Yesterday’s O had an interesting editorial suggesting that Metro’s scope should expand to include both sides of the river.
I’m not sure that’s going to happen soon. I once asked a Clark County Commissioner why it hadn’t happened yet. He opined that suggesting it would be the fastest way for him to get thrown out of office :-)
But let’s imagine that it did. How would transportation plans in the region be different if the scope were REALLY regional?
27 responses to “Vancouver in Metro?”
I don’t think that if Metro crossed the Columbia, that it would somehow make the CRC any easier, nor do I think we’d likely have more bridges or something like that, (it wouldn’t change the whole lack of money problem.) However, I do think that traffic would be better anyways:
1) Better integrated mass transit system. (Although it would probably only be a small improvement without MAX going into Clark County…)
2) Better UGB control. Vancouver adds suburb after suburb because it doesn’t have to deal with the full effect of their actions. When the entire Metro area is managed in one UGB, Clark County wouldn’t add a bunch of suburbs without a bunch of jobs to go with them… With more jobs in Clark County, (or less people living there trying to get to jobs in Portland,) I-5 would go from being the worst afternoon rush hour in the region to simply another rush hour freeway, even without a bigger bridge…
The UGB reduces housing/shopping choice in the Portland area and causes very uneven growth patterns. Clark County is the fastest growing county in our region for that reason– because most people prefer to live in a suburban style detached house with a decent sized yard and the shopping choice found only in strip mall type developments.
We should be looking at Metro and the UGB as the CAUSE of the region’s problems, not the solution.
We should be looking at Metro and the UGB as the CAUSE of the region’s problems, not the solution.
And we should be looking at getting rid of Metro.
Thanks
JK
Clark County is the fastest growing county in our region
Except it isn’t. And in terms of employment, it is losing ground. Vancouver exists only as the caboose on the Portland economic engine.
How would transportation plans in the region be different if the scope were REALLY regional?
I don’t think they would change that much. The Metro transportation planning process is already mostly bartering between jurisdictions for available funds, its not really driven by Metro. With Clark County dragging WashDOT directly into the Metro process there would likely be a much higher emphasis on freeway capacity.
I think many people on the Oregon side of the river fail to recognize that most places the “business model” for the state Departments of Transportation largely depend on new highway capacity projects to keep them operating. Asking whether they should build a new highway is like asking GM whether it should build cars. They build as much new capacity as people will pay for. More roads, wider roads and more traffic are all considered beneficial and signs of success.
And we should be looking at getting rid of Metro.
Hardly. Metro needs to be given more power – not less – and it would be the most backward step we could possibly take to dismantle Metro. There’s enough chaos as it is with nearly thirty independent municipalities trying to cooperate and that would all go to hell if there wasn’t a single organization bringing everybody to the table and establishing guidelines and priorities for them all to follow. It would be absolutely disastrous.
For Vancouver and Clark County to be under the Metro umbrella would be the next logical step to take for the region at-large. Having Metro set the requirements for which Vancouver and Clark County would have to use to establish their priorities would only make that side of the river more self-sufficient.
Since WaDOT has made it pretty clear that their CRC objective is simply to allow more cars an easier time to get into Portland, I think it’s high time we start a congestion pricing program on the Interstate bridges to fund “improvements and alternatives.” We have to make it easier for freight to get to and through here, not just more SOV’s. Start saving the congestion pricing revenue for the improvements we know we’ll have to make eventually.
Vancouver and Clark County are already represented on Metro’s transportation committees – TPAC and JPACT.
But since Metro operates under Oregon law I am not sure how we would bring in Washington jurisdictions with official representation and funding.
Certainly, Clark County and Vancouver should have some form of ‘special’ representation at Metro. Leading up to the 1995 Vancouver voter rejection of light rail, Metro did not live up to its highest standards of representation and PR courtesy.
The vote was clearly divided, pitting central Vancouver and east Clark County residents against each other. The proposed route ‘then’ was due north to Clark County Fairgrounds. How would east Clark County residents benefit? Why wasn’t the Glen Jackson Bridge route proferred for consideration.
