this blog think Damascus is totally farmland?
No. (And I think there’s a diversity of views on growth-in-general in the Damascus area.)
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/democrats_in_salem_gain_votes.html
“Republicans will continue to look out for taxpayers, especially drivers and smokers.”
Apparently alcoholics and meth addicts don’t deserve tax relief, but if you want to kill yourself by lung cancer in one form or another, the Republicans will make sure you don’t pay too much in taxes while you do it.
Terry Parker Says:
The people were not offered any real choice just as Blumenauer attempts to dictate choice to the people with his agenda. That is not a solution, it is a problem.
Blumenauer was reelected because he’s been an extraordinarily effective representative for his region and because his policies reflect the majority of his constituents. That’s how democracy works, Terry. If he had no serious opposition from the Republicans, whose fault is that? Perhaps it is because Oregon’s Republican Party has failed to appeal to Oregonians?
Citing the uber-powerful bicycle lobby as a component of his success is just silly. How many people are in that particular interest group, Terry?
Many times on this blog bicyclists have suggested laying claim to motorist paid gas tax and highway dollars stating “bicyclists are drivers too” even though bicyclists do not pay any user taxes when they are riding their bicycles as users on the roadways – nor do they currently pay a fee to license and register their bicycles.
When it comes to lottery dollars, guess what motorists buy lottery tickets, probably in much higher numbers than do bicyclists simply because motorists make up over 80 percent of the transport mode split. Add in Washington residents and tourists that buy Oregon lottery tickets, and the percentage of the split in favor of motorists is even higher because it is highly unlikely most people from outside Oregon buying lottery tickets in Oregon have come here by bicycle or public transit. Furthermore, lottery tickets are purchased all over Oregon by the motoring public, not just in the Portland Metro area.
Therefore, even though the lottery is discretionary spending, well over 80 percent of the lottery dollars come from motorists, and those dollars that are spent for transportation projects ought to be spent on roadways, highways and bridges for motor vehicles.
To suggest that because the lottery is discretionary, spending on transportation projects should be for transit and bicycle infrastructure, but not roads, clearly demonstrates the continual socialistic and selfish freeloading attitude alternative transport advocates (bicyclists especially) have come to portray expecting the government and somebody other than themselves to pay for their lifestyles and the specific infrastructure they want and use.
As for Blumenauer, to suggest he “was reelected because he’s been an extraordinarily effective representative for his region and because his policies reflect the majority of his constituents” is simply an over-rated pile of horse manure. He represents the flies that can’t wait to land and partake in the aspects of freeloading.
Terry Parker: As for Blumenauer, to suggest he “was reelected because he’s been an extraordinarily effective representative for his region and because his policies reflect the majority of his constituents” is simply an over-rated pile of horse manure. He represents the flies that can’t wait to land and partake in the aspects of freeloading.
No poop at all. He was elected by a huge majority of voters, Terry. Like I said, that’s how democracy works. If his policies didn’t reflect them, they wouldn’t vote for him. There’s no voodoo either.
Blumenauer simply put represents a special interest agenda, not the mainstream of working Americans.
His job is to represent his district, not “the mainstream of working Americans.” (which is a completely subjective phrase; you might as well say “real America”) And most of his constituents think he does a great job, apparently. Now, if you want to come out and say that 74% of his constituents represent a “special interest” (another vacuous political buzz word), then out with it. Tell us how you really feel.
Ray Whitford wrote: Good farmland in Damascus? It’s mostly hills people. How many of you have been in the neighborhoods out in the Gresham Buttes area? I went to meetings for the concept planning for Damascus/Boring. We did alot of work on it.
The City of Damascus has to decide how they wish their city is going to grow. The Sunrise Corridor is mainly for jobs people. Why does most of the people on this blog hate job creating transportation corridors? I use MAX every day. I chose to live in places where I can walk to many important designations.
That exact same quote could be applied to the good folks of Vancouver/Camas/Washougal/Ridgefield/Battle Ground/Unincorporated Clark County.
