In the last few weeks we’ve seen dueling op-eds on the Columbia River Crossing project:
In support: Burkholder, Achterman, Hansen
Replacing the Interstate 5 bridges over the Columbia River will be the single largest public works project in Oregon history. Getting to where we are today has taken the better part of a decade, tens of millions of dollars for analysis and outreach and thousands of hours from public officials, and citizens providing advice and comment.
All this effort has made it obvious that the existing bridges are functionally and structurally broken and must be replaced. As we design a new bridge, we should strive to create a visual signature of this vital international crossroads that reflects the importance of I-5 to our economy and the central place of the Columbia in our region’s history.
In opposition: Ron Buel
The trio admits that it is a “valid concern” that greenhouse gas emissions will increase with the proposed bridge because 40 percent of such emissions are caused by fossil fuel for vehicle transportation. But these environmentalists blithely sweep aside the true impact of the 12-lane bridge they are promoting. That impact is a 40 percent increase by 2030 in vehicle-miles traveled over the crossing. That means more than a 40 percent increase in global warming pollution with any of the alternatives the bridge task force is proposing.
To be on track to meet standards passed by the Oregon and Washington legislatures, a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is required by 2030.
0 responses to “CRC Point/Counter-Point”
“Getting to where we are today has taken the better part of a decade, tens of millions of dollars for analysis and outreach and thousands of hours from public officials, and citizens providing advice and comment.
All this effort has made it obvious that the existing bridges are functionally and structurally broken and must be replaced”(Rex Burkholder).
Getting to where we are today has taken the better part of a decade and tens of millions of dollars to sell a preconceived notion concocted by Washington and Oregon highway builders (WSDOT and ODOT) that a brand new freeway bridge over the Columbia River is absolutely necessary.
Millions have been spent by these agencies to skillfully guide a hand picked group of public officials and citizens, the 39 member CRC Task Force, over several years of misleading analysis and advice to persuade them to come together and agree with them.
They will succeed, but will they come to the correct conclusion – or, is this a classic example of the power of “groupthink”?
Groupthink is a concept that refers to faulty decision-making in a group. Groups experiencing groupthink do not consider all alternative and they desire unanimity, usually under considerable pressure, at the expense of quality decisions.
I suggest everyone “Google” “Groupthink “ for further insight into this concept.
“But these environmentalists blithely sweep aside the true impact of the 12-lane bridge they are promoting. That impact is a 40 percent increase by 2030 in vehicle-miles traveled over the crossing.”
Who says that all those vehicle miles aren’t going to be traveled whether a new bridge is created or not? Commerce will still happen, goods will still be shipped, and people will still travel – new bridge or not. The only reason you wouldn’t see an increase of that size if the bridge isn’t built is because the current bridge doesn’t have capacity for a 5% increase, much less the projected 40%.
Oh, and how much emission spew would be left in downtown Vancouver and north Portland by all the trucks standing still on the freeway trying to get over the river? Is that better?
Technology marches on, and new vehicles emit way less exhaust today then they did 10 years ago. To say that building a new bridge is a bad idea because of the emissions makes about as much sense as saying that you shouldn’t get a broadband Internet connection due to the electromagnetic interference you’re causing from the electric pulses flowing through the wire.
Does it make more sense to reduce emissions through direct technological advancement of vehicle technology (hybrids, supercapacitor EVs, hydrogen fuel cells), or to strangle traffic by not upgrading the infrastructure for the traffic that IS coming regardless of whether you want it or not? Using my previous analogy, it makes way more sense to shield the cable or go fiber optic than it does to stay with a 56k analog modem until the end of time.
Please, if you’re opposed to this bridge project due to environmental reasons, drop the carbon boogeyman, and instead argue on some points that have salient meaning, such as the environmental impact to the river and wildlife itself of the 10 years of construction, massive concrete pouring operation, demolition of the old bridges (if necessary), who-knows-what chemical runoff, etc.
“Oh, and how much emission spew would be left in downtown Vancouver and north Portland by all the trucks standing still on the freeway trying to get over the river?”
1) This sentence pretty much invalidates all your other points.
