Staff has released about 280 pages of meeting materials [here (PDF, 7MB) and here (PDF, 7MB)] in advance of Tuesday’s Task Force Meeting.
Headlines from the staff analysis:
- Upstream replacement bridge is not recommended for further study.
- Light Rail provides better long term performance than Bus Rapid Transit.
- Supplemental Bridge underperforms a Replacement Bridge on most evaluation factors.
Should be an interesting meeting.
62 responses to “CRC: Here We Go Again”
The outcome of this process was all but decided when the purpose and need set increasing traffic across the river as one of its goals. It doesn’t use those terms, but it makes it clear that the objective is accomodate increased traffic:
“Daily traffic demand over the I-5 crossing is projected to increase by 40 percent during the next 20 years,”
Can Portland absorb 40% more traffic from Clark County without dramatic changes in livability of its neighborhoods? I don’t think so.
There has been no consideration of measures that would reduce traffic volumes or even maintain them at their current level. A combination tolls designed to discourage unnecessary trips at peak hours, improved transit and car-pooling support and better land use in Clark County that reduced rural auto-dependent development would likely handle the real problem. But they would not meet a purpose and need statement that defines the problem as accommodating a 40% increase in automobile traffic from Clark County to Portland.
Any CRC proposal must be carbon neutral…no net increase in greenhouse gases.
Tolls on existing bridges to finance a light rail/bike/ped/local traffic bridge would meet this standard.
The original goals are clearly out of date and need to be scraped.
Speaking rather frankly, I really think this entire project has people in agreement on one thing: that this project will not solve the issue at hand. Just about everyone is divided about the issue any which way possible.
Let me guess, more money for some EIS. It seems that’s the way they do everything around here – study, study, study some more! Heck, they’re still throwing millions down the drain to study the dumb Newberg Dundee Bypass even after it’s officially DEAD.
Can Portland ignore the 40% more traffic from Clark County without adding and not dramatic changes in livability of its neighborhoods? I don’t think so.
One sure fire way to get a new CRC built sooner rather than later or not at all is to make it a light rail only addition. :)
[Moderator: Italics added for clarity. – B.R.]
One sure fire way to get a new CRC built sooner rather than later or not at all is to make it a light rail only addition. :)
Um, Kelly, which government agency is proposing or likely to propose a light rail-only addition?
And why would such a proposal either ensure a rapid construction timetable or none at all? Seems kind of self-contradictory, plus highly unlikely.
– Bob R.
Like any other project in the region, the Columbia Crossing Project has a political preconceived agenda. It has been a back door approach to get light rail across the river and into Vancouver ever since voters said thumbs down to funding it. A less costly solution to doing just that would have been to construct a new six lane crossing for I-5 through traffic only and utilize the ground level existing bridges for transit and local traffic. This option however was never fully considered.
Any CRC proposal that is adopted MUST include a complete cost breakdown of the price tag for each mode of travel, information that to my knowledge has yet to be released to the public but has been repeatedly asked for in detail. If tolling is to be part of the financial equation, then any tolling must be designed such that motorists and motor freight carriers pay ONLY the costs associated with the local match for the highway portions of the project. Freeloading bicyclists MUST then be tolled to pay for the bike/ped portion of the project, and light rail/transit passengers MUST accept TOTAL accountability of any local monies spent on the light rail portion be it through farebox surcharges and/or fare higher transit fares. If tolling occurs and it can not be done in such an equitable manner where ALL users justly and without mode discrimination pay their fair share, then tolling MUST be totally disregarded and thrown out as an option to pay for the crossing. Any local costs for bicycle infrastructure and transit infrastructure/operations MUST be paid directly by the users of those modes and must NOT be subsidized by non-users and/or motorists. Furthermore, when the project is paid off, any tolling must be eliminated.
Freeloading bicyclists
Thanks for that, Terry, you are nothing if not consistent.
– Bob R.
If tolling is to be part of the financial equation, then any tolling must be designed such that motorists and motor freight carriers pay ONLY the costs associated with the local match for the highway portions of the project. Freeloading bicyclists MUST then be tolled to pay for the bike/ped portion of the project, and light rail/transit passengers MUST accept TOTAL accountability of any local monies spent on the light rail portion be it through farebox surcharges and/or fare higher transit fares
Terry, as far as I know there isn’t a tollway anywhere on earth that has adopted that sort of pricing structure. If you know of one that has, point it out. To state so emphatically it MUST be done that way when, so far, nobody else ever has, is bizarre at very the least.
