Planning Our Meeting

Thanks for everyone who responded to the idea for a face-to-face meeting. I’ve gotten several potential dates from the Columbia River Crossing folks.

Please take a quick survey about your preferences for a time and location, and we’ll get the ball rolling!


11 responses to “Planning Our Meeting”

  1. I do not think a meeting has to have anything tied to having the CRC Task Force envolvement. To few people in Portland have a desire to attend any discussion with that subject being the focus.

    Most people want to get to know who is who and where they are coming from with no singular subject or individual taking the stage.

    When I go to the CRC Task Force meeting it attracts very few people, just special interests and most of us know what they want and where they would like to lead the direction.

    I for one am looking for greater visioning that has the interests of a greater region more in mind.

  2. Paul,

    Aren’t you involved with Sharon Nassett’s New Interstate Bridge proposal? Maybe we’ll have an opportunity to talk about that. We sort of crossed paths when I happened to suggest a route very similar to that at a CRC open house a year ago.

    It’s kind of risky proposing an alternative to a project that is backed by major agencies—I would like to see a straw poll of Oregon and Washington residents affected by this issue. I’ve contacted the newspapers and they will do an article–IF it appears to be an issue with traction.

    We certainly don’t need one big project after another. Yet, getting going on something before the inflation adjusted cost rises seems like a wise course. I like that project because I think it holds potential to combine a larger number of regional solutions–as opposed to parsing them out in several projects.

  3. I didn’t complete the survey since I’m not sure how to answer the questions/what answers you’re looking for, especially on the “venue” – whereever it is, I’d prefer somehwere where drinking is not mandatory.

    However, I’d like to attend – this worked (on a much lesser scale) on another message board very well, was a great way to relieve a little anexiety when you have names to go with faces.

    I also think it would be a good idea if there wasn’t an adgenda for the meeting – just have it be a group of people who are interested in stopping by. If people want to talk about Columbia River Crossing, the Streetcar, the tram, whatever, that’s fine; if not, is that really as important as the original idea of a meet-n-greet?

  4. Ron, I know Sharon Nasset and support most of her logic, like a lot of other common sense people do.

    But to get more of the same oh, same oh from the CRC Task Force Staff is hard to take when their creditability is as low as it is.

    My positions are my positions and differ a great deal to the best of my knowledge from her and others. I support Light Rail and letting profesional figure out the best ways to get people and vehicles out of the I-5 corridor.

    I try to look at the big regional picture maybe she and other do too, but one thing I know is that the CRC solution is like trying to put a Band-Aid on heart attack where the heart has stopped beating, this is where we must go back to 101 of first aid and real world transportation planning.

    When in transportation the flow of traffic has come to a stop, like blood or breathing, your first effort is to re-start the heart and breathing and stop any hemoraging, we must go back to the basics.

  5. I’d prefer somehwere where drinking is not mandatory.

    That’s why I included a coffee shop (Urban Grind) on the list.

    I do not think a meeting has to have anything tied to having the CRC Task Force envolvement.

    I tend to disagree. It’s been a regular hot topic here, and I think the CRC folks would benefit from collecting our viewpoints.

    But this is an experiment, so if it doesn’t work to have a single policy focus, we can do something different the next time.

    My intent is that focus is mostly social, with the policy stuff as the icebreaker.

  6. my 2 cents: would prefer to be able to have a beer or two ala drinkliberal or drinkgreen. Also, while not against formal topics, would be great to try and focus on Portland as opposed to larger transportation issues.

  7. Before everyone weighs in on the CRC Project with little or no knowledge on the subject it would be smart to create initial discussions around what it is and what it is not.

    The information provided by the CRC Project Staff is very controlled, edited and organized to present only one point of view and that is to replace the I-5 Interstate Bridges justified or not.

    That is why I personally have so much trouble listening to a team of people who have truely have only this one charge and have proven to not be credible.

    The process is not and has not been open and the staff has taken every step to prevent the public from having anything more then controlled input where they have predetermined the answers that they want to ensure that they get them.

    The CRC staff appears to be intent to sell this project first, then justify it as if their futures depend on success of they make happen.

    The regional impacts of this and its regional priority have not been part of any discussion.

    To make any presentation by the CRC Task Force Staff meaningful everyone needs equal context treatment of the subject with equal efforts in time and money spend on all alternatives and opportunities in a regional context.

    The CRC Task Force has not allowed this to happen and that is counter the State Regulation as I know them.

    Equal Context Treatment is a cornerstone of a proper EIS process. Without boring everyone with case in point depictions of what has happened, to me this has been the worse example of “equal Context Treatment of accepted alternatives”, I have ever seen.

  8. Paul, I agree with you about the shortcomings of the CRC process, which is exactly why I think it would be valuable for the Portland Transport community to give them some direct feedback.

  9. I am sorry for some of my grammer and spelling errors in the previous blog statement but I hope all of you get the point of the message.

    I for one would debate the whole effort, priority and justification if given equal time, money and qualified people, something that the CRC Task Force should have done in the first place.

    Just citizens with no money, no organization has then scared and that has to tell everyone something!

  10. Paul,

    Regarding the CRC you may be feeling like it’s a case of “litttle guy” vs “big impersonal bureaucracy.” But we had the same context when the Mt Hood Freeway proposal was scuttled via citizen involvement. I did not know that the DJC paper had supported the western arterial route, but now I do. Thanks, Chris. I bet there is a lot of other serious interest in the issue of connecting two great, geographic regions–which, I feel, is the context in which this discussion should be framed.

    Let’s bear with Mr. Smith and see what his reasoning is…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *