2 responses to “CRC Open House Question # 9”

1. The statement “Solutions for moving people, cars and trucks should avoid or minimize traffic congestion to downtown Vancouver, Hayden Island or other neighborhoods” needs to be modified.

   There is a criteria that must be applied to all modes of transport when considering options for the improving the Columbia Crossing. This criteria can be called the mode “FEAD” factor.

   Financially self-sustainable (applies to each mode of transport without subsidies from non-mode users of the mode)

   Efficient economically (infrastructure and operations for each mode of transport are paid for by users of the specific mode)

   Affordability (identifies reasonable up front costs)

   Demand (people vote by the choice of mode used)

   What MUST be eliminated from the project is social engineering.

   The realities are people vote by driving their cars. Population growth will bring more cars. I-5 freeway traffic must be separated from local traffic.

   Therefore a modified statement could read: Solutions for moving people, cars and trucks for THROUGH TRAFFIC ON I-5 should avoid or minimize traffic congestion to downtown Vancouver, Hayden Island or other neighborhoods. I can support this modified statement.

   Accommodating traffic local traffic to downtown Vancouver, Hayden Island and other neighborhoods must be viewed as a regional priority.

   To help accommodate this regional priority need, I also support two or three motor vehicle in each direction to handle local traffic on an improved Columbia Crossing, that in addition to three FULL SERVICE I-5 freeway lanes on an improved Columbia Crossing.

2. They explicitly mention downtown Vancouver, but what about North Portland? If you build a 5-6 lane bridge that connects to a 3 lane freeway in North Portland, half the vehicles are going to have to get off the freeway, and they they are going to use North Portland streets, which is obviously going to increase congestion.

   I totally agree with this statement, but the proposed solution makes this problem worse for one of the “other neighborhoods”, not better…