2) Given that the bottleneck, (once they build the CRC,) will the 6 lanes of I-5 through N Portland, that section of the freeway will still be stopped at rush hour, so I’m not expecting it to get better, in fact the only place the air will be cleaner is on the bridge itself. Add to the fact that all the vehicles that currently fit on the bridge fit on I-5, so there isn’t a lot of spill over onto Vancouver/Williams, Interstate, MLK, or Greeley, but once they build a 12 lane CRC, those routes will fill up too, and you might have to just declare half of N Portland a disaster area because it isn’t safe to breath the air…
I hate to keep bringing this up but;
How many bridges can we build if we got out of Iraq and used that money for infrastructure?
Speaking of throwing away our tax money on everything besides what Americans need, you might want to check out how some of our tax money is being spent by our soldiers. (off topic i know but relevant anyway)
http://amargul.blogspot.com/2008/03/soldier-throws-puppy-off-cliff.html
90% of the time the bridges are fine; logistics people with a brain do not send freight in the peaks; congestion is caused by single occupancy vehicles with a ton of capacity in the passenger/rear seats. Hardly a $4.5Billion problem. The Governors’ I-5 Task Force split down the middle, 10-10, on the recommendation to include an arterial bridge with light rail option in the DEIS. The CRC group dropped the ball.
Buel in Oregon a 5 percent change in temperature, expected by 2050 if we don’t change current trends, would have a dramatic impact on our snowpack in the Cascades and our water supply. It would put much of the Oregon coast underwater with the melting of the Arctic icecap.
JK: It appears that Mr Buel has been listening to too much Al Gore and not actually reading the IPCC report. It thinks the most probable ocean rise is around one foot.
Of course, according to the world’s best data, the USHCN, the world has been cooling since 1998, the year tied with 1934 for the warmest year since the end of the little ice age 400 years ago.
PS: The arctic ice coverage is now above average.
Thanks
JK
Do you know what will really increase congestion along I-5? Bad as it is, the expansion of the CRC to a greater number of lanes, in itself, does not cause it. That would only be true if it attracts joyriders—and the novelty will wear off fast. Since when is a flat concrete bridge any great excitement?
What will cause congestion, particularly in North Portland and Vancouver is rapidly increasing business and residential infill. In other words if we –and I am really referring to Vancouver–start putting office towers and high rise condo projects along the main I-5 route there will be increased local traffic using the freeway. Especially if they want to make intraday business or personal trips to Portland. And along the freeway is an ideal place for businesses to locate if they want visibility from lots of customers. In Seattle as soon as you cross the Ship Canal Bridge–i.e., I-5–there is a looming tower to your right. Hard to miss and it belongs to SAFECO Insurance. That’s the kind of visibility I am talking about.
I grant, however, that city planning decisions can affect the outcome–but that’s a game with a lot of pressure players. If for some reason Vancouver decides the best place for high rise infill is along the I-5 corridor watch out. The cars will follow. The other factor in freeway congestion would simply be a general increase in population and corresponding business or industrial travel.
But, maybe, it doesn’t have to be this way. Maybe Vancouver can find other sites to encourage and zone for increased density. Close to I-205? Maybe; it’s close to PDX but further from DT Portland. My suggestion would be the Columbia waterfront, west of present DT Vancouver. This is close to AMTRAK–a great site if we hope to see interstate rail travel encouraged. And it isn’t that far from DT Portland or the Pearl District either. We do need a new bridge there. One that plays a substitutionary role for the crowded I-5 crossing–and which will for decades to come attract new traffic away from the overworked I-5 corridor.
Jim, for once I agree with you. The melting of the Arctic Icecap is a non-event as far as raising sea levels, and Buel shouldn’t have brought it up.
That said, his point still stands about Cascade snowpack and our water supply…
Ron, I’m no expert but I think you are wrong and right in your comment. I don’t think the “gee wiz look at the new bridge” factor will be the source of increased driving on I5. I think that increasing capacity will make Vancouver more viable as a larger bedroom community. I moved to Vancouver 5 years ago because I was basically priced out of Portland and at the time the drive/bus ride didn’t seem bad. (There was carpool lane both ways remember?) I have witnessed the ever growing numbers of people driving that rout everyday. At some point people will stop moving to Vancouver due to the commute thus reducing commuting distance. You are right that increased business development in Vancouver would have an impact but it will not create more traffic it will reduce it. If I could get a job similar to the one I have now I in Vancouver I would. You’d see more and more people doing this. Yes you might have more back and fourth trips during the day for client visits in Portland or vice versa but the commute would shrink. The bridges we have right now would handle that load.