Ross is right: adopt peak-hour tolling on the existing bridges at levels that will damp down current demand, and a lot of things change. Why not go for a solution that pays for itself instead of one that costs a fortune?
Not trying to add fuel to the fire, but are motorists directly paying 100% to cover the costs for corporate tax credits and kickbacks that benefit auto makers, gas companies, etc.? Are they paying 100% of the cost of building new roads now?
There was a memo at one of the last Sellwood Bridge CTF meeting that said if the Sellwood was the only bridge that was tolled, most of the money would go to administrative costs associated with collecting the tolls. If all the non-freeway bridges crossing the Willamette were tolled, then traffic would simply increase going over the freeway bridges which would not be tolled since the County would have no authority to toll them. It seems people will do anything to save a buck… even if they have to spend 95 cents to save that buck.
The days of when people lived and worked within walking distance of everything are gone. People are traveling further to make less money. This isn’t the early 1900s when traveling from Gresham to Hillsboro was probably a pleasure trip.
My opinion, you don’t want it.
But, why not a 3+3 bridge? 3 “Express” lanes, from Columbia to Fourth Plain, no exits. Make them HOT (high-occupancy, aka carpool, or toll) to pay for it. Allow Mill Plain to MLK to use the “Local” (+3) lanes, and have a one lane merge to I-5?
It’s worked in other areas, local traffic passes the people who try to use the bypasses, and allows local and through traffic a chance.
For Portland, how about a 2+3+2 bridge? 2 “local”, 3 “bypass”, and 2 LRT lanes. It’s a similar complexity to the current CRC option, but it’s basically a new Interstate Bridge, 2 local “arterial” lanes each way, and LRT/pedestrian facilities both directions.
It would move the I-5 bottleneck to south of MLK, where the real N Portland mixer begins anyway. It’s an option, at least.
I don’t think there’s a real Silver Bullet for Portland, but combined choices help.
There was a memo at one of the last Sellwood Bridge CTF meeting that said if the Sellwood was the only bridge that was tolled, most of the money would go to administrative costs associated with collecting the tolls. If all the non-freeway bridges crossing the Willamette were tolled, then traffic would simply increase going over the freeway bridges which would not be tolled since the County would have no authority to toll them.
I think tolling some Willamette bridges but not others could work as long as the tolls are collected electronically (meaning no stopping) and are fairly low. To the extent that shunpikes jam the untolled bridges, the fairly clear traffic on the tolled bridges will be an incentive to other motorists to use them — as long as the tolls aren’t high. I can see going six or eight blocks out of my way to save $2, but I wouldn’t do it to save a quarter — especially when I don’t need to physically dig it out of my pocket. (And depending on my mood and how busy my evening was, I might be willing to spend two bucks to avoid a traffic jam on the free bridge.)
I’m not sure what my price point is; it depends on the length of the detour and the amount of traffic jamming the free bridge. Obviously, everyone on the road will have a different price point, including people who will bend over backward to avoid paying any tolls ever. If the tolls were variable and demand-responsive, I suspect optimum pricing would work itself out over time.
If all the non-freeway bridges crossing the Willamette were tolled, then traffic would simply increase going over the freeway bridges which would not be tolled since the County would have no authority to toll them.
County Maintained Bridges:
Broadway
Burnside
Morrison
Hawthorne
Sellwood
ODOT Maintained Bridges:
St. Johns (U.S. 30 Bypass)
Fremont (I-405/U.S. 30)
Steel (Oregon 99W) (However PDOT maintains the approach spans, so it’s possible Portland could get away with a toll here.)
Marquam (I-5)
Ross Island (U.S. 26)
As you can see only half of the downtown bridges are county maintained, and the Sellwood but not the St. Johns.
I’m not sure what my price point is; it depends on the length of the detour and the amount of traffic jamming the free bridge.
If we’re going to toll, let’s make it enough to add lanes for the tolls. San Diego’s I-15 project has made HOT (high occupancy/toll) lanes show they can make money, if there’s demand.
Why not expand some bridges, maybe the CRC for example, in the build process. Make the toll payers pay a big chunk. The Feds will kick in most of the rest, even for a tollway.
Use the toll money to pay for the express lanes, and make the local lanes free. It moves traffic more effectively over the spans, adds lanes, but makes you pay (thus reducing traffic) in the express lanes (AKA 2 through lanes, physically separated from the local lanes that have the exits).
I might support tolling of the Broadway Bridge though, provided funds raised go partially to a new bridge between the Fremont and the St. Johns Bridges.
Make the toll payers pay a big chunk. The Feds will kick in most of the rest, even for a tollway.
