From the Coalition for a Livable Future:
The Columbia River Crossing (CRC) project is an effort to rebuild and expand the I-5 bridges spanning the Columbia River. Unfortunately, all current options being considered for the project will significantly increase global warming pollution, harm people’s health, and undermine our region’s vision of a sustainable economy, all while siphoning $4.2 billion of limited public resources from addressing other critical transportation needs.
The CRC project is at a crossroads: The public has the opportunity to comment on the draft EIS for a sixty day period beginning May 2, and the eight authorizing jurisdictions will likely vote this summer on whether to approve one of the project proposals. NOW is the time to urge decision-makers to reject all five of the alternatives contained in the draft EIS, and instead support a Climate Smart solution.
Three things you can do:
(1) If you haven’t already, Join CLF: sign on to the Climate Smart CRC Resolution and tell elected officials what you think. For background, go to the Climate Smart CRC page at the Coalition for a Livable Future.
(2) Attend a public hearing. A packed room makes an important statement.
May 13 – Portland Planning Commission
Time: 2pm (Meetings run 12:30-5pm; CRC is 3rd on the agenda with a time certain at 2pm)
Location: 1900 SW 4th Avenue, Room 2500A, PortlandJune 5 – Metro Council
Time: 2pm
Location: 600 NE Grand Ave, Portland, Metro Council Chambers(3) Comment on the Environmental Impact Statement
Via email: http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/
In person:
May 28
Time: 6-8pm (open house at 5pm)
Location: 100 Columbia Street, Vancouver (Red Lion)May 29
Time: 6-8pm (open house at 5pm)
Location: 2060 North Marine Drive, Portland (Expo Center, Hall D)Questions? Need talking points? Contact Collin Roughton at the Coalition for a Livable Future: 503 294 2889, collin@clfuture.org.
43 responses to “Columbia River Crossing Action Alert”
I took two hours out of my Friday last week to sit down and read a print copy of the CRC DEIS. The most laughable part was when it stated that the new bridge would somehow magically not induce traffic. Haha
The one thing I did like was with the supplemental bridge with light rail, they projected more than a third of commuters taking transit. I was pretty impressed with that one tidbit, but that’s about all I can say.
could someone explain how building or expanding a freeway makes magic new cars appear?
Does this mean building or expanding maternity wards will increase the birth rate?
The best explanation I have ever had was someone telling me that they have taken a class on the topic and it was “too complicated to explain.”
Anthony: transportation is a critical mass item. The auto is subsidized past the tipping point, leaving the alternatives to be “too expensive.” So in this case supply-side subsidy actually works, where it usually does not.
could someone explain how building or expanding a freeway makes magic new cars appear?
The best explanation I have ever had was someone telling me that they have taken a class on the topic and it was “too complicated to explain.”
Nothing magical about it. When you have a freeway that is moving with little delay (or even a moderate amount of delay), people will seek to build subdivisions, shopping malls, office parks, etc. along it (even putting relentless political pressure on governments to change zoning designed to protect the usefulness of the road) until it becomes so congested they no longer seek to build.
To add to what Chris said… Induced demand can be looked at in neutral terms. Providing added automobile capacity provides for certain types of development which usually comes along until that capacity fills up again. Whether or not that type of development is thought to be beneficial/desirable/harmless, etc., is a separate argument. The point is that the congestion will return within a short while after the capacity is added.
If the goal of added freeway capacity is reduced congestion, you get very little if any relief in the long run from that capacity. This line of thought is often simplified to the phrase “You can’t build your way out of congestion”, which isn’t 100% accurate, but conveys the right idea.
A more accurate sentence might be “You can build your way a bit away from congestion at a progressively increasing cost but only for a little while.” More accurate, but a lousy slogan. :-)
The inverse is “tear it down, and traffic will go away;” this needs to be applied to the Eastbank Freeway.
All of the current CRC build proposals will bring 10s of 1000s of additional motor vehicles onto the streets of Portland’s North and Northeast neighborhoods.
Tolls, light rail and HOV lanes would take care of this transportation challenge in short order. We could paint the HOV lanes tonight, and start tolls tomorrow.
re bridges…what we need across the Columbia River is a “Broadway Bridge” for local traffic, light rail and bikes and pedestrians.