As long as bustling Portland is a 20 minute (or hour or sometimes hour and half) drive away, Vancouver will be a bedroom community and many of those people will be driving to work in their cars every day. It’s a shame too. I have come to love Vancouver but it’s just a place to build houses and strip malls. A new stucco and brick Walgreen’s with a Blockbuster attached is not economic development.
JK and Mathew:
The point about the cascades stands. But Jim is still wrong, or deceptive about the icecap situation. The real concern for sea level rise comes not from the icecap which is ice is already in the water and would, as stated by Jim, not add much to the overall height of the sea. The more important melting ice is the Greenland Ice Sheet and the on land ice of the Antarctic. This is all water that is on land that runs into the ocean and thus ads to the sea height. This is a pretty standard way of selling the “GW Denier” point of view.
Comments about the CRC and Global Warming seem to be flowing into each other. Regarding the claim that melting of Arctic (far northern) ice will not raise sea levels, I found a National Geographic article claiming that melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet would raise the worlds oceans 23 feet. The last time I was in Greenland, we headed north from Boston, and from viewing the midnight sun in July, I concluded that I was indeed in the Arctic. Perhaps Ron Buel’s article could have been more tightly edited with respect to the phrase “arctic icecap”, but I don’t believe that his point about rising sea levels is invalid.
I understand there is a projection that building this behemoth would move the bottleneck down the freeway to the Rose Quarter/I-405 area. The distance from the bridge to that location is known. I understand there is also a projection of how many billions this bridge will cost.
Can someone provide these figures and then tell us the dollar cost for every foot or inch that the bottlenect gets moved?
Project cost $4.2B. CRC to Skidmore Street is 4.2 miles +/-. This is the 6-lane section that will be DOT’s next big widening push after the CRC is done. Mark my words.
Getting to where we are today has taken the better part of a decade and tens of millions of dollars to sell a preconceived notion concocted by Washington and Oregon highway builders (WSDOT and ODOT) that a brand new freeway bridge over the Columbia River is absolutely necessary.
If a rail cabal in Portland is so unthinkable, why is this idea that everyone involved in the CRC project is a hand picked shill so believable? Why must it be a preconceived notion, if nobody is conspiring against buses?
A new bridge is the inevitable position only because it’s the only option that addresses the proximity of access points, the lift spans, the congestion (in several ways, including LRT and the tolls) while following federal guidelines for how to evaluate an Interstate project.
And Unit: The expansion of I-5 from the Freemont to the CRC will not be a priority. The CRC only plans to end with three lanes into Delta Park, the other lanes will end before that at Marine Dr and Interstate Ave. The idea of the extra lanes is to connect Interstate, Marine, Jantzen Beach, SR-14, Downtown Vancouver, Mill Plain, Fourth Plain, and SR-500. It won’t provide any additional through capacity, but rather smooth out the conflicts through those interchanges.
Widening I-5 south of Delta Park to the Freemont Bridge would only make sense if the CRC was wider (say, 4 or 5 through lanes). The next action will be either fixing the ramps around the Freemont’s interchange with I-5, or widening I-5 from Killingsworth through the East Side to the Marquam.
“Widening I-5 south of Delta Park to the Freemont Bridge would only make sense if the CRC was wider (say, 4 or 5 through lanes).”
CRC is 5 or 6 lanes, so it is at least 4 through lanes…
http://www.columbian.com/opinion/news/2008/03/03042008_Our-readers-views.cfm
Dave,
A new bridge is not the only option that addresses the proximity of access points. Fixing the BNRR Bridge can eliminate the lift span problem. Congestion can be kept in check by reducing peak hour commuter traffic with tolling and better transit. Federal guidelines for how to evaluate an interstate project are irrelevant if the solution is not an interstate freeway project.
****If economists Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes are right in their recent calculations and this will turn out to be more than a $3 trillion war (or even a $5-7 trillion one), then the Bush administration was at least $2,940,000,000,000 off in its calculations.****
Let’s get the hell out of Iraq and start building bridges and streetcars!
The conservatives have NO argument against any of this as long as that war continues.
MachineShedFred said:
Please, if you’re opposed to this bridge project due to environmental reasons, drop the carbon boogeyman, and instead argue on some points that have salient meaning, such as the environmental impact to the river and wildlife itself of the 10 years of construction, massive concrete pouring operation, demolition of the old bridges (if necessary), who-knows-what chemical runoff, etc.
