Today’s Oregonian quotes County Commissioner Maria Rojo de Steffey calling for closing the Sellwood Bridge:
“I’m ready now to close it,” Rojo de Steffey said. “On my watch I don’t want to be responsible if it goes down.”
Would closing the bridge be good policy, or just a play for changing the funding politics?
0 responses to “Rojo de Steffey Calls for Sellwood Closure”
Multnomah County Commissioner Rojo de Steffey is lowering herself to political, rhetoric, trickery and scamming the public instead of listening to the bridge engineers who say for now the bridge is safe with weight restrictions. What she fails to understand is: 1) Fixing or replacing the Sellwood Bridge is far more important than Milwaukie light rail, and she should be lobbying the state legislature for funding – be it state transportation dollars, lottery money and/or transferring and redirecting to the Sellwood Bridge the $250m set a side for the Caruthers Bridge. 2) That if users are expected to pay for a portion of the construction costs with new or increased taxes, then it must be on a regional basis and the users of ALL modes of transport, including bicyclists and transit users, must be taxed and financially contribute – particularly when the replacement options allocate less than 50 percent of the deck width to cars and trucks. Therefore, if local funding is part of the financial package, motorists should only be paying less than half of any local monies collected while the users of other modes (transit and bike) are directly taxed to pay for their share of the allocation of deck space and percentage of the superstructure/infrastructure..
Having grown up in Chicago I recognized this immediately as a play for dollars, however unlike the all-powerful Democratic mahcine in Chicago, nobody around here has the weight to make good on the threat if push comes to shove. There’s no way the Sellwood Bridge gets shut down, it’s been recently examined (thoroughly) and determined to be safe, I’d be surprised if the county commissioner fools anyone.
Yes, shut it down! That puts more pressure for Clackamas County to come up with a way for THEIR traffic to get across the Willamette River.
I do agree there is too much politicking going on—- to further the agenda of the radical left to spend this country into bankruptcy. Service Employees International Union is now claiming the US needs $225 Billion dollars of infrastructure spending per year—for the next fifty years! This is about ten times what Bush has spent on Iraq. And since there are 200 infrastructure construction deaths per year already (out of 1200 total) the death toll would be similar, too.
They point to the collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis–which killed 14. Which was loaded with constuction materials at its weakest points!
Radical left?
The $225 Billion annually for 50 years recommendation comes directly from the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission, which also notes we are spending about 40% of this amount on infrastructure today.
How many of these commission members radical leftists?
Mary Peters
Secretary of Transportation – Chairperson
Frank Busalacchi
Wisconsin Secretary of Transportation
Maria Cino
Former Deputy Secretary of Transportation
Rick Geddes
Director of Undergraduate Studies, Cornell University Dept. of Policy Analysis and Management
Steve Heminger Executive
Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Frank McArdle Senior Advisor
General Contractors Association of New York
Steve Odland
Chairman and CEO, Office Depot
Patrick Quinn
Co-Chairman, U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc.
Matt Rose
CEO, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway
Jack Schenendorf
Of Counsel, Covington & Burling – Vice Chair
Tom Skancke
CEO, The Skancke Company
Paul Weyrich
Chairman and CEO, Free Congress Foundation
Full bios of these radicals can be found here.
How dare those radicals suggest we invest our capital within our own country!?! It’s much better spent on Wal-Mart’s Chinese junk, on Saudi oil, and on the trashing of foreign lands to satisfy personal vendettas.
Oh yeah, and I agree that Rojo de Steffey’s move is political, and not a very adept one at that.
Anytime anyone throws out the term “far left” or “far right” as a slur I usually just tune out. Just because someone’s views are different than yours doesn’t make them an extremist. Applying broad labels to viewpoints is a vapid debate technique.