Shortly after the vote, Metro realized its mistake and amended the route, which now turns east from downtown to Vancouver Mall, benefiting both camps. However, the due north route short of Clark County Fairgrounds is back on the table and IMO ‘wrongfully’ awarded preferential status by WsDOT planners.
Any new route proposal must include the certainty of an extension east, or risk alienating East Clark County residents and repeating the earlier divisiveness. WsDOT seems to ‘prefer’ the most expensive CRC bridge option, and oppose the politically palatable light rail route option toward Vancouver Mall. Their explanation for the due north route somehow ties federal funding to a ‘required number’ of park-n-ride spaces, and sounds like numbers-rigging to me.
How about Metro make a priority of getting MAX just to Jantzen Beach? How much closer would Vancouver be with MAX in sight? Toward that end this challenge is offered: “Operation Jantzen Beach Six Flags”
We could get rid of Metro – if we also redrew our county borders to represent population patterns. I presume the current configuration of county lines were laid down either completely arbitrarily or based on assumptions that no longer hold true.
Except it isn’t. And in terms of employment, it is losing ground. Vancouver exists only as the caboose on the Portland economic engine.
…and cabooses got replaced by end of train devices over a decade ago! :o
Families are fleeing Portland to live in Clark County. A good measurement is school enrollment. The region needs less social engineering, not more. Metro still does not understand reality.
Families are “fleeing” Portland because they can’t afford to buy housing here. Planning (or “social engineering” as Terry puts it) has been such a resounding success that housing costs have gone through the roof. And WHY is housing so expensive? BECAUSE PORTLAND IS AN INCREDIBLY DESIRABLE PLACE TO LIVE AS A RESULT OF THIRTY YEARS OF PLANNING! (Sorry to yell, but there seem to be a lot of people out there who can’t grasp that very simple concept). Any time a community becomes a highly desirable place to live, housing gets expensive because of basic market factors: demand for housing vastly outstrips the (mostly fixed) supply.
Which means most people aren’t “fleeing” Portland, they’re “chasing” afforable housing while still living as close to Portland as they can pay for. I can’t offer statistics, but I have a lot of friends (eleven, by my count) who have moved out of Portland to the suburbs in the past decade when they went from “renter” to “homeowner.” Every single one of them would prefer to live in the city (well, okay, there’s one guy who doesn’t care either way, but his wife would prefer to move back if they could). They just can’t afford Portland housing.
Topic: Nothing prevents Clark County and its various cities from forming a voluntary “integrated planning” organization of some kind and coordinating their planning efforts with Metro. They don’t need elected representation on Metro council or anything like that. All they need is a commitment to work with their neighbors to the south in planning for the future of the whole region.
One reason for a closer relationship might be the understanding that in the future the possibility for two more bridges (more if only for bikes and transit) could be needed. Clark County and East Multnomah County are growing and businesses are expanding/moving in (e.g., FedEx possible move to Troutdale), so land and planning for future transportation corridors between the two states becomes critical.
One of my visions for a suspension bridge for bikes and people bridge between Troutdale and Camas (Gateway to the Gorge serving commuters and tourists) will need this bi-state planning.
Most everyone would understand the need for more truck and transit capacity at the Troutdale/Camas and the Westside Bypass sides of the Metro area. But this is forty years out when we have already doubled in population.
Maybe the state laws that created Metro will need to be modified. Maybe Metro would like Clark County involved in our recycling and waste management conversations with the contractor of the Eastern Oregon dump (larger customer/cheaper rate).
Ray
The region needs less social engineering
We hear this all the time, and it’s always a subject which causes my ears to perk up, because I’m “anti social-engineering”.
But, what isn’t social engineering? When me and my family can’t afford the $1 mil + it costs for a three bedroom home in Portland, aren’t I getting “social engineered” out into the suburbs? When Ike paid for an 8-lane road out to grandmothers house, wasn’t that also “social engineering”?
Of course, the only thing that isn’t social engineering would seem to be all-out, every-man-for-themselves capitalism. Of course, we see that in the slums surrounding nearly every developing world city; and it’s not pretty. I’d be interested to hear, Terry, what your alternatives to ‘social engineering’ are.