While I hardly agree the carbon issue is a “boogey man,” the cumulative negative impacts to water resources and fish and wildlife habitat certainly deserve more attention then they are getting in the CRC discussion.
It is clear that any solution involving a new bridge or retrofitting the existing bridges will have direct environmental impacts associated with stormwater run-off and fish and wildlife habitat in the immediate Columbia River channel. However these impacts must be kept in perspective. Adding new freeway lanes to Interstate 5 (especially the 10 to 12 lanes under proposal favored by CRC staff) will have cumulative environmental impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods and region. These landscape-scale impacts to natural resources and environmental quality are likely to be of far greater magnitude than those posed by the actual construction or retrofitting of bridges.
Research indicates that type and number of transportation options available in a metropolitan region shapes where and how development is likely to occur. Therefore investments in transportation infrastructure also exert direct and indirect impacts on regional water resources and biodiversity. Where there are few transportation alternatives to single occupant vehicles, evidence suggests there is little compulsion to depart from conventional, low-density development that has higher impacts on local and regional ecosystems as well as public health.
The failure to adequately assess and address these cumulative environmental and community impacts is certainly a major concern with the current CRC proposal.
Below is a link to Audubon Society of Portland’s comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) analysis last February:
http://www.urbanfauna.org/files/2.19.07AudubonSocietyofPortlandCommentsCRC.doc
Jim Labbe
Audubon Society of Portland
What can realistically be done to stop this project? Who are the decision makers that can be influenced? And is there an organized group that has been formed in opposition?
Blog talk is cheap. What can I do?
Jim Howell says,
“Fixing the BNRR Bridge can eliminate the lift span problem.”
I believe you have probably talked to Sharon Nassett about what can be done to fix the BNRR bridge. Indeed the S-curve for Channel navigation can be fixed—but don’t you think an emtirely new bridge would do much more, in the long run?
1. The rail system itself will need upgrading for future needs.
2. A new bridge there could take Interstate MAX across and connect it to the Amtrak station and link to a potential Vancouver Streetcar.
3. It would provide a route for any new mass transit sytem that links Vancouver to the evergrowing Pearl District and DT Portland.
4. It would provide another way (when combined with some modest improvements to Hwy 30 and Yeon Ave) for Washington travelers to get to US 26 westbound and also to westside Portland, without remaining on I-5 through North Portland.
5. It helps spread out high density development in Vancouver rather than concentrating it close to I-5.
Widening I-5 south of Delta Park to the Freemont Bridge would only make sense if the CRC was wider (say, 4 or 5 through lanes).
Which it is. 5 or 6 lanes means the potential for 4 to 5 through lanes. Only 1 auxiliary lane is absolutely needed. The others help traffic flow, but when the choice comes down to gobbling up a marginal aux lane vs. building another very expensive lane across a very wide river, which do you suppose they will do? Converting aux lanes into thru lanes is nothing but signs and markings.
As for the gentleman asking what he could do, the project meetings are listed on the Calendar at http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/
Otherwise, you can share your perspective with Portland city commissioners, Metro councilors, and state politicians, all who have a major role in this project.
It is NOT enough to plan for accommodating predicted traffic across the Columbia River. Who determines in inevitabe that in 30 years, there’ll be enough fuel of any kind to daily sustain that much traffic? General Motors? Exxon/Mobil? Citybank? Is it wise to cater to such alien interests whose corporate headquarters resides in who knows what international tax haven?
The planning of this bridge replacement must include the outcome of Clark County development that may result in its residents being able to divorce themselves of their neighbor to the south if this insanity of massive daily long-distance commuting must be cured. The inclusion of light rail is the only way Vancouver will ever amount to much other than a backwater dive. Hey Vancouveruns! Stay out of Oregon! Get your own jobs!
Wow Wells, last time I checked, both Oregon and Washington were part of the United States. The reason Vancouver is booming with suburban development is because Oregon makes it too difficult to build nice suburban subdivisions that people want. People want a big house on a big yard with a big car. You want less pressure on the I5 corridor and Clark Co.? Kill the UGB and allow the region to grow as the market dictates.
“Blog talk is cheap. What can I do?”
Well you could always follow the blazers and never think about any of this at all.
(or Oprah for that matter!)