So why do we give a double-standard for Damascus (allowed to build where no development exists, allowed to build where no transportation infrastructure exists) versus Vancouver (a city that is actually OLDER than Portland, has extensive transportation infrastructure, significant urban population and services already existing)?
Certainly if Damascus has the right to develop, so does Vancouver. If we can build the completely unnecessary Sunrise Corridor which by its very definition ADDS road capacity, then there is no excuse to NOT build the CRC which serves a need that has already existed for decades.
If anything, Metro should realize that it has power over Damascus but not Vancouver, so let Vancouver grow and let Damascus remain as it is.
As for whether it’s suitable farmland, I know a LOT of farms that exist on hilly land. I’ve driven the backroads of Yamhill County and there are a lot of hilly farms (specifically: vineyards) but also other crops that don’t require flat land. And of course there’s always timber. There’s also livestock production – Portland eats a lot of meat and drinks a lot of milk and eats a lot of eggs… I’d rather see that shipped from 20 miles away from Damascus to Portland rather than from Eastern Oregon.
So why do we give a double-standard for Damascus (allowed to build where no development exists, allowed to build where no transportation infrastructure exists) versus Vancouver…
Short answer: state law. Metro is required to provide a 20-year supply of land inside the UGB. They don’t get to count Vancouver for that supply. So they added Damascus rather than fertile Tualatin River valley farmland, again, because the state law says that’s what you have to do.
Metro might be a lot more rational without the mandates pushed through Salem by the home builders’ lobby :-)
Got a question for all of you who are “anti-highway” (i.e. you are only suppportive of a local crossing or a special light rail bridge to Vancouver):
Do you really think that our interstate transportation needs for the next several decades will be adequately met by only two Columbia River crossing routes: I-205 and the I-5 corridor? I mean we are not just talking about growth in the Portland area of one million people. We’re talking about growth in the whole Pacific Northwest! And more west coast traffic as well.
A similar urban area—Cleveland Ohio—has four interstate crossings in the metro. area. Bigger cities like St. Louis and Philadelphia have even more. Sure, I support mass transit; but I am also trying to be realistic. And if Portland politicos think they are going to call the shots on Portland-Vancouver issues, think again. Vancouver area officials are getting energized—and bucking the trend of Portland dominance.
And another question: If you do agree that high speed regional rail is a worthwhile pursuit WHAT steps SHOULD we be taking now to lay the groundwork? I don’t see how just a local bridge to Vancouver or even a light rail bridge is going to move that issue forward. But we do have the corridor to get going on it; just .8 miles downstream from I-5.
Do you really think that our interstate transportation needs for the next several decades will be adequately met by only two Columbia River crossing routes: I-205 and the I-5 corridor? … And more west coast traffic as well.
I think you answered your question right there. Between Wilsonville and Salem, I-5 is 6 lanes. South of there it is 4. From Longview to Vancouver, I-5 is 6 lanes, and north of there it is 4. Even in town there are parts of I-5 that are only 2 lanes in one direction, (Rose Quarter, and Delta Park, (although that one is changing.)) So if the West Coast sees more traffic, the bottleneck will clearly not be 14 lanes over the river…
But I don’t think we will see more traffic over the river in my lifetime. Oil has peaked. If there was any doubt about it, this recession is knocking the wind out of the oil companies and they are cutting back, so in a couple years, regardless of geological factors, there will be less oil than there is today. And don’t expect people to go rush out and buy new more efficient cars. A plug in hybrid, like the Chevy Volt, will cost around $48k, if GM lasts long enough to actually build the thing. Most people can’t afford that, even when times are great. Instead, people are just going to drive less, they don’t have a choice, and so traffic over the bridges will go down.