Use the toll money to pay for the express lanes, and make the local lanes free.
One difficulty here is that most traffic is getting off the freeway somewhere. In a sense, all traffic is local. It is a question of local to where. And if the local streets are congested, as they are in Portland, then you are simply shifting the burden from the people who choose to commute long distances from rural Clark County onto the neighborhoods where folks who choose to live close to work are living.
The other difficulty, is that the Feds will only “kick in” so much for transportation improvements in the region. So if you use that money to create toll lanes for those who can, and will, pay for the privilege of using them, then you are not paying for other facilities that are open to anyone.
If you want to use tolls to build new auto facilities, the tolls should cover the full cost. And whenever that is proposed, it becomes apparent that the potential users don’t value the new facility enough to fully pay for it. Instead, you have to take money away from building facilities that are open to everyone.
They can’t be inconsistent with tolling. It’s either toll everything or toll nothing at all. If you only have SOME of the bridges toll then people will just go where there isn’t a toll.
Greg – even in New York City, there are some bridges/tunnels that are tolled, and some that are not.
On the Columbia River, there are tolled bridges and non-tolled bridges, it’s all a matter of how far you are willing to drive. If you’re a resident of White Salmon and wanting to get to Hood River, you can pay the 75 cents to drive across the Hood River Bridge, or you can drive east to The Dalles and use the U.S. 197 bridge (which is free but it’s roughly 22 miles east – about two gallons of gas for a round trip).
Same with the Willamette River further south – you can pay a toll to use the Wheatland (or Canby, or Buena Vista) Ferries, or drive to a free bridge at Wilsonville (I-5), Newberg (Oregon 219), Salem (Oregon 22/221), Independence (River Road), or Albany (U.S. 20).
I guess one could even argue that the concept is very true here in Portland, even though we don’t toll roads – you can choose to drive to downtown and pay for parking, park at a park-and-ride (free parking) but pay a bus/MAX fare, or pay bus/MAX fare from your home. If you work for a company that pays for your transit pass (as does mine) then transit is effectively “free”, but there are other considerations (like my 25 minute scheduled bus trip today that took an hour and a half, required two busses instead of one, two scheduled busses never showed up, and I was denied boarding on three other busses – thank you, TriMet!). How much of TriMet’s ridership can be attributed to Fareless Square? If TriMet instituted a fare downtown, what would the ridership impact be? If Portland Streetcar mandated a toll, how much ridership would be impacted? (I find it ironic that Streetcar should be given a free pass…I guess it’s OK to force TriMet’s general ridership to subsidize the Portland Streetcar, but not OK for all of the United States to subsidize I-5 (since it is a federal-aid highway and receives most of its funding through the federal gas tax). Seems like this should be a call to require a boarding fare on Streetcar for “funding equality”.)
And in cities that have competiting transit services (i.e. bus and commuter rail) that are often operated by separate entities they have different fare structures – one could pay a lesser fare (usually for a longer trip) or pay more for the express ride.
If Multnomah County opted to toll the downtown bridges, it would likely create a rush towards the ODOT maintained bridges that would be toll-free. While it might be a boon for the Sellwood Bridge area, it would create significant congestion on Powell and on the Ross Island Bridge (not that it isn’t already congested!!) or encourage more trips on Macadam Boulevard (Oregon 43) from Oregon City/West Linn. It would also encourage more local use of I-5/Marquam Bridge, especially southbound from Morrison. It would also force the region to ask what the Steel Bridge’s role should be, especially when the 99 year lease expires, and if Union Pacific demands that a governmental body purchases the bridge (or refuses to renew the lease, which would force the government to condemn the bridge and pay UP “market price” for it.)
Another wrinkle is with eastside approach spans that include ramps on/off of I-5/I-84 – exactly where do you institute the toll? Those ramps are still part of the state highway system, so are you only tolled if you cross the lift span? Where are the tollbooths installed – or must everyone have an electronic transponder? Or will we use London style tolling, where a fleet of roving camera trucks will photograph everyone’s license plate and send you a bill in the mail (or permanent cameras mounted on the bridges)?
I think the answer is to put GPS enabled cellular transponders on all vehicles in Oregon. Toll them based on how many miles driven and also use this information to generate speeding tickets or even to pay for parking! This system would probably generate a whole lot of revenue and also cut costs as well. They could put RFID in TriMet passengers and track them in a similar fashion. Of course there would be some people to object to such an Orweillian system so offer them a discount if they agree to be tracked and charge non-compliant people a premium for doing it the old school way. Debit their account right when they board the bus and just imagine how incredibly accurate the daily boarding stats. would be!?!