I’m not trying to hijack the topic, but I think all forms of government operate on some type of “social engineering.” However, some forms of “social engineering” are agreed with by most of the population, and seem to be called “public policy” and/or “laws.” Some say they feel they’re being “social engineered” out of their cars – I say that I bet people feel “social engineered” into a car at some points.
But, enough on that.
But let’s imagine that it did (Metro included Vancouver). How would transportation plans in the region be different if the scope were REALLY regional?
I think that the mode of transportation and how it’s operated would be different. I’d guess N/S MAX probably would’ve been built with that original alignment, and they’d say they felt it was ‘crammed down our throats.’ If C-TRAN still existed, it would probably come under some sort of TriMet control, and/or would be operating only feeder routes to light rail. (I know, I’ve heard from people that say it wouldn’t happen because it would take an act of Congress, but I’m guessing that would be easier than it sounds.)
Why wasn’t the Glen Jackson Bridge route proferred for consideration.
I was a teenager back in 1995, but I think I remember something about not getting Federal funding for an I-205 alignment.
How about Metro make a priority of getting MAX just to Jantzen Beach? How much closer would Vancouver be with MAX in sight?
That’s been proposed – supposedly, the cost doesn’t pencil out.
Why I think Portland sucks…..
I lived in the Portland Metro area (aka Moscow) for a little over 8 years. First it was Beaverton, then Portland proper for 18 months. Every day I had to deal with horrible traffic congestion be it on the smelly vagrant transport system or in my car. It took an hour and a half to get from Portland to Beaverton – a mere 10 miles! Then I got smart so I thought and bought into their silly “live close to your work” B.S. So I lived right across the street and worked at PacifiCorp. That was all fine until then to my dismay I got a notice that they were discontinuing the residential parking permit program thus forcing me to spend an exorbitant amount of money to park at my own home! How ridiculous. Then to add insult to injury the landlord raised my rent because supposedly it’s a very “desirable” place to live. Portland sucks and people are duped into thinking its a wonderful place and people from all over move into our great state but in the garbage dump Portland. Now I live in McMinnville and commute to Salem. I have to deal with at worst 5 minutes of traffic and my commute is faster than Beaverton to Portland. AND… I don’t have sky high rent, vagrants everywhere, etc. You can have your stupid Portland and Metro. I’m done. I hope I never have to live there again!
P.S. Metro keep your evil hands off Yamhill County!!!!
Greg, then I guess you’ll be rooting for Metro to tightly constrain the UGB :-)
Chris,
Yeah, if they actually DO what they say…. But I doubt it. Metro is an untruthful lot. I can remember when Beaverton was smaller than Mac and when Sherwood was about 1,000 in population and I’m not THAT old. It won’t be long until the UGB encompasses everything from Eugene to Vancouver. Just wait 10 years.
“It won’t be long until the UGB encompasses everything from Eugene to Vancouver. Just wait 10 years.”
I think (okay, hope, although for very different reasons than Greg,) that it will be more than 10 years, but really someone needs to manage our entire foodshed so that we don’t starve, and Metro seems to be doing the best job of it at the moment. One would think that would be the state’s problem, but the state is kind of stuck in mediocre mode right now, and the Fed would rather have us burn food in our cars than eat it, so that pretty much leaves Metro… (Their gardening clinic a couple months ago was very good.)
If it was up to me, I’d redraw the state lines on the west coast so that there would be the state of Los Angeles going from the Mexico border up to Fresno or so, and then a state of San Fransisco from there to Redding. From there to Eugene would be something else (there are people there that would like to call it Jefferson, so we’ll call it that for the moment) and then we’d form the state of Portland and it would include Eugene and Longview. Past that would be the State of Seattle. Everything east of the Cascades could join Idaho, although there might be a separate state for Boise and it’s foodshed… Basically, a bunch of city-states, instead of a bunch of states that sometimes include parts of cities. The problem is that the state lines were drawn a long time ago, and they haven’t matched the true nature of development in the 150 years since then…
but really someone needs to manage our entire foodshed so that we don’t starve, and Metro seems to be doing the best job of it at the moment.