We can debate how exactly the traffic should decrease, (put people on trains, so that people can still get to work, or just let people starve quietly at home,) but we clearly don’t need a wider bridge to do that, and I suspect a light rail bridge that matches the route and elevation of the existing bridge would be a lot cheaper anyways…
As part of the regional transportation plan update, Metro is running a variety of ‘scenarios’ through the model to see which combinations of land use policy and transportation investments best meet regional goals.
One of the scenarios is ‘high connectivity’ and in this scenario they posited two additional Columbia River Bridges near the Hayden Island rail corridor and between Troutdale and Camas.
So if we’re going to spend $4B why not go build one of those instead of replacing the I-5 bridges?
Chris Smith wrote: Metro might be a lot more rational without the mandates pushed through Salem by the home builders’ lobby :-)
Metro, and Salem, might be a lot more rational if a LOT of special interest groups were forbidden from the table. (It goes both ways, but I agree the home building/developer lobby – whether urban OR suburban, is part of the problem.)
Investments in education are much more critical for job growth in this century than transportation investments. Innovation and research are what drive the modern global economy, not transport costs for commodities.
Damascus may be in the UGB, but there is little money to develop infrastructure way out there; most housing needs will be met by infill in existing cities where old strip malls, vacant lots, parking lots and so on provide plenty of land for housing and retail.
The Tram was probably the only transportation investment of late that supports economic development…facilitating the expansion of the city’s largest employer and only first rate research institution.
Terry Parker: Blumenauer simply put represents a special interest agenda, not the mainstream of working Americans.
Terry, why do you hate democracy? You continually state your anti-socialism views. It seems to me your are also anti-democracy.
Lenny Anderson wrote: The Tram was probably the only transportation investment of late that supports economic development…facilitating the expansion of the city’s largest employer and only first rate research institution.
You mean, that facilitated the concept of a bunch of buildings, most of which got cancelled and weren’t built; that allowed for a large parking lot (the Schnitzer Lot), and that the “BioTech” promise that never (nor will) materialize?
The Portland Tribune reported today that new lab space is needed, and it’s going to go to PSU. The tram doesn’t go to PSU, but the 8-Jackson Park bus does…
I should add, since Lenny suggested education investments go much further, that the $75M spent on the tram, and the $120M (plus?) on WES could have purchased several first-rate high schools…
Actually the planned location of the joint PSU, OHSU and OSU lab is near the tram in SoWa. It will take more time than expected, but why the resentment against OHSU…our medical school, only research facility and first rate emergency hospital. Let’s hope it grows and flourishes. PS it did pick up most of the tram costs.
Much more money is spent on roads than transit let alone bike networks…and road investments just make things worse. So that is where the dollars need to come from for more investment in education and research. Actually rail investments create communities in cities while road projects destroy them…where is the old Goose Hollow (under US 26), where is old Albina (under I-5), where is South Portland…barely hanging on with I-5, US 26 and old Harbor Drive strangling it. Time to take out the Eastbank Freeway.
Lenny, where do you suppose all of the cars that use the Eastbank Freeway go?
Harbor Dr. was only removed after two new freeways made it obsolete (I-5 and I-405). No amount of rail, bike lanes, and trams can remove or even reduce the need for a freeway.
Actually Anthony, there are plenty of ways to handle traffic if the Eastbank Freeway disappeared. You just have to be a little bit creative. Here are some options:
1. The capacity goes away, some (maybe 10-20%) demand goes away. This is a known relationship.
2. Add some capacity on I-405 (make it 6 lanes like I-5).
3. Add some capacity on I-205.
4. Redesignate I-205 as I-5, and direct thru traffic there.
5. Use underutilized local streets to feed the downtown bridges rather than I-5/Morrison bridge: you could convert E 2nd & 3rd into a one-way pair connecting I-84 to all the river bridges, which would absorb some of the traffic currently using the Freeway Loop.
6. There are lots of underutilized surface streets in the inner eastside: 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th could all handle more traffic if we wanted them to. This is not for thru traffic – it is to get the local traffic OFF the freeways. We know that much of the Freeway Loop traffic is local trips.