If Multnomah County opted to toll the downtown bridges, it would likely create a rush towards the ODOT maintained bridges that would be toll-free. While it might be a boon for the Sellwood Bridge area, it would create significant congestion on Powell and on the Ross Island Bridge (not that it isn’t already congested!!) or encourage more trips on Macadam Boulevard (Oregon 43) from Oregon City/West Linn.
As I mentioned earlier, this depends entirely on how high the tolls are. High tolls will have that effect, but seriously — how far out of your way are you willing to go to save 50 cents? I can see people doing it out of protest at first, but after a while you’re going to realize you’re just hurting yourself — spending an extra ten or fifteen minutes in traffic each day to save a buck. Even at minimum wage, your time is worth more than that.
If the point of a hypothetical “County bridge authority” is to raise money to keep the bridges maintained in perpetuity, low tolls should guarantee fairly high use and sufficient revenues to get the job done over time.
GT: Your idea would probably reduce congestion a bit from the people deciding it’s not worth living in Oregon or any other state that does it.
That, and it would be difficult to enforce on out of state residents, like commuters from Washington. I don’t see a reasonable way to enforce it against them without spending billions on cameras to track their every move statewide.
Jim Howell has a good letter in the Oregonian this morning about the CRC.
I think Kelly is right: if the only project under consideration were a light rail bridge to Vancouver, Oregonians could get behind it. The cost would be low, it would not exacerbate global warming, and it would not induce traffic in Portland.
What will it take for Portland area politicians to wake up? Certainly Kulongoski doesn’t really care about global warming if he is unwilling to appoint a TriMet Board that can take on the CRC in a responsible fashion (as opposed to the “trickle down” approach in which transit begs for scraps at the table). Potter should consider removing Sam from head of PDOT if Sam doesn’t come around and support the “no build” option in the current project, and then start working toward something that will benefit our kids.
Jim Howell’s other letter, in Tuesday’s Tribune, points the way, suggesting a coordinated multi-modal transit network.
I am also beginning to come around toward supporting tolls and congestion pricing. As a transit advocate, I always thought it was about providing choices, not cramming transit down the throat of the auto-dependent. However, I think that if tolls can keep congestion down, then motorists may find that they prefer that to the current approach. Why don’t we start with the bridges across the Columbia?
I think the FHWA should just step in, build a bridge however they see fit and quit listening to any more Portland NIMBY bickering and build the bridge already!
Jim is right on. The ’97 bridge closure campaign demonstrated that we can manage the bridge if we try. $4 plus Billion to get us to just about where are now is simply lunacy.
Tolls and an arterial bridge with LRT/Bike/Ped, fits into the new global reality. I hope Sam and Rex are listening. Time to kill the CRC as it stands.
I think the FHWA should just step in, build a bridge however they see fit and quit listening to any more Portland NIMBY bickering and build the bridge already!
Absolutely! Why should we Portlanders get to decide how our city develops and grows? Better the Feds make such decisions for us.
I think the issue is settled in terms of this process. The next opportunity to redirect the process is in the discussion of where this project is on a list of regional priorities. The fact that a very long process ended with no real acceptable solution to the problems identified ought to put this very low on the list of projects for federal funding.
But there has always been pork-barrel component to the huge new bridge. Its a lot of money and money means both jobs and business in the construction industry. Because there will be politicians from two states working it, it is going to be high on the list.
The leadership that is needed now is to make sure the project is prioritized based on the real transportation needs in the region. If it is, it will never be funded.
Absolutely! Why should we Portlanders get to decide how our city develops and grows? Better the Feds make such decisions for us
I’m glad that we can agree on that! More than just Portlanders use the bridge, that’s why it’s called “THE INTERSTATE BRIDGE”. Interstate 5 is a major supply chain arterial for the entire west coast and Portland’s infamous NIMBYism is holding everyone who depends on it hostage. Personally I would rather see an entire Willamette Valley bypass starting somewhere south of Eugene and going around all the major cities before joining back up with I5 in the Centralia area.
“Personally I would rather see an entire Willamette Valley bypass starting somewhere south of Eugene and going around all the major cities before joining back up with I5 in the Centralia area.”
That makes sense to me!
Ross, you seem to be giving very little credit to the Metro Council, the Portland City Council, or the Multnomah County Commission, when you say the “issue is settled.”
Couldn’t any one of them bring the project to a screaming halt? They will all need to hold hearings before approving a “locally preferred alternative” so I would think there is still time for the democratic process to work.
Do you have the sense that it has already been “wired” at these deliberative bodies?