Terry, how exactly would you prefer for bike users to pay for their use of the roads? You consistently call them “freeloaders”, but you neglect the obvious facts. If cars were removed from the streets, we could nearly shut down road maintenance altogether. We certainly wouldn’t have to build a new Sellwood Bridge. CARS AND TRUCKS are what deteriorate our infrastructure (along with the weather and age, of course), and therefore they pay the majority of the funding. We want to encourage people to ride bicycles in this city because IT SAVES MONEY. Bikes cause absolutely no stress on our infrastructure, and they save money and land that would otherwise be dedicated to accommodating cars with road maintenance, parking, signals, etc.
Even if you don’t believe in sustainability, bikes are good for our city.
A better word to political rhetoric, trickery and scamming the public would be blackmail – Multnomah County Commissioner Rojo de Steffey is lowering herself to suggesting political blackmail in an attempt to force Multnomah County vehicle owners to pay for a bridge the region as a whole and the users of all modes of transport should pay for.
As a response to SusanaSanJuan’s comments – there is a cost and footprint to constructing specialized bicycle infrastructure. Therefore, the City does NOT save money by building bicycle infrastructure – it SPENDS money – and the bicyclist users need to be the ones whom are taxed to pay for that discretionary spending. If bicyclists do not think they should have to pay some sort of a direct tax to fix or replace the Sellwood Bridge, then the current narrow sidewalks are plenty good enough and there is no need to add dollars to the project for a super-wide bike crossing for a bunch of freeloaders. Furthermore, it is the bicyclists that are helping to bring down the economy into a recession. Approximately one in every ten jobs in the US is tied to the auto industry. Little can be said about bikes supporting the economy except the specialized infrastructure consumes tax dollars. Any discussion of sustainability must also include financial self-sustainability. Therefore, any expense to accommodate bikes should be paid for by the bicyclist users, NOT subsidized by motorists and NOT paid for by taxpayers in general.
Terry, if you are against (without direct user-taxation) wider sidewalks and bike lanes for an upgraded/replaced Sellwood Bridge, then I’m sure many bicyclists would be quite happy to ride in the main travel lanes, at a safe and prudent speed. You won’t mind waiting for them, will you?
The problem I see with the Sellwood Bridge, more directly relates to the Ross Island Bridge. The traffic across the Sellwood should be redirected to cross the Ross.
A big portion of traffic using the Sellwood is headed to Washington County via Hwy 26. But, McLaughlin Blvd has bottleneck stoplights at Ochoco, SE 17th, Holgate, and at access ramps in both directions to the Ross Island Bridge and I-405 leading to Hwy 26.
Because of these bottlenecks on McLaughlin Blvd and the Ross, the traffic is on the Sellwood Bridge, even though McLoughlin has the capacity to handle the traffic, were it not for the bottlenecks. The Sellwood Bridge and particularly, Tacoma Street, are not designed to be a regional thoroughfare. The traffic should be redirected to use McLaughlin Blvd and the Ross Island Bridge, period.
Interchanges at Ochoco, SE 17th, Holgate, and ramps leading to/from I-405 and the Ross Island Bridge are the best solution. ODOT has had plans to build these ramps for decades. It’s expensive, but the only way to redirect traffic away from the Sellwood Bridge.
Oh! And big government is so scary! Scary, scary, scary! I’m so afraid. Oh, save me from what I’m scared of, somebody not scary!
The Historic Sellwoood Bridge would make a great bike/walk only bridge. Close it to all other vehicles and see the Sellwood neighborhood prosper with the conversion of Tacoma into a real community space.
The traffic will go away…people move and/or change jobs about every 5 years; they will adjust. Some will brave a drive over the Ross Island, some will find a carpool partner, some will maybe start using that “new bike bridge.” The sky will not fall.
Hank Sheppard has an excellent point. We get a dramatically improved bike crossing at Sellwood for the cost of a barricade at each end of the bridge. And yes, traffic patterns will adjust in time. If we can’t find a way to get the bridge either repaired or replaced, we can learn to live without it.
Whether the strategy of spending these huge sums on infrastructure fits into the category of radical politics is rather a minor issue–I don’t think anyone needs to obsess on my categorization. The real issue is: in a rapidly changing global economy can we really predict NOW what our economy is going to require so far down the road? I think more flexibility is desirable.