Why should you have to get on a freeway to get a drink at Shenanigan’s?
Lenny –
I’m not sure if the inverse is true, because at that point the development has already happened and the demand patterns have solidified. I guess of course it would go away due to lack of transportation resources, but in a disruptive manner to users of the established developments. Better to change gradually over time, reshape what we have as it naturally comes due for replacement, and carefully evaluate any new capacity proposals for their impacts.
Traffic “evaporation” – the tendency of trips to disappear and not reappear elsewhere when a major transportation route is removed – does exist, as is evident every time a freeway is removed: Portland’s Harbor Freeway, San Francisco, Milwaukie, NYC, etc. are all examples of this. This article describes some of the basic concepts:
http://www.planetizen.com/node/23300
Bob, you’re right of course that there’s more bang for the buck in making ongoing projects the best they can be, rather than advancing a disruptive removal. But it’s also important to recognize both the positive and negative values of our infrastructure and make rational choices even when they’re not easy.
My opinion is that potential congestion of a new CRC bridge is very much tied to how much new development takes place in the “Travel Shed” of that corridor. As a small example, locating a nice shiny new office tower close to a freeway is a clever strategy to give the owners and occupants some needed visibility to enhance their bottom line profit. Then others want to do the same. Pretty soon you have a lot of intra day business travel between businesses in the travel shed area—plus you have the daily commuting traffic, too. Added to this is the ongoing mall type construction in the outlying areas–in this case greater Clark Co. And then you have more shiny new towers and such in downtown Portland with said inhabitants traveling to and fro. Still nothing wrong with that. And you have the real potential for Vancouver wanting to enhance its spectacular waterfront, capitalize on the premium location and allow some shiny, new towers with awesome views there, also. Which will also help the city’s bottom line with increased tax revenue.
All of this added business and residential expansion can only mean that there will ultimately be more cars somewhere on the freeway—and getting much too close for comfort on the older, more cramped stretches. I’m not saying halt the increased density–just be mindful that, even with mass transit planning, the inevitable outcome of more construction will be a return to a congested state.
But if Vancouver were actually going to develop its western Columbia River waterfront into a world class business district—well, maybe putting a bridge from there over to the city of Portland might just be what the doctor ordered. There! Congestion Relief!
Anthony,
Cars don’t magically appear. Cars magically increase their vehicle miles travelled.
The way it was described to me was thus:
It’s a system of equillibrium. For each individual transportation decision, there are different factors involved – over simplifying, the options is responding to congestion are these: drive during peak hours on freeways, drive some other route during peak hours, drive some other time on freeways than peak hours, get there during peak hours without driving, stay home. Between each of these options are people “on the edge” – in a concrete example, “I’m trying to go downtown to have dinner. I could leave at 6 pm. Wow. Traffic will be bad. I could leave at 7 pm.” When congestion changes – eases, in this case – that person who chose to delay his or her trip says, “Traffic won’t be that bad, I’ll leave at 6 pm.” His decision alone does not affect traffic, but there will be a hundred or so other people making the same calculation and the congestion goes up again. There is some point somewhere that includes all the people who are willing to put up with traffic at the level that it is at, but no more. Congestion will generally seek that point, no matter what the adjustments. If that actually includes more capacity, there will be more cars on the road. If that includes less capacity, there will be less cars on the road.
These day-to-day decisions are not the only kind of transporation decisions. There’s some evidence to suggest that something like this calculus goes on when people make longer term decisions: “I work downtown. Hm. Well, I could buy a house in NE Portland or I could buy a house in Battleground. Since that new bridge is going in I’ll be able to get downtown in the same amount of time it’d take me to go from NE Portland. I’ll go for the cheaper/bigger house in Battleground.” Developers certainly make that kind of decision. And the developers don’t care about what happens in 5-10 years when the new bridge reaches capacity – by that time, they’ve sold their property to the people who now are stuck on the bridge and pumping emissions into the air. The person who chose the NE Portland house has fewer choke points between him and his employer and can make those day-to-day decisions that ease pressure.