Greg, you missed the sarcasm in my post.
But since you offered up an alternative…
Bypasses around Salem and Eugene have already been built once; that would be Interstate 5. A bypass around Portland was also built; that would be I-205. The cities expanded out to the bypasses. So now we’re bypassing the bypasses?
The bulk of the traffic in the CRC project area is local; through trips make up a small percentage of the peak traffic loads. A new freeway bridge only means more cars on Portland’s streets. I disagree with the idea that the Feds have the right to inflict that on me and my neighbors.
So what’s the point of bypassing major cities? Those are the destinations people are most likely traveling to and where the bulk of shipped goods are headed.
Do you have the sense that it has already been “wired” at these deliberative bodies?
No, I wouldn’t go that far. I just think it will be very difficult for any of them to stand in the way of a four billion dollar pork-barrel project that has gone through this long a process. At some point the project needs to be killed, but I suspect a quiet death is more likely than a screaming halt.
I don’t think the CRC process had to reach a point where you have an unacceptable solution as the only alternative left. But it has reached that point. And even if this were the best possible solution, it is so inadequate to its purpose that it is not a very high priority for funding. The region has many other transportation needs and much better proposals for meeting those needs. That means any further action on the freeway bridge is going to have to wait another decade.
In the meantime, I would hope the two cities would look at local bridge options to better connect Vancouver and Portland. That might allow transit alternatives to move forward more quickly, as well as providing pedestrian, bike and local traffic alternatives.
he cities expanded out to the bypasses. So now we’re bypassing the bypasses?
I think the whole problem is that people want an uncongested freeway and the best way to get that is to not have anyone use it. But freeways really do provide a lot of opportunities which people inevitably take, filling the empty freeway and leaving people to dream of another bypass.
There was a recent story on one of the national business web sites about how Longview WA is one of the places where real estate continues to boom, driven by inexpensive housing for commuters to Portland. I mention it, because the suggestion has been made for another “bypass” that would make Longview even more desirable for people who want to commute to Portland. And, of course, add to the region’s traffic.
“Potter should consider removing Sam from head of PDOT if Sam doesn’t come around and support the “no build” option in the current project, and then start working toward something that will benefit our kids.”
Personally, I suspect it is more the other way around, Sam should remove [irrelevant] Potter from the City so that Sam can support a “no build” option on the current project…
I would hope the two cities would look at local bridge options to better connect Vancouver and Portland. That might allow transit alternatives to move forward more quickly, as well as providing pedestrian, bike and local traffic alternatives.
Is this realistic in light of the current process? Personally, I’d love to see Portland and Vancouver just go ahead with it: plan and build an arterial bridge with two or four traffic lanes, plus light rail (shared with buses).
Once the bridge has entered the planning stages, it could force a change in the whole CRC process, since their underlying assumptions would have to change. But it seems like an end run, and in a region that’s striving for interjurisdictional cooperation in planning, I wonder if that’s politically viable.
There’s also the question of how to pay for it.
What do you mean, Matthew, by suggesting that Potter is preventing Sam Adams from supporting the “no build” option? Isn’t Sam the one representing the City of Portland on the CRC? Why doesn’t he come out against the highway expansion? How can you blame Potter for Sam’s reticence on this issue?
If Sam took the leadership, held a hearing, etc. he should be able to get all five on the Council to vote for the “no build” which would shut down the project, since it will require local government approval. After all, Portland shut down the Mt. Hood freeway once the Council decided to look seriously at the consequences.
I have lobbied Sam on the CRC options, and as far as I can tell he is completely on-board with the big bridge.
I’m not entirely sure why. Sam and I agree 99% of the time on transportation stuff, but not on this issue.
I don’t think the rest of City Council has engaged on this issue.
I think the time to fight is when the funding packing is put together. I think the rest of the EIS process is probably a forgone conclusion.
Is this realistic in light of the current process?
No. I don’t think it is. It only becomes realistic once this process has finished and probably not then. I said “hope” for a reason.
it seems like an end run, and in a region that’s striving for interjurisdictional cooperation in planning, I wonder if that’s politically viable.
I think it is if people conclude that the CRC project is out of reach. Any bridge is going to require cooperation between the two cities. But I don’t know what other jurisdictions, besides Trimet, would have a claim on a purely local project.
There’s also the question of how to pay for it.
Tolls? One of the difficulties with any local bridge solution is that it can create its own local traffic problems if it gets turned into a commuter route. Tolls might be necessary to manage commuter traffic in any case.