I would like to know why any of those commission members is able to pin down just what infrastructure improvements would bring about the economic stimulus that is conventionally utilized to justify this investment. Except for Mr.Rose—it looks like railroads are here to stay. Somehow they are going to predict out fifty years ahead from now and say “Why, yes, the pattern of economic development in each region of the country came out just the way we calculated.”
But the gut issue is that I just don’t trust whatever the SEIU puts its stamp on. And I am cogently aware that the AFL-CIO and construction unions have been vigorously criticizing the state of this country’s infrastructure for at least the last two decades. Are they “radical left?” Well, a number of Marxist scholars and global governance proponents seem to think highly of their agenda.
So what does this have to do with the humble Sellwood Bridge? I see more expensive proposals coming out as time progresses. But will these somehow bring a higher quality of life to the Sellwood area, or to the South Portland Metro area, than the least expensive proposal? In the discussions we have been having about the CRC and light rail and streetcar, we’ve ben hashing out the same fundamental question. I’m not an “all car” person an “all bus” person or an “all rail” person; I think I’m a pragmatist.
And to propose an 11-12 trillion slate of projects supposedly meeting our needs fifty years from now is, I think, radical. If any of you went to the 1962 Seattle World’s fair we were all supposed to be clean-cut suburbanites, living in pre-fabbed “modular” homes and zipping around several hundred feet off the ground in personal flying craft. Kind of like the Jetsons. Five years later, in 1967, it was the Summer of love—bare-foot, beaded hippies, in a psychedelic haze. So much for predictions of the future. Still it is good to predict. Does anybody ever read “The Futurist” magazine? It seems to analyze deeper scientific and cultural trends.
Now, Wells, makes an ironic comment about “big government.” Does anyone know that Lyndon B. Johnson, architect of The Great Society, went down as one of the most unpopular presidents in US history? Clinton finally reversed a lot of the programs that the sixties era initiated because they had becomne so burdensome to our society. Bureaucrats who had fixed their career hopes upon Great Society stategies, however, were a bit chagrined….
The Historic Sellwoood Bridge would make a great bike/walk only bridge. Close it to all other vehicles and see the Sellwood neighborhood prosper with the conversion of Tacoma into a real community space.
I agree somewhat with this statement; except that the Sellwood neighborhood also benefits from having transient traffic through its neighborhood that uses its businesses. Close off Tacoma, and a large amount of this transient business will go away.
Local streets in the area are not suitable for bike traffic; it’s a tough climb up Spokane Street from the Springwater Trail.
I do agree with Terry in that this statement by de Steffey is nothing more than a political stunt; however frankly I’m OK with shutting down the Sellwood Bridge. I don’t regularly use it (I’ll use it occassional to go to Sellwood but those are entirely avoidable trips).
To SusanaSanJuan – building bike paths still requires a cost (although you’re right, they don’t require as much maintenance). Who is paying for that – the money often comes out of gas tax revenues. Terry makes a point that bicyclists often don’t pay (and are often hostile towards the concept of taxing themselves, despite motorists taxing themselves) towards the infrastructure they use, but insist that more infrastructure be built for them.
A simple bike registration fee, $20 a year, would go a long ways towards providing bicycle infrastructure and maintaining it. As a bicyclist myself, I’d have no problem paying it – $20 a year is a very cheap price to pay for good bike paths.
then I’m sure many bicyclists would be quite happy to ride in the main travel lanes, at a safe and prudent speed.
That can be addressed…
I SAY CLOSE ALL THE BRIDGES DOWN!
Granted, specialized bike infrastructure does have a capital cost, although I would say it’s relatively negligible. My point was that the capital cost pays for itself without a registration fee in the long run because bicycles cause little stress on the infrastructure, and do not require expensive specialized infrastructure such as signals or parking garages (if you really want to take issue with the cost of bike racks go ahead). So the more people we have riding bikes, the less we have to spend. That is why bikes save money.
I wouldn’t be opposed to a small bike registration fee, but I would think that trying to enforce that would end up wasting more money than it’s worth.
