Columbia River Crossing: Game On!

We’ve been debating The Columbia River Crossing here for most of the last year. Now there’s finally an opportunity to take action. Two key meetings are coming up:

Thursday, February 22nd – Metro Council hearing at 2pm
(Metro Regional Center, 600 NE Grand, Portland)

Tuesday, February 27th – Columbia River Crossing Task Force meeting 4-8pm
(ODOT – 123 NW Flanders St., Portland)

The task force meeting is where the vote on the options to include in the DEIS analysis will occur. It’s NOT a public hearing, but there is a public comment opportunity at the beginning of the meeting.

The main show however is probably at Metro, where there will be a public hearing on Metro’s position on the options.

If you’re an activist and only have time to attend one, I’d say plan to be at Metro on Thursday. But if you can’t make it to Metro, or have the time to do both, I think you can have an impact at the task force as well.

Two resolutions (PDF, 83K) are being offered for Metro’s consideration. The first, from JPACT chair and Metro’s representative to the CRC task force, Rex Burkholder, asks for the addition of one more option to the DEIS mix: a new arterial bridge as a supplement to keeping freeway traffic on the existing bridges.

2. In addition to the CRC staff recommended alternatives, the Metro Council supports including in the DEIS for additional analysis an alternative that includes a low rise with lift span supplemental bridge built to current seismic standards to carry cars, trucks, high capacity transit, bicycles and pedestrians. This alternative retains the existing I-5 bridges for freeway travel with incremental improvements to those bridges and the key access ramps, to improve flow and increase safety on I-5. Additionally, this alternative would include replacing the swing span of the downstream railroad bridge with a movable span located in a mid-river location on the railroad bridge, thereby aligning with the current lift span of the I-5 bridges.

It’s good to see some recognition that the rail bridge has a major impact on the choices for the CRC.

The second resolution, introduced by Councilor Robert Liberty goes further and asks for multiple options, including a land use alternative:

2. In order for the Metro Council to have a proper basis for making choices regarding the best investment of limited transportation funds for a thoughtful and integrated approach to increased mobility, accessibility, economic opportunity, and quality of life, the Council respectfully requests that the CRC Task Force, working in conjunction with those members of the Task Force, Metro and other interested units of government, to develop and explore
additional, lower priced alternatives for analysis in the draft environmental impact statement, including:

(a) A non-capital intensive alternative, or a major element of an alternative, that emphasizes investments in and system management for I-5 and I-205, to increase flow and capacity on both bridges, including special arrangements for long-distance freight movement; and

(b) A land use alternative, or a major land use element for an alternative, that reduces the amount of peak-hour commuting across the Columbia River sufficiently to reduce the overall project cost; and

(c) A supplemental bridge built to current seismic standards to carry cars, trucks, light rail, bicycle and pedestrians, that is part of an alternative that retains the existing I-5 bridges for freeway travel, with incremental improvements to the existing I-5 bridges and the key access ramps, to improve flow and increase safety on I-5; and

(d) An analysis of what kinds of improvements to the downstream railroad bridge could be part of a lower cost alternative, including, moving the swing span from the northern side of the bridge to a location that better aligns with the existing I-5 shipping channel spans, or building a parallel bridge, and accepts the existence of lift spans on all bridges; and

(e) An alternative emphasizing transit investments, including analysis of light rail using the I-205 bridge and a more comprehensive investment in transit in Vancouver, North Portland and Northeast Portland, sufficient to provide cost effect congestion relief on I-5.

3. Furthermore, that these alternatives be designed and examined in such a way that;

(a) The ultimate recommended solution may reflect a blend derived from several alternatives that is cost-effective, multi-faceted and incremental; and

(b) Each of these alternatives, and the alternatives recommended for further study by CRC staff, can be easily compared with each other, and with other projects in the region, across a full range of costs and benefits (including land use costs and benefits)…

The smart money is on Councilor Burkholder’s resolution passing, but the question is whether during the debate, it might be broadened to include some ideas from the second resolution.

You can help impact that!