I don’t know what other sources of funding they might find. In the end, a proposal for a one or more local bridges could just push the CRC project off the table.
I think it is important to remember that there are some powerful and influential people who have spent several years working on this project. It is going to be tough for any community leader or group of community leaders to tell them they failed and it was a waste of their time.
Its a little like one of those shop projects kids used to do in school. The thing didn’t really work and it was really just junk. But no one threw it in the trash. It just kind of sat around until everyone forgot about it. We can hope that is what happens with the CRC project.
I think the time to fight is when the funding packing is put together.
Chris – so when and where does that happen? Who needs to approve it? And what other projects will get shoved off the table to make room for it?
Chris – so when and where does that happen? Who needs to approve it? And what other projects will get shoved off the table to make room for it?
Who – every jurisdiction it touches, including Metro, Multnomah County and the City of Portland.
What – It will certainly include a combination of federal dollars and tolls. It’s not clear if other local capital sources will also be required (if the toll is set high enough, maybe not). I think the opposition equation would be to combine opponents of tolls (the polling shows tolls will be an uphill battle) with environment opposition and maybe add a measure of fear, uncertainty and doubt about tolling I-205 as well (which any rationale regime would seem to require, but which I have been told is precluded by current federal policy which requires new capacity to trigger a toll).
In terms of opposition, you shouldn’t leave out the folks in Vancouver who see this whole process as a Trojan Horse for light rail. :)
tolling I-205 as well (which any rationale regime would seem to require, but which I have been told is precluded by current federal policy which requires new capacity to trigger a toll).
If they don’t toll I-205 and set the tolls high enough on I5 to pay the entire local match, they might as well start on the study for a new I-205 bridge. Because I-205 is going to be completely clogged along with Sandy, the Banfield and Columbia Boulevard.
No new automobile bridges over the Columbia! Have you seen the plans for the highway that is proposed to go with this mega-monster bridge? They propose to pave Forest Park, then run right by Vancouver Lake on huge huge pilings. NOTHING is worth these sacrifices, especially when the Vancouver voters keep rejecting light rail. Besides, they can pay tolls out of their huge savings on property taxes, if they’re so bent on favoring our airshed with their wastes.
elee –
I think you are confusing proposals. The new CRC bridge doesn’t go anywhere near Forest Park or Vancouver Lake. Its bad enough, but not that bad.
I think the only elected who could put the brakes on the CRC is Blumenauer, and his operatives told me to “f**k off” whenever I questioned the “big bridge solution” during the Governors’ I-5 TF. Earl doesn’t always walk the talk. Maybe things have change; let’s hope so.
Earl’s rhetoric has changed a little bit. The last statement I heard is that he was looking for “local consensus” to form.
If by that he means “consensus across the River,” good luck. The I-5 TF split down the middle, 10-10, on the arterial bridge option, with Metro, ODOT and the Port the only “no votes” from the Oregon side. Had Andy C. voted the other way, I’m not sure the “6-2-2” option would have gotten any farther in the current campaign, but it would have had “recommended” status. Sam’s former boss, seconded the motion to recommend the “6-2-2” option. I wonder what she thinks now.
In the time of global warming, energy dependence, the Iraq war, etc. its hard to understand how a mega road project like this has any traction, even if it does include MAX.
Earl is not going to interfere with the local decision making. He may not be willing to carry the project, but he probably won’t have to.
Part of what makes this particular pork-barrel project attractive on the Oregon side is that Oregon doesn’t have to use its political chips to get it. Rep. Brian Baird and Sen. Patty Murray from Washington will do that. And Murray is in a good position for the task.
That does not mean that the region can have the CRC and fix Highway 217 and build MAX to Milwaukie and develop a greenway connector for Damascus and … This project will likely suck the federal transportation well dry for a number of years. And once the damage from the CRC is apparent, there will not be a lot of resources to manage the consequences to Portland from all that new traffic.
One other thing that needs to be considered. Can we see some leadership out of Washington County and Clackamas County? The reality is both of them have really bought into the regional plan with regional centers.
The CRC is proposing a massive subsidy to Clark County that is really going to detract from suburban property values and development on the Oregon side of the river. It may be the region has reached a point where the suburbs have a bigger stake in the success of the regional plan than Portland does.
Clark County auto-dependent sprawl doesn’t really serve anyone. And investing in encouraging that type of development makes little sense to anyone aside from real estate speculators.
If they go through with this monstrosity of a bridge they should also add a couple more lanes to I-5 from Eugene to Tumwater, WA. Maybe we could call the eventual new city conglomerate the Eugsaportcouver Metropolitan Area.