“So the more people we have riding bikes, the less we have to spend. That is why bikes save money.”
I agree. (And I ride a bike when I can; unfortunately a lot of my destinations are several miles apart and I need to get there fast.) So why so much talk about spending huge sums of money on these other projects?
MAKE THE BRIDGES CAR FREE!
They will last 1,000,000,000 years that way!
“‘Rebuild America’ – Jobs bill gathers steam
From People’s Weekly World, 15 February, 1997
NEW YORK – Momentum for enactment of legislation authored by Rep. Matthew Martinez (D-Calif.) to create public works jobs continued to mount last week as the New York City Central Labor Council adopted a resolution calling for enactment of the Jobs Creation and Infrastructure Restoration Act.
Phillip Varrichio, president of Utility Workers Local 1-2, told the World his local was pleased to introduce a resolution endorsing the Martinez Bill to the New York Central Labor Council. “It is pro-labor legislation which is sorely needed to deal with New York’s jobless emergency,” he said.
Varrichio said the Utilities Workers Union of America had endorsed the legislation because jobs are a major issue for utility workers. “Full-time union-wage jobs with the utility companies used to be a life-time proposition but no more,” he said, adding that the labor movement in New York is forming a committee to work for passage of the Martinez Bill.
In a parallel development, several members of the New York City Council introduced a resolution calling upon the council to endorse the legislation. The resolution was referred to the council’s Economic Development Committee and is expected to be reported back to the council soon.
New York’s action comes on the heels of similar action by the Philadelphia City Council. Endorsements have also come from governing bodies of Los Angeles, St. Louis, Detroit and Jersey City.
In press conference prior to the city council meeting, Guillermo Linares, councilman from the city’s Washington Heights area, said he was introducing the legislation because it was “the perfect combination – our infrastructure is falling apart and millions of people are out of work. The Martinez Bill offers the way to solve both problems.”
Wendell Foster, who joined with Linares in presenting the resolution, said he didn’t believe the country “is so broke that it can’t provide for its people. The money can come from where the money comes from,” he said, adding, “If we don’t do it now, we’ll pay an even higher price later.”
Councilwoman Una Clarke, who joined Linares and Foster at the press conference, told the World that she supported the Martinez Bill because “public works jobs provide people with a living wage rather than forcing them to work at low-paying jobs in order to receive a welfare check.” ”
See. It was true ten years ago and it is true now. Unions push infrastructure investment as a means to get high paying jobs AND more members. That’s the important thing; “more members”. Without more members they lose political clout—and chances at the gravy train of federal spending. Never mind if we really need all the projects they want. And as this excerpt from PWW shows, this notion is usually supported by far left groups. With public works jobs they can get more “migrant workers” into the US who they think will be easily radicalized.
But actually I agree with De Steffey. The South Metropolitan area is in need of some infrastructure investment. However, rather than bringing more traffic through Sellwood on an expanded and improved bridge most residents would like to see Clackamas County also take some traffic, because so much of it originates in their jurisdiction. We support a modest reconstruction and improvement in the Sellwood Bridge. And I support some modest cost public transit and also bicycle infrastructure.
FYI – The Sellwood is collapsing under its own weight. While closing it to autos might be a cool idea, it would still probably have to come down one day fairly soon.
From: http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/ProjectBackground.aspx
The west end of the bridge was constructed on fill material and is located in an area that is geologically unstable. The hillside above the bridge is slowly sliding toward the river, exerting pressure on the west end of the bridge…Since then, ground movement has caused the west end approach girders to crack.
Encouraging bike trips vs. auto trips has other clear benefits: health, natural environment, and built environment are some of the more obvious ones. The bike industry provides jobs just as the auto industry does, bike infrastructure projects provide jobs just as auto infrastructure projects do.
As to Ron’s point about unions influencing projects, that is a fair point. To be sure, absent a sharp economic downturn requiring projects for the sake of jobs, we should be selecting projects based on the need, not on union influence. The same standard should be applied to the influence of big oil and the auto industry, which we know have had more influence than anyone.