7. You could bury the freeway, although this is expensive and probably unnecessary.
There are plenty of other options out there; some of these may work, some may not, but the point is the sun will continue to come up tomorrow if the freeway crumbles, and it is possible to develop a scheme that keeps things moving as we reclaim our most valuable real estate.
Success comes from thinking outside of the box.
Terry’s socialist rants about funding reminded me that we still have a major funding snafu in Oregon: our constitution was amended to limit the gas tax to road improvements. While it was clearly inappropriate to use the constitution to advance a political agenda, the bigger issue is that this is bad public policy in urban areas. It may be appropriate for rural areas, but only building roads will not solve of our urban problems.
The Europeans have had lots of success in using the gas tax as a tool to influence rational transportation policy. It also insulated their economy from the spike in gas prices – while our gas prices more than doubled, their increases were much more modest, because of their higher gas tax. Ironically, the tax shielded their economy. When you have a volatile resource which such a huge impact on your economy, it is only rational to manage it. We should learn from their success.
I’d like to see this revisited in the coming years. Transportation policy managers should be able to utilize resources where they benefit the public most, not based on arbitrary and partisan rules. If it’s not, the gas tax will simply become more irrelevant as a funding source in the future.
In fairness, “road improvements” covers a lot of ground when it comes to spending gas tax revenues. “Road improvements” can include sidewalks, separated parallel bikeways and busways — they’re all seen as part of the road. “Improvement” is in the eye of the beholder; it might well include road diets and complete streets. About the only thing you can’t do is build bus shelters, install rail, or build a bicycle/pedestrian project that is completely separate from a roadway.
I don’t mind the limit on spending gas tax revenue. It’s not really much of an obstacle to meeting the transportation needs in urban areas. It’s just a question of how to be creative in the ways the city chooses to spend money on its roads.
Yeah; re-route I-5 through MY neighborhood. Sounds smart!
“Transportation policy managers should be able to utilize resources where they benefit the public most”
Light rail carries maybe one or two percent of the trips while roadways handle over 80 percent of the trips. Bicycling on the Columbia Crossing is less than one percent of the trips. The highway bridge component of the Columbia River Crossing is about one third of the total project costs similarly equal in costs to the light rail component which is also approximately one third. (The bicycle component costs are still hidden and have yet to be separated out or disclosed to the public) The light rail component will also require ongoing operational subsidies with both components will requiring maintenance costs. Gas tax dollars will help pay the maintenance costs on the highway portion while transit fares do not. So it is real easy to crunch the numbers and see that the highway portion has far more of a transportation benefit of moving people and goods than light rail does. The problem is that the policy managers are politically motivated with special interests instead of getting the most mobility for the money.
Lenny Anderson wrote: but why the resentment against OHSU…our medical school, only research facility and first rate emergency hospital. Let’s hope it grows and flourishes. PS it did pick up most of the tram costs.
Let’s see. OHSU is still publicly supported, is a hospital located in the absolute stupidest location in Portland – on top of a hill, with only steep, narrow streets to access it. (Good Sam, Emanuel and Providence are located in much better locations; shouldn’t we be focusing on those hospitals that are much more accessible – and not in a floodplain?)
So, yes, OHSU did pick up most of the tram costs. And who paid for that? The stockholders? There aren’t any. The “stockholders” of OHSU are you and me. So the money still came from taxpayers, just from a different pot of money (the same pot of money that funds OSU, UO, PSU, etc.)
Lenny Anderson wrote: Actually rail investments create communities in cities while road projects destroy them…where is the old Goose Hollow (under US 26), where is old Albina (under I-5), where is South Portland…barely hanging on with I-5, US 26 and old Harbor Drive strangling it.
No, rail investments don’t create communities. The tax breaks and incentives created interest in developers to build, and the streetcar was given as a toy.