If a rail cabal in Portland is so unthinkable, why is this idea that everyone involved in the CRC project is a hand picked shill so believable? Why must it be a preconceived notion, if nobody is conspiring against buses?
From the letter to the Oregonian written by Rex Burkholder, Fred Hansen and Gail Achterman:
Provide choices. Right now a car is about the only practical choice for a commuter or shopper who wants to cross the river. We know. We ride our bikes across these bridges, and it is scary and dangerous. Buses get stuck in the same traffic that affects cars and trucks. Light rail and improved bike and pedestrian facilities will provide viable choices that don’t exist today.
This statement, as I read it, suggests there is absolutely nothing that can be done to improve bus service, when in fact there are numerous, cost-effective projects that can improve/accelerate bus service, and keep busses from getting mired in traffic.
Before there was talk of “bus rapid transit” Seattle had freeway bus routes in which busses travel in HOV lanes with bus stops located on the freeways. On I-90 segments of the HOV lanes are separated by concrete barriers from the regular traffic lanes. On I-5 north of Seattle the bi-directional express lanes are separated from regular traffic, including using a dedicated lower deck of the bridge over the Ship Canal.
“Nobody is conspiring against busses”… Rex and Fred (and Gail) put it in black and white in the Editorial page of The Oregonian. Don’t tell me they support bus service, when they explicitly state they don’t, and back up their words with their financial support towards bus improvements. Show me exactly why busses won’t work on this project – especially given that C-Tran’s express busses will not be terminated upon the startup of light rail to Vancouver.
Erik,
C-Tran may not terminate their express buses but they should. Express buses – one trip to CBD – deadhead home – deadhead out – one trip back from CBD is a costly and inefficient way to run a bus system. I agree, C-Tran buses could help alleviate congestion and they need go no further than Hayden Island if an exchange were provided there with MAX. The trip from downtown Vancouver is only five minutes if the buses could bypass the congestion at the bridge on-ramps with low cost bypass lanes.
The resources C-Tran would save by not running express buses to Portland could be used to provide much needed local service. This would attract far more riders than their current system.
C-Tran may not terminate their express buses but they should. Express buses – one trip to CBD – deadhead home – deadhead out – one trip back…
That’s not how their express service works, save for the 41-Camas/Washougal Limited, 47-Battle Ground Limited, and 190-Marquam Hill Express (which, as I understand, OHSU pays quite a bit of the operational expenses for). The other routes (44, 65, 105, 134, 157, 164, 177, and 199), run bi-directional service during rush hour. Heading, for example, from Vancouver to Portland in the evening? You can ride, it’s not dead-heading. There might not be that many riders, but the opportunity for people to ride are there, unlike most TriMet express service (61, 64, 65, 66, 74, 92, 94, the old 95, and 99).
People want a big house on a big yard with a big car.
Then make them pay for it! We have proportional income taxes under the ability-to-pay principle for this same reason… people might not like it, but it works, and they still have the rest of their income, and more of it than the rest of us, to use for other tax-er-personal expenditures! (Sarcasm should be noted.) People do not have to live alone in a 2,000-square foot home on an acre lot and own a vehicle the size of a utility truck that seats six and drives over arctic tundra. In fact, the space could be used to house many people who want simple, decent housing and an everyone-pays-in transportation system that’s affordable to use because, once again, everyone pays in.
Jason,
I stand corrected. Technically those return trips are not deadhead trips but, for all practical purposes they are, considering their low ridership.
re C-Tran service in the I-5 corridor. After ignoring the MAX Yellow Line for three years, C-Tran is now running several Limited lines (41, 44 and 47) and the regular 4 line…via Hayden Island… to the Delta Park/Vanport MAX station. That station was designed with three bus bays directly opposite the light rail platform for this purpose and is right off I-5; buses have a special lane for getting back on to I-5 northbound.
C-Tran’s downtown service, Express to Portland, charges higher fares, though I don’t know if they cover all the costs.
What is still missing is a Limted route down from Salmon Creek/99th TC to the Yellow Line; maybe that is in the works.
And of course, buses get caught in the southbound back up with other traffic. Perhaps a short term solution is a reversable HOV lane on the northbound span in the AM and southbound span in the PM for buses, vanpools and carpools. It could continue south over the new wider Delta/Lombard segment of I-5 due in a couple of years.
The fare situation is still confusing, but tranfers, etc. are permitted from the Limited
buses to TriMet service and visa versa.
The two systems should appear as one to the customer/rider…we have a ways to go, but things are better than a few years ago.
Anthony, I don’t believe the Market is the be-all end-all of commercial enterprise. The Market is not some golden icon to be worshipped and obeyed. More likely, it’s a red-suited devil offering seductive contracts in exchange for human souls.
Perhaps a short term solution is a reversable HOV lane on the northbound span in the AM and southbound span in the PM for buses, vanpools and carpools
Why short term?
Seattle has used two different variations of this in the long term – both standard HOV lanes (on I-5 south, I-405 and I-90) and the Express Lanes on I-5 north (which I do not believe are restricted to HOVs, but could be).
The HOV lanes are not bi-directional but the Express Lanes are.
I see no reason why a single bi-directional lane could be instituted for busses and certain other vehicles, so that express busses headed in the direction of peak travel have a bypass lane that is not affected while busses that are in reverse-commute don’t require an additional dedicated lane that is unnecessary.
Express buses – one trip to CBD – deadhead home – deadhead out – one trip back from CBD is a costly and inefficient way to run a bus system…The resources C-Tran would save by not running express buses to Portland could be used to provide much needed local service.
You’re absolutely right, Jim. Thanks for being a voice of reason.
Express busses unfortunately are very inefficient. I can’t speak for C-Tran busses because I’ve ridden a C-Tran bus exactly one time in my life (for the Fourth of July) but TriMet’s express runs spend over 50% of their time deadheading.
I think the recent schedule change earlier this week has made some improvement; I’ve noticed a number of inbound 12 trips in the PM rush that have 94XX line numbers suggesting that they run as a 94 outbound and return as a 12. That’s a smart idea. It would be harder to do for the Marquam Hill runs as well as the 92, neither of which truly duplicate a particular route (the 92 could deadhead to Washington Square and become a 56, for example). The 99 of course could turn as a 33.
However running express busses at the same time as MAX is duplicating service (and thus very cost-inefficient). However, as a TriMet district resident and taxpayer, C-Tran dumping passengers off at a MAX station means more money paid by TriMet district residents to subsidize the commuting habits of C-Tran district residents. Vancouver isn’t paying the subsidized cost of transportation – TriMet is. (Per TriMet’s 2007 ridership, this amounts to approximately 61 cents/boarding ride – however the Yellow Line has much higher costs than the rest of the MAX (Red and Blue Line) system, and when you factor in revenue sharing between C-Tran and TriMet for pass privileges, it’s probably even higher.
This in turn directly impacts my quality of service in Southwest Portland. Because my farebox dollars is subsidizing a mode of transport for someone not paying taxes, TriMet has to cut from other services (namely bus service) which reduces my quality of transit while Vancouverites get a cheap ride.
Ironically, there is a LOT of discussion about how people who choose to live in outlying areas should pay for their choice (in terms of additional infrastructure and cost). Under this theory, there shouldn’t be support for MAX going to Vancouver. As I have stated previously, there should be not one penny of support from Oregon to build MAX once the MAX tracks lift off the ground on Hayden Island. Further, it should be demanded that if C-Tran is to want access onto TriMet owned facilities, that C-Tran needs to cover our costs of accomodating it. I should not see further decreases in TriMet services to pay for the commuting habits of TriMet users-but-not-taxpayers.
Thanks to Unit for the figures on distance and projected cost (before overruns and “modifications” of course) of this boondoggle. Assuming I have operated the computer calculator correctly, Unit’s figures pencil out to $171,821.31 per FOOT to move the traffic jam from the river to the Rose Quarter.
Only a concrete contractor or an SOV SUVer could possibly favor this.
I have a wonderful notion for improving service ethos and saving money. Instead of subsidizing drivers and fuel for express buses to deadhead all over creation, let’s just PARK THE BUS at the end of its commuter run and make the driver RIDE THE (next)BUS back. It’ll be there in the morning, ready for an express inbound run. And while we’re at it, make the driver remove all TriMet emblems and pass for a “civilian” passenger and lose 45 minutes of their life when the bus blows by them.
Nope. Didn’t think this one would get much support.