I happen to think there is a need to continue to invest in our tranportation system, even if I disagree with how these investments are made in most of the country. Indeed, cities like Houston, Atlanta, and LA would probably be better off had they invested nothing than they are with their current systems. But the lesson shouldn’t be not to invest, it should be to make wiser investments.
Sellwood is an important link in our system, and keeping it operating thru rehab and maintenance or replacement would appear to be beneficial to a large number of people. Adding lanes to the bridge should be off the table if we care about the neighborhoods. A simple rehab project could widen the 2 lanes by removing the sidewalk, add a separated bike/ped path, and reinforce and retrofit the bridge, probably all at a fraction of the proposed cost, and with much less damage to the surrounding community.
“Anytime anyone throws out the term “far left” or “far right” as a slur I usually just tune out.”
And any time I see the words “Terry Parker says” I tune out.
blah blah blah blah a bike registration fee is more then fair, regardless if environmentalists and bicyclists think that they are God’s gift to mankind. Our government has no business punishing one behavior while rewarding another with those funds. Who gets to decide that bikes are so great and cars are evil? Most plants I know LOVE CO2 and wish we would pump out even more– maybe we should reward the heaviest CO2 emitters, and punish those who try to be carbon neutral?
Now, in all fairness, the gas tax is set up to be a user fee– NOT A SIN TAX– bike lanes cost money, let the bicyclists pay for em. Light rails, trams, and trolleys cost money, let the users of those modes pay for them. Maybe we wouldn’t even NEED “bike boxes” if the bicyclists around here actually took a safety class and learned how to ride a bike!
Mr Swaren, my comment about governments was meant as sarcasm, not irony. I respected President Johnson’s decision to not run for re-election in 1968. He couldn’t live down his personal failure of letting vile republican warmongers trick him into escalating the Vietnam War. Will the USA ever live up to the values of its Constitution?
“blah blah blah blah a bike registration fee is more then fair (sic)”
Well Anthony, FWIW, I don’t reject bicycle registration and/or tolls on new bridges out of hand. I just get sick of hearing about it every single time Terry posts, in any thread, on any blog, regradless of the topic. The guy redefines broken record.
Another thing: the metobolic pathway used by 90% of plant species is limited by phosphorous, not carbon. So can we retire that argument also?
Actually, the City should register bicyclists and pay them $20 per month to not drive their cars. A cheap way to keep freight moving and cut down on nonessential vehicle trips.
Let’s start with kids going to school…we could cut down on all the self induced congestion around schools when classes are out. Kids would love the extra allowance, they’d get more exercise and taste “liberation.”
The city should pay ME $20/month just because I live here!
Anthony,
When your arguments are less shallow I think you will find posters more willing to have intelligent conversations with you. My advice to you is stay in school and start paying attention in class. As a wise dean once said: “Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.”
Anthony posits: Maybe we wouldn’t even NEED “bike boxes” if the bicyclists around here actually took a safety class and learned how to ride a bike!
It’s a shame that no bicycle organizations in our community offer safety classes for bikes. Oh, wait, they do! —
http://www.communitycyclingcenter.org/index.php/programs/classes/
But maybe the problem is that these local organizations don’t get involved directly in the classroom, so that kids can learn about bicycle safety. Oh, wait, they do! —
http://www.bta4bikes.org/at_work/bikesafetyed.php
But maybe these local organizations should promote a booklet or web site that refreshes people’s memories about safety and the law. Oh, wait, they do! —
http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/index.htm
Perhaps the problem is that the city just doesn’t care about bicycle safety, education, maintenance, and other resources. Maybe the city should make a directory of these resources and put it all in one place. Oh, wait, they do! —
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=34812
Maybe the problem is that some bicyclists are poor and can’t afford proper safety equipment. If only some community organizations and bicycle shops gave out discounted and/or free safety lights and reflective gear… Oh, wait, they do! —
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=34811&a=174568
Perhaps the issue isn’t with the bicycling community needing to go to class, but rather some people’s perceptions of the bicycling community don’t quite match reality. Perhaps a refresher course is warranted.