Clark County auto-dependent sprawl doesn’t really serve anyone. And investing in encouraging that type of development makes little sense to anyone aside from real estate speculators.
No, Clark County auto-dependant sprawl doesn’t serve YOU, therefore you have no desire to support it just as you have no interest in supporting proper investment in the bus service that serves the Tri-County Metropolitan Transit District of Oregon – but you have no problem demanding that everyone pays for your precious MAX and Streetcar lines.
Just as I don’t use MAX on a regular basis – but you don’t see me calling out that it’s an unfair subsidy — my only beef is that while MAX gets subsidized through the roof, the rest of the Metro area that depends on the bus system gets the shaft. (Then again, if you’re on the “winning” side of it, I guess you don’t care who you screw over. Don’t ask me to help you out if you’re in a bind.)
If we aren’t going to “subsidize” Clark County, then I insist that we stop the direct subsidization of any development project, and that includes the South Waterfront and the Pearl District. While we’re at it, let’s eliminate the PDC as well. And roll back all of the tax freezes so that those districts then have to pay the back taxes that they got off of paying (which the rest of us have had to subsidize).
Maybe then, we’ll have properly maintained streets; and real estate speculators won’t prey on Portland to jack up housing prices so that more Portlanders can afford housing in this city. With less demand, the demand upon our transportation system will start to flatline or possibly decrease. And then our “investment” in transportation will only be to maintain what we have – and we will have no need to build any new infrastructure, thus releasing precious money to improve other facets of our public property – like parks, schools, libraries, police and fire protection, and so on.
Erik,
Portland has become one of the most unaffordable places to live in America. Most people in Portland are paying over 50% of their income to live there. I don’t think this is livable or sustainable. To add to that, they’re chasing away big companies and the whole economy has all its eggs in basket. Just think what would happen if a big company like Intel decided to move its manufacturing to China or India. It’s just a matter of time it will eventually all come crashing down and Portland, OHSU, PDC and probably even Metro will be filing for bankruptcy.
Greg,
I manage to live quite comfortably in Portland without spending over 50% of my income on housing by adjusting my expectations about housing. In other words, I live in a reasonable “urban” footprint.
What is not sustainable is demanding large amounts of housing (and other) resources that are scarce in urban areas, and then complaining when paying for that amount of resources is beyond your means.
But…back to transportation. Another aspect of urban living is making lifestyle adjustments that reflect the available amenities. You might pay less for housing in a rural setting, but you end up spending more on transportation etc. So, spending more on housing in an urban setting can be offset by taking advantage of public transportation and other amenities. Where people get in a crunch, money-wise, is when they try to import suburban and rural style activities into an urban area.
Most people in Portland are paying over 50% of their income to live there.
Where did you find this information? I’m curious to see the report. Please provide a link to your source.
So, spending more on housing in an urban setting can be offset by taking advantage of public transportation and other amenities.
Precisely; after moving to 36th & Hawthorne I got rid of my car and was then spending 11% of my pre-tax income on rent and transportation combined. When I lived in Far Southwest, I was spending 45% of my pre-tax income (or more) on rent, car, insurance, gas, and maintenance.
No, Clark County auto-dependant sprawl doesn’t serve YOU, therefore you have no desire to support it just as you have no interest in supporting proper investment in the bus service that serves the Tri-County Metropolitan Transit District of Oregon – but you have no problem demanding that everyone pays for your precious MAX and Streetcar lines.
Erik – if you are referring to me, you are wrong all your points. I strongly support improved bus service, I just don’t think your personal bus service is necessarily the priority.
But you have been told that before. Its not that you are ignorant of the investments that have been made in bus service around the region, it is that you willfully profess ignorance of those improvements here so that you can pretend they didn’t happen.
Putting this back on topic. There is no reason that there can’t be immediate improvements in transit service from Clark County to Oregon except the lack of political commitment to providing it. Light rail across the river is not going to make a dent in traffic if it isn’t suppported by transit service on the Washington side of the river. And the current lack of commitment transit ought to make promises of future improvements suspect.
The promise was made for increased transit service when Delta Park was approved during the last CRC study. Those promises were followed by dramatic cutbacks in service that have yet to be restored.
Just as promises were made to support land use changes in Washington that would reduce the sprawling auto-dependent development in rural Clark County. Instead, the County voted to open huge new areas to development.
Any expansion in the freeway across the river will spur another round of freeway expansions in Clark County to serve the new areas they have now opened to development. Because without those freeways, those areas won’t develop. You can’t do transit oriented development in rural communities.