Numerous communities exist in Portland and are thriving without any type of rail investment, because of the hard work of the residents of the community. You named two examples of communities that actually are thriving – South Portland and Goose Hollow. Meanwhile, how are Rockwood, Gateway, Beaverton Central, Beaverton Creek, 82nd and Halsey, and Cascade Station doing?
Unit wrote: Transportation policy managers should be able to utilize resources where they benefit the public most, not based on arbitrary and partisan rules.
I’d like to see that too…but as long as we have managers who have a pro-rail/anti-bus bias instead of focusing on the transit need/not the mode, I’m perfectly happy with the restrictions. It keeps the politicians honest, so that even some very pro-rail folks like Sam Adams and Earl Blumenauer are having to actually call for more road spending.
“No, rail investments don’t create communities. The tax breaks and incentives created interest in developers to build, and the streetcar was given as a toy.
Numerous communities exist in Portland and are thriving without any type of rail investment, because of the hard work of the residents of the community. You named two examples of communities that actually are thriving – South Portland and Goose Hollow. Meanwhile, how are Rockwood, Gateway, Beaverton Central, Beaverton Creek, 82nd and Halsey, and Cascade Station doing?”
>>>> I agree, and have been making these same points;
besides, Portland does not have enough density for rail operations–buses are well suited for the area.
Nick (Lifetime non-driver and transit rider)
1. The capacity goes away, some (maybe 10-20%) demand goes away. This is a known relationship.
It doesn’t go away, it gets re-directed to local streets and other congestion. There is already enough traffic in my neighborhood, thank you. Removing freeways to “fix” traffic is a terrible idea.
Cities have built their way into less congestion (for an example I’m familiar with, San Diego). Some cities don’t have it (for example, Buffalo NY with a declining population). Congestion is the result of poor planning and barely accommodating any growth.
2. Add some capacity on I-405 (make it 6 lanes like I-5).
Doing this doesn’t replace 4 through-lanes of traffic, it shifts the traffic jams west. It supplements four, it does not replace them.
3. Add some capacity on I-205.
Unneeded without the Sunrise corridor being built. It won’t divert traffic from I-5/I-405.
4. Redesignate I-205 as I-5, and direct thru traffic there.
A waste of money. It’s a way to spend a ton of money re-signing a freeway, without solving the problem that we have more people driving than our roads can fit. We can’t afford any solution to fix it. Public support for removing their route to work is almost impossible. Try something new, like marginal improvements.
5. Use underutilized local streets to feed the downtown bridges rather than I-5/Morrison bridge: you could convert E 2nd & 3rd into a one-way pair connecting I-84 to all the river bridges, which would absorb some of the traffic currently using the Freeway Loop.
That should be a supplement, not a replacement. Replacements with less throughput will be a bad bottleneck regardless.
6. There are lots of underutilized surface streets in the inner eastside: 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th could all handle more traffic if we wanted them to. This is not for thru traffic – it is to get the local traffic OFF the freeways. We know that much of the Freeway Loop traffic is local trips.
They can absorb some local trips, like they already do. Prove that local traffic uses the freeways in large part, and I’ll be surprised. Long distance traffic typically uses backed up freeways, and local traffic backs up the local roads.
7. You could bury the freeway, although this is expensive and probably unnecessary.
Not a bad idea, but Portland won’t pay for it anytime soon.
Anthony Said:
“Yeah; re-route I-5 through MY neighborhood. Sounds smart!”
Congratulations, now you understand one of the big reasons why I’m opposed to the CRC.
Terry Parker Says:
Light rail carries maybe one or two percent of the trips while roadways handle over 80 percent of the trips. Bicycling on the Columbia Crossing is less than one percent of the trips.
So you no longer demand that bicycle riders pay for improvements, because they are such a tiny fraction of the traffic? I’m pleased to know that you’re catching on.
The irony is that in the peak hours, Grand/MLK moves faster than I-5; so what’s the point?
The Eastbank Freeway sits on some of the most valuable land in the region. Its removal would be a huge economic stimulus to the central city.