27 Comments

27 Responses to Columbia River Crossing: Game On!

  1. Jason McHuff
    February 19, 2007 at 11:33 am Link

    a movable span located in a mid-river location on the railroad bridge, thereby aligning with the current lift span of the I-5 bridges

    Aren’t the I-5 lift spans to the side? I think it really means the hump over the shipping channel in the middle of the I-5 bridges.

    Also, I’ve been wondering: It’s been said that Vancouver wants a bigger highway bridge and that agreeing a light rail line is their way/leverage/trade-off to get it. Considering that, what would be happening if South/North MAX did make it to Vancouver?

    Overall, I’m happy to see that Metro is looking at the project with a realistic view.

  2. Hoya
    February 19, 2007 at 12:49 pm Link

    The mayor of Vancouver has been quoted several times saying that there is no way they are getting a bridge without lightrail.

  3. Anthony
    February 19, 2007 at 1:07 pm Link

    Most of the people in Vancouver, including the city council do not share the mayors ‘vision’ about light rail.

    Notice how these meetings take place when most people are at work?

  4. Ross Williams
    February 19, 2007 at 1:24 pm Link

    It’s been said that Vancouver wants a bigger highway bridge and that agreeing a light rail line is their way/leverage/trade-off to get it.

    I think this idea has been repeated so often people in Oregon have started to believe it. There is really almost no benefit to anyone in Oregon from getting light rail across the river. I think the Vancouver Mayor understands this and sees it as benefiting downtown Vancouver. Light rail actually has a lot of support within the city, its the rest of Clark County where the opposition has been fierce.

  5. NJD
    February 19, 2007 at 2:30 pm Link

    I’m glad someone is standing up to this overpriced project. I never understood why the 12 studied alternatives never went through cost analysis nor EIS before they were shot down… when you make a set of guidelines that make alternatives impossible you get left with one option no matter the cost, impact or ramifications…

  6. Dave
    February 19, 2007 at 10:30 pm Link

    Ross, how about the benefit of making it easier to do business in Vancouver? As it stands, it’s rather risky to base a business there since you’re trapped in during the morning, and trapped out in the evening.

    Getting shipping companies to work with you in Vancouver is also difficult, since they get stuck in traffic trying to make afternoon deliveries.

    Also, I don’t think it will hurt Portland businesses if it’s easier for customers to get to the stores.

  7. Dave
    February 19, 2007 at 10:34 pm Link

    Ross, wouldn’t it benefit Oregon if Vancouver can attract more businesses by making it easier for Portlanders to commute up there? The more businesses up there, the fewer people needing to drive across the bridge. It also would allow customers living in downtown Vancouver to get to North Portland businesses. It seems it could benefit both states quite a bit.

  8. Adron
    February 19, 2007 at 11:04 pm Link

    Anthony…

    I do notice often how these meetings are when people are at work. Basically the only people who can attend these meetings are ones with flexible jobs, or no jobs at all. Which means that a small minority of people can actually have any say whatsoever about these things.

    But I digress, at least there ARE public meetings. It’s unfortunate that the “public servants” don’t actually work around the “public’s” time frames.

    I personally find it offensive that they do this. They’re “public servants” and not “public masters” as they often behave as, usually shrugging off such a comment as if it is uncalled for. If I attempted to treat customers that way I’d be one unemployed statistic with no hopes of re-employment without a change in attitude and some real service being provided.

  9. Ross Williams
    February 20, 2007 at 7:19 am Link

    Ross, wouldn’t it benefit Oregon if Vancouver can attract more businesses by making it easier for Portlanders to commute up there?

    It might. But I don’t think there is any evidence that the ability to attract employees from Oregon is a barrier to job creation in Vancouver.

    As I recall, there is some evidence that adding capacity to the freeway will increase employment in Clark County, but not as fast the population will grow. Its not clear whether those extra jobs simply reflect services for the increased population or some advantage for locating regional businesses.

    Getting shipping companies to work with you in Vancouver is also difficult, since they get stuck in traffic trying to make afternoon deliveries.

    Which I believe is why UPS has a distribution center in Vancouver, which provides jobs there, rather than running all their deliveries out of Swan Island. I think it will always be an advantage for most businesses to serve Vancouver out of Portland rather than vice-versa given the relative populations. Not to mention that the river crossings are likely to remain congested for part of the day no matter how large the investment.

    The real benefits to Portland from investment in the I5 corridor are a more vibrant, livable region. Better integrating Vancouver into the region may do that. But how that integration takes place is critical.

  10. Paul Edgar
    February 20, 2007 at 10:29 am Link

    I am amazed that this is coming from Metro. This is a step in the right direction.

    Facing reality that the I-5 corridor is broken and just replacing the Interstate Bridges with a CRC Project was not going to fix this critical corridor and most people realize that in fact it may make the problems even worse with induced traffic.

    What is coming before Metro is that we had better hit this nail on the head and after an investment of $6B the public will be after heads if working solutions that truly solve the problem are not advanced and brought to reality.

  11. sharon nasset
    February 20, 2007 at 11:46 pm Link

    CRC staff is out of control the good thing is the Task Force Members are not going along for the ride.

    Well there is still a lot that can be done to stop the “CRC staff recommendation.”
    ? First elected officials are clearly stating that the “staff recommendations” do not met the requirement of the NEPA process.
    ? All three Clark County Commissioner are showing integrity and standing up against pressure to say they want to follow the LAW.
    ? 4 elected official on the Regional Transportation Council voted to not support “CRC staff recommendations.” Only 2 elected office voted for it.
    ? The Joint CRC Senate Committee made it very clear their vote for “the process” to go forward was NOT support for “staff recommendation” Not one person or group spoke in favor of “staff recommendation”
    ? CTRAN transit would have voted against it but when it was time for the vote, some board member had left so they didn’t have enough board members for a vote.
    Elected officials, The Clark County Board of Commissioners, and CTRAN the transportation organization are hardly rogue groups. It is time to count up who is on what side and who is on the fence.
    Metro is mostly going to say no, with a little help from their friends.
    What are Multnomah County Commissioners going to do? Call and find out they are mostly likely on the fence and would be glad to know how many people are unhappy with what is going on.
    The recommendations do nothing for freight, so the 2 trucking CRC task force members and the business members have no reason to support it.
    The Historic reserve encroachments, demolishing historical properties, and the bridge. They have no reason to support it.
    Clark County neighborhoods finding how large the impact of residences and neighborhoods should run from it.
    EJAG hopefully will vote against it.
    Jantzen Beach residence and retail are against so Walter has do vote against it, call him.
    Vancouver City Council may be voting for it but they are definitely not on board.
    Take the time to call task force member let them know they are supported to vote down “staff recommendations.”
    What about Sam??? Surely with other elected officials saying it does not met the NEPA process and one being a trained lawyer who practiced environmental law saying he thinks it is illegitimate how they have handle the process. Sam can see the light with a little phone call from his friends.
    The 2 and now 6 billion-dollar price tag, without other options being studied is ringing bells. Now is the time to start calling the task force member and touch bases. http://www.thirdbridgenow.com
    Sharon

  12. sharon nasset
    February 21, 2007 at 12:48 am Link

    Metro vote on CRC this Thursday

    First off, Metro not supporting the CRC staff recommendations, because they have not followed the NEPA process and other concerns is the right thing to do.
    However, I believe, as several of the elected officials on Regional Transportation Council that stating the options do not follow the NEPA possess, it is inappropriate for them to say what the other options should be. That needs to come from the CRC Task Force Members and the public. Putting forward what they would like to see as an option is different than deciding what that 3 option should be.
    Also no offense to Rex Burkholder the option he is suggesting has built in flaws and he knows it. It will look like and option but it’s not. 1st the US Coast Guard will not allow a new bridge with a lift, beside being a design from the last century. 2nd supplemental bridges have the beginning and ending on I-5 causing extra weaving entrances and exits slowing traffic and causing safety issues. 3rd they double the downtown traffic in Vancouver using it as an on off ramp. 4th with no corridor on either side it will only attract a small amount of traffic off I-5 about 10% goes to Janzten Beach. 5th It does nothing for freight mobility, neighborhood congestion, and local access between Oregon and Washington. 6th It does nothing to help transit to downtown or transit areas.
    The process needs to be opened up and honestly chose a 4th proposal. Those bringing forth a new proposal need to realize it can’t be voted on without going back to their groups.
    Doesn’t Metro have a policy about not using imminent domain to seize private property when public land is available? Janzten Beach 20 –30 businesses, and over 2 dozen homes seized. When vacant public land is available is not right. Property rights.
    Sharon

  13. Ron Buel
    February 21, 2007 at 10:34 am Link

    Ross: Portlanders have a huge stake in transit working for Vancouver and Clark County.
    First, transit could serve the 50,000 additional trips projected to cross the bridge in the next 20 years, and we can thereby get single-passenger commuter vehicles off our roadways, instead of accomodating them like this bridge recommendation does. This will make it better for freight movement on our highways. Its not rational to expect to build our way out of highway congestion so freight can move . One can see what has recently happened on the Sunset with widening. The bottleneck has simply moved to the entry to I-405 and the City, which now stacks up regularly. The same thing will happen when this gargantuan 10-12 lane bridge hits the three lanes on the Minnesota Freeway, or the three lanes going North. Portlanders have a real stake in not seeing the region’s precious transportation money wasted to move a bottleneck from one location to another. Why are we subsidizing the sprawl in Clark County in the first place? We need the money to build infrastructure where Metro wants the jobs to go, in East Multnomah and Clackamas County, to do the rail project in Washington County, and to underground the Eastbank Freeway in the City, and to build a high-capacity transit system serving the region.
    This is not the 1950s. The idea that the region can build its way out of congestion, and serve freight by doing so, was rejected a long time ago when we stopped the Mt. Hood Freeway and the Westside Bypass. I know you were involved in the Westside Bypass fight, Ross. The Oregon Freight Association and Steve Clark at the Tribune and others have been trying to take us back to Frank Ivancie, Robert Moses, Lloyd Keefe and the PVMTS plan of the 1950s.
    What about peak oil, Ross, and global warming? Do we really want to give in, as a region, to 50,000 more single-passenger commuters crossing the Columbia so Clark County can continue to sprawl out and snarf up the typical auto-based suburban exansion that Oregon’s land-use laws have prevented.
    We will never get the highway engineers, particularly those in WashDot, to do a real transit system plan for the crossing and Clark County. But the $50 million they will probably spend on completing bridge design must give us a decent transit system design done by someone else, or the region is going to take some huge steps back toward the classic 1950s regional auto and oil design that plagues Western America today.

  14. Ross Williams
    February 21, 2007 at 11:42 am Link

    First, transit could serve the 50,000 additional trips projected to cross the bridge in the next 20 years, and we can thereby get single-passenger commuter vehicles off our roadways, instead of accomodating them like this bridge recommendation does.

    Ron – I agree, as an alternative to more traffic, transit has benefits. As a supplement to more traffic, which is what you get when you build both transit and highways, there is no benefit on the Oregon side of the river. There is no great benefit to Portland from trading 50,000 SOV trips for 50,000 SOV trips with 20,000 additional transit trips.

    This will make it better for freight movement on our highways.

    No, it won’t. You will still have those 50,000 trips on the highway creating congestion and getting in the way of trucks. If there is a need for freight capacity it needs to have its own capacity protected from SOV commuters. I think the idea of combination HOV/Freight lanes with an HOV requirement of 3 or more occupants might make some sense.

    And, in fact, if you add capacity will probably get more than 50,000 SOV trips. You will have 60-80,000 SOV trips supplemented with whatever transit trips you can still attract away from the freeway.

    As I said elsewhere, transit as an alternative to a wider freeway provides a lot of benefits to Oregon. Transit as a supplement to a huge new bridge has few if any.

    The same thing will happen when this gargantuan 10-12 lane bridge hits the three lanes on the Minnesota Freeway, or the three lanes going North.

    It won’t matter whether they put light rail, buses or no transit at all on that gargantuan new bridge (I think it is at 14 lanes and rising). The result will be the same. They aren’t going to stop building houses in Clark County until the freeway to Portland jobs fills up again. Adding transit will let them build a few more. How is that a benefit to Oregon?

  15. Lenny Anderson
    February 21, 2007 at 12:10 pm Link

    Ron, Ross…you guys are on the same side in this fight, or at least you should be.
    The arterial bridge option will get some local traffic off I-5 AND allow for removal of on/off ramps with no merge lanes…making for “three thru lanes” as per the I-5 TF.
    MAX on the arterial bridge will offer a real transit option; a broad downstream side bike/ped facility will make things way better for bikers. There go some more cars off the freeway.
    Demand management of the three thru lanes will make more room for freight and get more people into the excess capacity that is in the back seat of lots of cars, if the the front seat.
    Incident management will get some real payback on the 50% impact of incidents on congestion.
    The arterial bridge will not carry so much traffic that Vancouver will be overwhelmed with too many customers.
    Last, the CG does not, I believe, oppose a new lift span, it simply argued that there is no pressing need worthy of CG funds to pay for it.
    As we learned from the ’97 bridge closure, this key facility can be managed a lot better than it is and at a lot less cost than a massive new bridge.

  16. Ross Williams
    February 21, 2007 at 12:19 pm Link

    Lenny –

    I think it is a mistake to see this as having only two sides. There is a significant group of people for whom getting light rail across the river is a very high priority. They will accept a bad bridge design that increases traffic as the price they have to pay to get that result. You have asked what Mayor Pollard is thinking and I suspect that pretty much describes it. He gets light rail for his city, rural Clark County and the real estate developers get their gargantuan new bridge and Oregon gets ???

  17. Lenny Anderson
    February 21, 2007 at 2:07 pm Link

    Agreed,
    we want MAX with as little road capacity as possible, and I think the ground is shifting there. The I-5 TF settled on 4 additional lanes (auxiliary and/or arterial) for traffic plus MAX; CRC is trying to push it out to 6 with maybe MAX, but we might be able to get that down to two or three at the most, as per Jim’s arterial bridge idea. Time to talk about a MAX bridge with a couple of traffic lanes…the Interstate Avenue extension.

  18. sharon nasset
    February 21, 2007 at 9:37 pm Link

    Reasons not to support CRC staff recommendations.

    ?$6,000,000,000 (Six Billion) cost estimate?
    First estimates were $1.2 Billion, what will the costs be to demolish 2 good bridges?
    ?I-5 is full and the bridge is not the problem.
    CRC staff has stated that the congestion problems will not improve with a bridge replacement.
    ?Bridge replacement removes 1 bridge.
    In the case of emergencies, more bridges provide better options.
    ?Seizing private property is not necessary.
    Imminent domain is not necessary when public property is available with one of the options.
    ?I-5 to the south can not handle the traffic.
    A new bridge will not solve the congestion problems.
    ?An additional route is needed.
    I-5 to the south is not able to be expanded.
    ?Local access Vancouver to Portland.
    I-5 is an interstate and was not built for local traffic.
    ?The general public is being left out of the process.
    Surveys show that 4 out of 10 citizens are unaware of the current study and of the plan for a replacement bridge.
    ?CRC meetings
    They are not held in the study area and the times and facilities are not easily accessible to the public.
    ?Light rail is part of the CRC staff plan
    The public should have an opportunity to vote on the rail system.
    ?Neighborhood effects
    More routes will take traffic out of our neighborhoods reducing pollution.
    ?Environment
    Steady flow of traffic reduces pollution in our cities.

    Please contact:All of your elected officials, TV, Radio, CRC Task Force Members and news papers with your concerns.
    Stay informed:Come to the CRC Meeting February 27, 2007 at the ODOT building down town Portland and bring a friend.

    Web sites:WWW.NewInterstateBridge.COM
    Email:ThirdBridgeNow@aol.com

    The number of citizen and elected officials that can’t belive we would talk option off the tabe without looking at cost from the being is growing.

  19. Hawthorne
    February 21, 2007 at 10:53 pm Link

    Sharon,

    I find your comments interesting. In your attempts to oppose the bridge (not a bad thing) it looks like you are willing to pull in any thing that might support your case. For example you have made statements about protecting private property that sound like they came from a M37 advocate and you suggest that light rail should be voted upon (but not road projects?) which is out of the anti rail playbook.

    Who is funding your group and what is the goal and vision? Is there an affiliation with Jim Karlock or any other groups?

    Thanks.

  20. peter
    February 21, 2007 at 11:35 pm Link

    hawthroen,

    i don’t know sharon nasset, or what her motivation may be, but this :

    Seizing private property is not necessary.
    Imminent domain is not necessary when public property is available with one of the options.

    doesn’t sound like an M37 advocate to me; M37 was about the financial impacts of regulations, not seizing property. according to her site, it sounds like the proposed CRC might involve the demolition of jantzen beach business and/or homes.

  21. Ross Williams
    February 22, 2007 at 5:30 am Link

    I think Sharon represents the point of view of some North Portland neighborhood residents, supportive of more road capacity, sceptical of transit and light rail in particular but recognizing a large new bridge is a poor idea.

    I think there are a number of people who initially saw the CRC process as an opportunity to deal with a variety of transportation and community development issues. Sharon and others think a new route with a new bridge across the Willamette in addition to a new bridge across the Columbia solves the problem of trucks using the St. John’s neighborhood to get to Rivergate and the Columbia Corridor.

    There have also been other suggestions that the solution should be a new local arterial bridge that would be only the first of several arterial crossings integrating Vancouver into the region.

    There were suggestions that Clark County would adopt land use goals for compact development similar to those in Vancouver and on the Oregon side of the river.

    And, of course, there are people who see the bridge as an opportunity to get light rail across the river.

    The problem is that most of those goals are not part of how WashDOT defines its mission. They want to improve freeway capacity in the I5 corridor. And the purpose and need was narrowed to reflect that. This outcome has been inevitable from the day it was adopted whether the advisory committee members understood that or not.

  22. Paul Edgar
    February 22, 2007 at 9:27 am Link

    I have go to know Sharon as a person of passion and who is above all honest. I disagree with Sharon but have come to understand that she has as good of grasp on the subject or better then most. That includes 80% of the member of the CRC Task Force.

    Ross this posting was pretty accurate except, no one should try to describe Sharon and what she thinks other then herself.

    As to WSDOT, they are road builders and this CRC Project is the type of project that puts bodies in their big building over a long time and has nothing to do with what is right and in the best interest of our region. Remember most of this is coming from people who have a P.E. after their name and they want to use their degree for something, even if it is wrong.

    ODOT has their share of P.E.’s too and they forget that we have a finite amount of money and time and opportunity to solve problems that match the needs and goals of our communities.

    The constrained vision given the CRC Task Force (this was pre-planned by those who wanted to replace the Interstate Bridges) does not solve problems of the I-5 corridor. If their vision statement cannot be openned up and/or more REAL ALTERNATIVES put into this picture, my recommendation would to shut down the CRC Task Force and stop spending tax payers money for not.

  23. Nick
    February 22, 2007 at 10:03 am Link

    Hawthorne said:

    Sharon,

    I find your comments interesting. In your attempts to oppose the bridge (not a bad thing) it looks like you are willing to pull in any thing that might support your case. For example you have made statements about protecting private property that sound like they came from a M37 advocate and you suggest that light rail should be voted upon (but not road projects?) which is out of the anti rail playbook.

    Who is funding your group and what is the goal and vision? Is there an affiliation with Jim Karlock or any other groups?”

    >>>> Well, let’s see here: I rent an apartment, am a heavy transit user (do not drive) and “railfan” to boot, and am very oppposed to any more light rail projects in the Portland Metro area. Who the hell wants to ride for 40+ minutes on a relatively slow, all-stop MAX train from Vancouver, which is also full of riff-raff in the evenings? Vancouver MAX is just an $1 billion boondogle to this transit rider.

    Certainly, no property, auto or oil group is funding me–I just concerned with getting my transit trip with the least amount of hassles.

  24. sharon nasset
    February 23, 2007 at 2:51 pm Link

    On Your web site you have The CRC meeting February 27 when you click on the link for time and address its says 6pm until 10pm. On CRC web site it is 4-8pm with citizen comment starting at 4:30.
    Now that they are not having at OAME there in no parking lot every one will have to pay….. unless you talk to CRC into paying or moving it back. When the meeting is over citizens will have walk in the dark though Old Town. I think citizens need picture ID to get in and I think they search bags. It appears to me CRC staff is trying to make it harder on citizens to participate….. and adding restraints to the process……. What do you think?
    Oh and I though Metro voted no to the Staff Recommendations of only to opposition and added a resolutions…. Please notice that the citizen comment period at the beginning of the meeting…. And their is not citizen comment after all the resolutions….. I think Metro, TRI-MET, Clark County Commissioners, Coalition for livable future, making resolutions… there is not schedule public comment period after the additional option are added….. plus don’t the Task Force Members need to take the new look back to their groups?

  25. sharon nasset
    February 23, 2007 at 4:36 pm Link

    Hello,
    Mark you calendar Ross you’re right on about that this, is not about M37. It is about seizing private property when publicly owned land is available….. Property rights are very important an imminent domain is only to be used for the good of the majority and should not be taken lightly.
    The location is the issue. The environment, the expense, the hazardous waste from removing the buildings, relocation, moving inventory, unemployment, retraining, and those are just a few of the business expenses. How many trucks, and flaggers, will it take to remove 20-30 business and over 2 dozen residences…. ? With only I-205 as a back up? Talk about air pollution. That does not include Vancouver.
    The removal of freight traffic and spillover traffic from downtown Vancouver, Kenton, St. Johns, and neighborhoods in north and northeast is an important step in improving livability for hundreds of families.
    The addition of freeway access and added capacity to the Vancouver industrial area and their Port strengths our regions ecomony, helping in the continued attraction of jobs into the new Gateway project, keeping jobs, and tax dollars in Vancouver.
    This alignment is in the regional transportation plans of both states, Metro’s Corridor of Significant, PDOT Freight Master Plan and the St. Johns’ truck strategy and other transportation documents.
    The alignment puts needed infrastructure in the North Peninsula industrial where there are vacancies and a 1000+acres of dirt ready land available to be used for more family wage jobs. When the industrial areas become denser, it helps contain urban sprawl….. People will only live so far from their jobs. When businesses have to move further down I-5 and I-84 because they can’t get there transportation needs met here, we loose tax does, jobs and employees move out of the area to be close to work, creating more sprawl.
    I pay my own way however I will let you buy me a coffee or lunch anytime.
    I am affiliated with lots of folks on all sides. Tolerance is hearing views you don’t agree with. Hearing different view is healthy and produces growth. Creating friendships with lots of peoples is helpful, not expecting you friends views to be different than your is unrealistic. I am proud to call Jim Karlock a friend. I and all people in Portland need to grateful for his wonderful contribution shining light into the public process of several issues by filming them and putting them on public access TV at great personal expense of time and money. I feel we need many more citizen who unselfishly donation their time for a more open public process.
    It is the alignment… so don’t get stuck on the bridge…. To inform people you must describe something they can see in their minds…. This supports the economy most. 4 new heavy rail (providing the possibility of commuter rail and moving the RR left) 8 over size truck lanes, 3 transit lanes, 2 bike ped, lanes and 4 car. It is more than balanced, providing local access, safety, and more access to JB. The majority of land is vacant and publicly owned. If anyone is able to draw this project please contact me.
    Peace be with you… got questions? Just ask.
    Sharon

  26. Spencer
    February 28, 2007 at 11:41 am Link

    Why don’t they just fix the two lane bottleneck after Delta Park on the south bound side. Morons!!!

  27. Bob R.
    February 28, 2007 at 12:14 pm Link

    Spencer wrote: “Why don’t they just fix the two lane bottleneck after Delta Park on the south bound side. Morons!!!”

    Spencer – there is in fact a $69 million Delta Park widening project that is going forward. See: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/REGION1/I-5DeltaPark/

    Care to elaborate on that “morons” remark?

    – Bob R.

Leave a Reply to Hoya Click here to cancel reply.

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