So, spending more on housing in an urban setting can be offset by taking advantage of public transportation and other amenities
Amenities? You consider being tightly crammed into a railcar an amenity? :)
Cora, and what do you do to buy back all your wasted time riding in an uncomfortable crowded smelly bus, MAX or Streetcar? Or the being harassed everywhere you go by vagrants wanting money?
That was my experience in Portland. When I first moved to Lloyd Center my rent was $775 and then 6 months later it jumped to over $900 and the final increase 18 months after I moved to Portland was going to have me at $1200 a month. To top it off, the greedy city took away the residential parking permit program and I had to then pay even more to house my car. I said forget it and moved out to the country and traded in my 2001 GMC Jimmy and bought a giant 2008 Silverado pickup. I’m undoing all my time and money wasted in Portland while I had a shrunken carbon footprint. Absolutely my transportation costs have risen but not nearly as much as the outlandish and increasinly expensive living costs for living in your very cramped so called “livable” urban quarters. I do love certain aspects of Portland (i.e. Symphonies, Night Life, History Museum and Art Museum) but I grew very claustrophobic being there all the time, especially all the noises of cars, ambulances, fire trucks, police cars, trains, etc. I also grew tired of always having to clean the grime off my windows frequently since Portland is so polluted. Now when I want to go to downtown Portland I just drive to Salem and take Amtrak up from there. It’s very convenient and Amtrak is much more comfortable than the TriMet system. Last weekend I met my friend from Hillsboro downtown. She rode the MAX and I rode Amtrak. I even beat here there even though I went my further distance!
Greg,
I think you missed the point. By keeping your vehicle, you didn’t fully take advantage of the transportation savings.
Likewise, there are other housing options other than living in brand new developments that charge premium rents. My friend lived in a Lloyd Center area apartment in an older building and had two bedrooms for less than $800 a month. What you were paying for was status, not amenities.
While it does take me slightly longer to commute by bus on low traffic days, on high traffic days I spend less time on the bus than I would in my car driving. And, I don’t consider it wasted time. I get to listen to music and spend time with my husband.
Likewise, it’s infinitely more convenient to commute from my office on the South Waterfront to downtown. (I usually take the 35 to downtown,and on the return trip take whatever bus is available to 1st and Harrison then walk or take the streetcar the rest of the way.) This is especially true with parking removed from the equation.
To bring it back around to the actual subject, we’re fighting similar perceptions with the CRC project. Suburban Vancouverites currently aren’t able to alter their habits to suit their environment. We shouldn’t be building to accommodate their shortcomings. We should be building the project the type and amount of traffic we would like to see, not the type that is currently demanded by populations that have intentionally opted out of our community standards and composition.
Well the phenomena of big bad Vancouver suburban sprawl wouldn’t be an issue if Oregon embraced, rather than took a hostile view toward growth and devlopment. What is Oregon’s loss is Washington’s gain when it comes to this. If Oregon embraced growth we would focus on improving freeways and transportation infrastructure all around in and around the area so people didn’t flee to Vancouver for “cheaper” living. I would like to see them take the money for this bridge project and instead widen I5 south through Wilsonville and to Salem so more growth would happen within Oregon instead of forcing it northward into Washington where its a lose lose for everyone.
What you were paying for was status, not amenities
And BTW, I don’t consider Cornerstone Apartments to be a status. Definitely not worth $1200 for a 685 square foot apartment! They weren’t exactly “new” either. I did, however, like the conveniences of having Lloyd Center Mall a couple of blocks away and Chipotle right across the street. Now my nearest Chipotle is 30 miles away!
http://www.cornerstoneaptsportland.com/
looks like rent went down. also i would consider those to be higher end apartments.
also i would consider those to be higher end apartments
You’re kidding right? Then I would really hate to see what is “normal” or not “higher end” in Portland. I really think marginally nicer places are to be found in Beaverton. When I lived in Beaverton I stayed in the LaSalle apartments near Nike and those were so-so but much more spacious than anything in Portland.
Well, they have a fountain, a conference room, and a fitness center … so that puts them above-average, anyway.
I know someone who lives in the LaSalle apartments — they’re located right at a MAX station. I’m glad that still qualifies as “marginally nicer”, if only “so-so”.
– Bob R.
Well, if those are marginally nice, and that’s really only so-so, I’d hate to see what you think of my house…let alone the apartments I lived in before. Heck, either of those options seem like resort housing compared to the places I lived during college.
Perspective…is everything.
Let me guess you went to college in a big city. I went to college in a small town in Oregon called Newberg, perhaps you’ve heard of it?