You mean growing stuff on your concrete rooftop? That would be Metro’s answer. The only way out of this stupid congestion problem is to vote NO on 49 and let people spread out a little so they don’t have to smell or hear their neighbors all the time. That would reduce crime, improve traffic and help a lot of things. People could maybe grow their own vegetables and not on a rooftop of a 400 square foot condominimum tower.
Shows how much you know, Greg. Metro has been around longer than I’ve been alive and the UGB has been expanded by more than 20 acres only three times in that entire period. It would take decades – if not centuries – for the UGB to be expanded to cover just the three counties in which Metro has legal jurisdiction. To expand outside of the tri-county area would be illegal without approval of the state, regardless of how “untruthful” you may think them to be. I’d be surprised to see UGB expansions totaling that of the 2002 expansion even by 2030.
Just because you want to live in a small town doesn’t make Portland a slum. It’s pretty far-fetched to think that median housing prices would be nearing $300k here if it were as horrible as you claim. Personally I’m thrilled that I can leave my house for work a mere 20 minutes before I need to arrive (including walking to the bus stop and waiting for the bus) or walk two blocks to the grocery store – all without having to put a single mile of wear and tear on my car. I commute with busloads of professionals, not these “vagrants” that you seem to think are filling our streets. You are horribly disillusioned and in spite of how long you’ve lived here appear exceedingly uneducated about the way things work up here.
Greg:
Then to add insult to injury the landlord raised my rent because supposedly it’s a very “desirable” place to live. Portland sucks and people are duped into thinking its a wonderful place and people from all over move into our great state
So I guess the landlord went out of business because nobody was willing to pay the higher rent and everyone moved out? Yeah, right. It wasn’t a “supposedly” desirable place to live, it was a desirable place to live. That’s the only way landlords get away with significant rent hikes.
And nobody is “duped” into thinking Portland is a wonderful place, it is a wonderful place — at least for the hundreds of thousands of us who love it here. And clearly; we’re in the majority. If Portland wasn’t wonderful, people would be fleeing in droves. Instead, more people are moving here every year, driving up housing prices and crowding our roads. High housing costs + traffic congestion: two signs you’re living in a pretty good place. Unwanted side effects of success, to be sure, but you really can’t have everything.
I echo what Joseph said: no matter what you say about your background, you seem remarkably ignorant about what Portland is really like.
Back to the question:
But let’s imagine that it did (Metro included Vancouver). How would transportation plans in the region be different if the scope were REALLY regional?
Hopefully, we would be looking at one or two additional bridges to link up the transportation networks on both sides of the Columbia, an integrated light rail system crossing both Interstate and Glen Jackson bridges, and both sides of the river working to improve bicycle connections.
Clark County could develop some zoning practices equivalent to the urban growth boundary — maybe designate all northern and eastern parts of the county as wildlife areas, industrial forest reserves, and farm sanctuaries, and keep urban development in the southwest part of the county. They could also work on a densification strategy around major transportation nodes — encouraging the equivalent of Metro’s designated town centers.
Metro’s regional freight plan would be truly regional, with the freight network plan encompassing both sides of the river and major input from the Port of Vancouver as well as the Port of Portland.
As I mentioned before, though, we don’t need to bring Vancouver or Clark County into Metro. Just get everyone sitting down at the same table, talking to each other, and taking the neighbor’s plans into account while making your own.
Bi-state MPOs are not unprecedented. The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission has jurisdiction over Philadelphia and 8 surrounding counties: 4 in PA, 4 in Jersey. Frankly when I moved here I was shocked to learn that there are 2 MPOs.
It is important to distinguish the federally-required Metropolitan Planning Organization’s function from all the other stuff Metro does. I think JPACT (Metro’s MPO arm) and RTC (the MPO in Vancouver) could be easily merged (i.e., it wouldn’t require an act of Congress.)
They have a “bi-state coordination subcommittee” but that seems like an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy.
http://www.rtc.wa.gov/bistate/
You are horribly disillusioned and in spite of how long you’ve lived here appear exceedingly uneducated about the way things work up here.