Without the freeway, life will go one; people will adjust, freight movements will adjust and a lot of valuable land will go back on the tax rolls.
Lenny Anderson wrote: The Eastbank Freeway sits on some of the most valuable land in the region. Its removal would be a huge economic stimulus to the central city.
So does Waterfront Park; so why don’t we sell that off for redevelopment? Or any of the Port of Portland terminals, or the Portland Airport? Or Government Island, or West Hayden Island (at least West Hayden Island development would justify improving pedestrian/bike access on the Interstate Bridge.)?
If I-5 is removed from Portland, a large amount of access in/out of downtown will be lost, making downtown less valuable as an employment and shopping center. As a result, the value of that waterfront land will decrease because of the inability to get to/from it.
SoWa is a perfect example; if that land is so valuable, why have many of the development plans stalled out?
Portland does not need more uber-rich development. We do not need to subsidize wealthy developers. We need to help out the middle-class who has been priced out of Portland housing because of failed City and Metro policies that literally give away money to the poor and the rich and leave the middle without anything…Metro and Portland’s planning goals is to turn Portland into San Francisco North.
If I wanted to live in San Francisco, I would have moved there a long time ago… (I’m waiting for Sam Adams to propose a cable car up Salmon Street to Washington Park now…)
Erik, one point I want to correct. Removal of freeways in/out of downtown would not make the land less valuable. On the contrary, if you did a quick review of land values in cities around the world, you would find that center cities are more valuable without nearby surface freeways. This was a slow lesson for us to learn, but is part of the reason the US has such underperforming central cities. Of course, few citizens understand the true relationship, which is why it is politically risky to propose any removal.
I think your point is that simply tearing out the freeway would be similar to hacking off a tumor – there’s much more to it than that – and you’d be right. There would be much to do to mitigate the removal with other access to the central city. Simply tearing it out, without mitigating, would do more harm.
Unit,
Your second paragraph is head-on.
How do we mitigate traffic that is currently on I-5? Moving it to I-405 only moves the problem; it doesn’t solve it (and I-405 is not suitable for increased volumes of traffic, and would be difficult – and costly – to widen.) Frankly it’d be cheaper and easier to eliminate I-405, force U.S. 26 to end at surface streets, and leave the I-5/I-84 connection intact.
If we are insistent to remove I-5, where does its replacement go? Do we build a new freeway, or at a minimum an expressway, just outside the ESID? How many homes would have to be destroyed for that?
80%+ of trips taken in the metro area are still by private automobile. TriMet/Metro/Portland are unwilling to make the necessary investments in the total transit system to increase this percentage; and the complete lack of any type of regional transit services (commuter rail) make it impossible for people from outside the reach of TriMet or C-Tran to use public transit. So having high capacity road access in some form is still important and vital.
I am curious why you would say this.
It has been my experience that they are quite willing. But they have these problems to overcome:
1. The public is not willing.
2. The funding is not available.
3. The federal government is not willing.
We have a situation where people have been conditioned for the last 50+ years that cars are the only way. That any other way is not viable, and amounts to the government trying to force us.
The reality is that we have simply ignored all other forms of transportation for more than 50 years and as a result no one even KNOWS that they could have a choice. No one knows what it would be like to have a TRUE choice. And as a result of neglect it costs MUCH more money to try and fix the system than it would have had we done it right in the first place.
I can’t think of anything more American than having the freedom of choice. But for decades we have all been forced into automobiles while being told it was about “freedom”, all the while the costs and impacts of automobiles have been massively externalized and we are just now realizing the problems as a result of that.
While in many european cities, “evil” socialism has provided people with a choice. They walk out of their house and they have to decide whether to take a bus, a train, a bicycle, walk, use a car, subway, or a streetcar.
Portland has done pretty good. We have a little more choice than a lot of places in the USA.
Where I have lived before, you walked out of your house and you had two choices: Get in your car and drive, or don’t go.