If registering bikes is such a huge hassle, then I want to formally propose that the State of Oregon officially disband DMV, and allow anyone to own a vehicle without the need for registration.
This action would not only eliminate the need for documenting registration of vehicles (as well as the associated law enforcement costs) but would directly save nearly $200 million per biennium in the costs of operating DMV and the Motor Carrier Branch. Doing this would also allow Oregonians to save $560 million per biennium ($360M above and beyond the cost of DMV) in registration fees and taxes, money that could be used to strengthen our local economy.
Actually, the City should register bicyclists and pay them $20 per month to not drive their cars.
And TriMet should pay me $20 (in addition to providing me a FREE annual pass) because I don’t use a park-and-ride lot, have access to enhanced amenities, use MAX, and rely on a low-operating-cost bus line.
Oh, and I should get the $20 a month for my bicycle, PLUS an additional payment for having only one motor vehicle for our household. Plus a payment for not living in the tax-subsidized SoWa or Pearl District neighborhoods, a payment for not needing to use the Tram or Streetcar, a payment for using very little city street infrastructure (since we primarily use a state highway), use very little in the way of city services, etc. etc. etc.
I am waiting for my “City of Portland Low Impact Resident Tax Refund Check” any day now…
Tyring to get back on topic, is a bridge authority with tolling authority or regional taxing authority the only way out of this?
If the choice is between this or closing the bridges (take away the commonly-preferred choice of eating cake without paying for it), which decision would we make?
Or, would such a choice devolve into a blame game of who is wasting our funding where?
Tyring to get back on topic, is a bridge authority with tolling authority or regional taxing authority the only way out of this?
What is in a “regional bridge authority” for Washington County? Absolutely nothing. Why should Washington County support something that doesn’t help them out? And while it’s presumed that this authority would take over the Multnomah County bridges, what about the ODOT bridges (St. Johns, Fremont, Marquam, Ross Island, Abernethy, Oregon City)? Would the bridge authority take over the Canby Ferry? Would they take over the two Columbia River bridges (Interstate and Glenn Jackson?) Would they take over other bridges like the Sauvie Island Bridge, the Sandy River Bridges, or the Boone Bridge?
Since Washington County seems to be left out, would Washington County be enabled to transfer all of its significant bridges across the Tualatin River to this new authority?
They should set up a tollbooth and charge every car a dollar or two to cross it. If very few people are willing to pay the toll, then it isn’t worth keeping it open and it can be closed. If enough people are willing to pay the toll, then it looks like they’ve found a source for the money to fix it…
They are discussing closing it right now, so it isn’t like they can go wrong with this. If people object to paying the toll, they are welcome to drive to the Ross Island and back, (that is what they are going to do if they close the bridge anyways.)
The other thing is with a staffed tollbooth at both ends, they could manage traffic spacing on the bridge: Specifically, they could not let any cars across for a 30 seconds (until the bridge was empty,) then send a TriMet bus across, and wait until it got to the other side before they let any more cars cross. One TriMet bus at a time can be on the bridge right now, the problem is that they can’t pass each other, (or another heavy load,) and be bunched up behind each other while crossing the bridge…
Specifically, they could not let any cars across for a 30 seconds (until the bridge was empty,) then send a TriMet bus across, and wait until it got to the other side before they let any more cars cross. One TriMet bus at a time can be on the bridge right now, the problem is that they can’t pass each other, (or another heavy load,) and be bunched up behind each other while crossing the bridge…
Is this true? If so, sell the bridge to Tri-Met for the value of the bridge less the deferred maintenance cost, and let Tri-Met take over maintenance and then operate the bridge as a transit facility. Put up automatic gates at each end and restrict the bridge to Tri-Met buses and emergency vehicles. One wide lane for buses/police cars/ambulances, one narrow lane for bikes and pedestrians. Since Tri-Met likely won’t run more than three or four bus lines over the bridge, it shouldn’t have much trouble restricting access to one bus at a time.
This option should at least be on the table if no other option to preserve or replace the bridge proves politically viable.