Yeah, well I lived on the corner of 7th and Halsey. I had a job at a place down by OHSU so I took the MAX and then the streetcar. It smelled awful all the time and took 57 minutes to make a less than 1 mile commute. Lloyd Center to SoWhat takes almost 1 HOUR to commute using the lovely slum tram. I’ll take Salem any day over Portland. It’s no wonder why Salem actually placed #2 on the list of increasing home values. Portland didn’t fare so well….. Once this TIF funding fiasco finally blows up and Metro is dissolved and Measure 49 fails this fall or the OIA takes it off the ballot which it looks likely it will in its lawsuit then Portland will have nothing left. It’s like a balloon ready to pop… Just like when Clinton was President and the economy went BOOM!
Bi-state MPOs are not unprecedented.
True. With Vancouver in Metro, though, I sense primarily backlash to regulation as the result. There would be many positives (recycling, transit integration, land preservation), but the backlash would be in the way of setting minimum density requirements and population goals, much like we saw several years ago when Milwaukie balked at being labeled as a regional center in spite of how appropriate it is that they serve as a regional center (look 100 blocks in the other three directions from downtown – including northward to the ‘couv – and you have: regional centers). Vancouver already wants to beef up its downtown, but other sections of Clark County that would receive such designations would inevitably cry ‘foul’ IMO, and everybody would be petitioning to “down-zone” to town center or less, thus rebuking their role in helping the region absorb the inevitable population growth that will continue to occur.
However, we do have to play nice, because there are ways that they can help us if they feel like it (see below, for one). Meaning we can’t just charge them $8 tolls to cross the river because we don’t want all their cars over here. Tempting, maybe, but not exactly neighborly (however, I’m still in favor of congestion pricing on both interstate bridges). With that said, they have to be willing to work with us on the whole CRC thing and not just work to double freeway capacity because that’s all they know how to do.
The other bi-state entity that is not without precedent that I think we need is a port authority: something like the “Lower Columbia River Port Authority.” The PoP has been losing business and I think it would be advantageous to merge with other port authorities (Vancouver, Longview, Astoria) dotted along the 100 nautical miles of deep water channel from here to the Pacific. We need some coordination to be able to compete long-term with the likes of Puget Sound and Long Beach. Additionally, we need to invest in the road/rail freight infrastructure to eliminate the Portland bottleneck and improve land-based freight connectivity between air- and sea-ports along the length of the lower Columbia River and out to the rest of the continent… starting with making a one-way couplet out of the single-line rails along each side of the Columbia River out to the east.
They have a “bi-state coordination subcommittee” but that seems like an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy.
I think Metro is unique in that the MPO, JPACT, is ultimately an advisory committee to an elected regional planning body. There are arguments about the exact nature of that relationship, but it is important to realize that integrating Clark County into Metro is not simple. And the ability to really integrate transportation and land use planning is dependent on the independent elected leadership at Metro that is directly accountable to the voters, not local elected officials.
Hi, troll here (well, a lurker more than a troll); but I’ve been reading the comments, and I have to say that I think that Metro wouldn’t be able to expand over the river. I think that people in Clark County (though you may want them to) prefer their lifestyle. It isn’t just because housing costs force them over (I remember noting in a mall in Vancouver the price of some houses there–frequently more expensive than some of the ritzier homes here). It’s just a different political climate, and the people move there because it fits their own preferred lifestyle(non-portland-style living). All the controls that it seems many posters want to impose (it would be an imposition) run counter to the way Clark County residents want to live. Simply put, any attempt at that kind of control would be rebuffed violently (meaning viciously, not with actual physical violence). It seems appropriate for Portland to have Clark County as a relief valve-as a political valve or an alternate lifestyle.
Really, as a Portlander I would prefer to see people willingly accept this way of life than to be forced into it (which is sort of why Clark County exists).
Society, according to Webster is defined as “community bound together by common interests and standards”. Fascism, according to Webster is defined as “strict social regimentation”. If in that sense, socialism is the opposite of fascism, which political philosphy practices more social engineering? A community that organizes regional governmentation is more socialist than fascist. Who are these people who live in isolationist suburbs and complain about collectivist urban living?