I think it needs to be reiterated that the Harbor Drive removal was only made possible by the completion of the Eastbank I-5 freeway. It was a substandard highway which simply became obsolete by the building of a better freeway . . .
I don’t see how cramming more people into an area while eliminating capacity downtown (I-5) is going to improve anything. One word: mathematics. It is just going to cause the Portland area to become overcrowded. Livability? Only for the government planners whose salaries can go up due to the (supposed) increased tax base. And if you’re that desperate to throw more subsidized condo towers in, build “cutouts” into them . . . have the freeway run right through them.
I’ll admit, while I am a big pro-freeway guy, I don’t really support the CRC, largely because it’s so gosh darn expensive without doing anything significant–and because I think the current Interstate Bridge is kinda cool, actually. Plus I don’t support the idea of having the MAX go to Vancouver, which, given the folks in power, would inevitably be a part of such project.
If they really want to increase capacity going into Vancouver, they should go back to the whole Westside Bypass/I-205 Beltway idea. It’d make it way easier to get from Washington County to Vancouver. Of course, we need to pull the plug on Metro.
Earl Blumenauer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbV8lfCIBYo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpjF3dDgxAU
[GUY MAKES SENSE TO ME]
Portland has a long, long, long way to go to become “overcrowded.”
Travel patterns are now and will continue to change. CEID is already shifting from an area of light industry to an economy based on design and office based commerce. Many of these workers live nearby and use transit and/or bikes to get around.
The Eastbank Freeway was acknowledged as a mistake by Glenn Jackson (head of OHC) the day it opened; no doubt he was referring to its route along the River, but it remains a very poor use of very valuable land.
Lenny, it sounds like you and I have very different definitions of “overcrowding”. ;-)
Manhattan has a population density of over 70,000 people per square mile. Whether that is “overcrowded” is a purely subjective judgment. However, competition for housing is so fierce that if you can find a studio one-bedroom apartment for under half a million, you’d best snap it up. With well over a million people competing for living space and multi-millionaires having to budget to afford housing, I’d say that it’s an open question whether the place is overcrowded yet. If it was, you’d think people would be moving out instead of paying through the nose to buy in.
Not that I’m suggesting Portland should emulate Manhattan. I’m just making a point about density not being the same as overcrowded. But using more relevant comparators — West Coast Cities — suggests that Portland is nowhere CLOSE to overcrowded. We have a density of just over 4,000 per square mile. Portland is just over half the density of Seattle (over 7,000 per sq mi), about half the density of Los Angeles (over 8,000 per sq mi), and a quarter the density of San Francisco (over 16,000 per sq mi). We could double Portland’s population and still be a fair distance from “overcrowded.”
IMO, of course. Like I said, “overcrowded” is subjective.
The above should have said “studio OR one-bedroom”
Jeff asked: “So you no longer demand that bicycle riders pay for improvements, because they are such a tiny fraction of the traffic?”
So Jeff, then you agree that because bicycle riders are such a tiny fraction (your words) of the traffic that specialized bicycle infrastructure is totally unnecessary. However if you do feel it is necessary, then yes bicyclists should be directly taxed to pay for it or do without – and that includes the Columbia River Crossing where any bicycle infrastructure built will never be cost effective based on usage.
because bicycle riders are such a tiny fraction (your words) of the traffic that specialized bicycle infrastructure is totally unnecessary.
If you don’t mind bicycles using traffic lanes and slowing down traffic behind them, it’s fine with me. Most motorists would rather have the bicycles ride out of the way.
Bike lanes, bike paths and so forth are benefits for motorists because they keep bikes out of vehicle lanes and (at higher levels of bike use) keep other cars off the road. Same goes for any transit project that helps keep vehicles off the road. Practically anyone who’s ever been stuck in rush hour traffic understands this.
Of course, very few people share your peculiar obsession with transforming our entire transportation infrastructure into a fee-for-access system. Seriously: don’t you know any other songs?