I was actually trying to do a little ‘tongue in cheek’ with my comment that Vancouveruns, “stay out of Oregon, get your own jobs there”, etc. The heart of the matter however remains; too many are commuting too far, this pattern of commuting propels its own growth with no way to accommodate it, and the only recourse is to reduce commuting by diversifying outlying community economies, Vancouver, Beaverton, Tigard, etc, according to the initiatives of the 2040 Regional Plan.
Bringing MAX to Vancouver and Vancouver Mall, will bring jobs, thus reducing Clark County commuting into Portland, while providing a premium transit service for the remainder who’ll continue to commute.
Bringing MAX to Vancouver is critically important for Oregon and Washington economy, more important than replacing the interstate bridges.
One blue smoky pipe dream is demolishing the Jantzen Beach Big Box-o-rama warehouse retail asphalt hell hole and build a 6-Flags amusement park ‘combination’ multi-floor shopping center. Much of the big box retail would be displaced to Washington which can use the business. The largest demographic of people supporting this grand idea are under 21 and their mothers’ shopping therapy. :-)
Just because something is old does not mean it has to be replaced. That alone can be viewed as excessive consumption. When the CRC was under pressure from the public to come up with a middle ground alternative, a logical response would have been to build a six lane (three in each direction) through traffic only freeway high bridge and upgrade the existing bridges to minimum seismic standards with two lanes each direction for local traffic and a connection to SR 14, and one lane in each direction for the chosen transit option. That would have also logically placed transit at ground level at each end of the crossing rather than high up in the air and undoubtedly cost significantly less then 4.2 billion dollars.
However with Rex Burkholder ramrodding the Middle Ground subcommittee as co-chair, verbal public testimony was not allowed to be presented and a logical option of this type was never considered. In its place was constructing a new bridge for transit and southbound highway traffic with the preposterous idea of splitting the northbound highway traffic onto the two existing bridges. From a logical standpoint, that idea could only be doomed from the very beginning.
Now with Burkholder coming together with Achterman and Hansen (who was also on the middle ground subcommittee) in a joint statement that reads: “All this effort has made it obvious that the existing bridges are functionally and structurally broken and must be replaced”, the question must be asked: was the concept to split northbound traffic really in the best interests of saving taxpayer dollars or was it intentionally designed to deliberately sabotage the idea of a middle ground option?
Terry –
Credit where credit is due: We frequently disagree vehemently on this blog, but I agree with much of what you have just said regarding the CRC, although I don’t agree with the sabotage part.
And of course, buses get caught in the southbound back up with other traffic. Perhaps a short term solution is a reversable HOV lane on the northbound span in the AM and southbound span in the PM for buses, vanpools and carpools. It could continue south over the new wider Delta/Lombard segment of I-5 due in a couple of years.
Where would this lane be built? Do you mean to take a northbound lane away for the southbound rush, and a southbound for the northbound rush?
Where would the barriers between the directions of traffic fit? Or are you suggesting that we take the existing narrow lanes, and suddenly have 50 mph head on collisions on the bridge?
just PARK THE BUS at the end of its commuter run and make the driver RIDE THE (next)BUS back. It’ll be there in the morning, ready for an express inbound run. And while we’re at it, make the driver remove all TriMet emblems and pass for a “civilian” passenger and lose 45 minutes of their life when the bus blows by them
Actually that (well, the first part) is a very serious solution that is used. I’ve seen many TriMet drivers who must deadhead by bus or MAX to their assignments. Yes – when TriMet doesn’t get their act together and a driver happens to be on an affected bus, then it’s TriMet’s own passengers who suffer because the driver wasn’t ready – and the driver who was to be relieved is also delayed.
In commuter rail systems (notably Seattle’s Sounder trains) do you think that the Engineer/Conductor take the train back to Tacoma at the end of their trip, just so the train can deadhead back to Seattle for its evening trip home? No, they have to deadhead back to the home terminal. (Although as BNSF employees they likely get a crew shuttle, or can deadhead on a freight train).
To address the second part “removing all TriMet emblems”…that idea is pointless.
Bringing MAX to Vancouver and Vancouver Mall, will bring jobs
How?!!!!
If the point is to create urban developments to encourage closer transportation patterns, fine – C-Tran and the City of Vancouver can built its own Light Rail system from downtown Vancouver to a suburbia shopping mall (ironic, don’t you think?) WITHOUT crossing the Columbia River.
Provides all the benefits, at a fraction of the cost. And does not require a penny from Oregonians.