Also: cars don’t magically appear but people do – mostly from California and the East Coast. The Portland-Vancouver Metro area is growing. Transportation issues would be pretty simple to manage if we didn’t have more people to move around every year. We have to figure out how to handle those people and their transportation needs in a way that doesn’t poison us with ozone or melt the ice caps.
” they projected more than a third of commuters taking transit. I was pretty impressed with that one tidbit, but that’s about all I can say.”
I’d like to know what they base this projection on. I have a date with the DEIS soon, so I guess I’ll see, but if this is true we won’t need a bridge just use what ever they are using and levitate ourselves to work.
But if Vancouver were actually going to develop its western Columbia River waterfront into a world class business district—well, maybe putting a bridge from there over to the city of Portland might just be what the doctor ordered. There! Congestion Relief!
Last I’ve heard Vancouver is trying to make their downtown into a real vibrant mixed use downtown. Haven’t you noticed all the new buildings up there? There’s a brand new Fred Meyers one exit or a short bus ride away as well.
Oh, and there’s the Boise-Cascade site, which would really be helped with access to the MAX. I think it would be a smart idea for the region to start planning for a local connector bridge in addition to or as a temporary fix for the I-5 situation.
I’ve seen other articles mention hoping to get the development up to 4000 residential units and 5000 jobs, which would be a good thing for Vancouver I think. Maybe not world-class, but it would probably bring other downtown development with it. I am concerned about the traffic that it could bring, without some other option.
Having only two river crossings from Clark county to Portland is as ridiculous as reducing to only two bridges across the Willamette River. And you know what? You can put all the billions you want into the I-5 crossing and you can expand it to 16 lanes—and it will still be only two crossings–with plenty of bottlenecks at other points on the route.
The most rapid growth is going to be on the west side of Portland–that’s where the high rise condos will be going in, that’s where the prime riverfront real estate is, that’s where the vacant, underutilized land with proximity to downtown Portland is. But to get there now from the Washington side of I-5 you have to go through a traffic snarl. That’s why we need a new link on the west side of the Willamette to Vancouver and Clark County.
If the MAX goes to Vancouver it should link to the AMTRAK station–if we really want to get serious about getting people out of their cars. And it can do that on the same bridge the AMTRAK uses.
http://www.getmovingbc.com/2007/04/truth-about-induced-demand.html
The truth about induced demand
In December 2006, the Conference Board of Canada released a new research report
The purpose of this report was to identify the determinants of “induced travel,”
The report was groundbreaking in its methodology,,
The results were surprising, even to the researchers who produced the report.
,,,,report discovered was that there is no statistical relationship between induced travel and the capacity of highways available.
In other words, there is no truth to the notion that more highways equals more cars, which equals more greenhouse gas emissions.
Instead, the Conference Board found the largest determinant of travel demand is population density (i.e., growth in urban and suburban development), followed by average wealth – the notion being that as Canadians become richer, they can afford the costs associated with driving additional vehicles.
Other factors having an impact on driving demand are population growth, past driving habits of individuals and the price of gasoline relative to the price of local transit.
This report alone suggests building more highways does not lead to an increase in greenhouse gases.
But in addition, a new report released in January by McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. of Surrey makes a case that additional highway capacity can play a key role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by reducing overall highway congestion.
The report concluded that emissions are at their highest when traffic moves at speeds between 5 and 15 km/h – standard stop-and-go congestion speeds. At these speeds, CO2 emissions in a typical car are close to 40,000 grams per mile travelled. But when speeds increase to approximately 50 to 55 km/h, emission levels drop to approximately 16,000 grams per mile travelled.
What this suggests is that stop-and-go congestion is responsible for emissions that are approximately three times higher than cars travelling at more regular speeds. The clear implication is that a reduction in congestion is desirable from a greenhouse gas reduction standpoint.
The implications of these reports are clear. The old stereotype that more highways equal more pollution is unfounded. Instead, a strong case can be made that additional highway capacity plays a key role in reducing congestion, which in turn has a clear role to play in reducing greenhouse gas and other pollution emissions. This is an important conclusion for policy makers at all levels, particularly as Canadians demand action on reducing greenhouse gases while at the same time demanding safer, more reliable transportation. Added highway capacity would seem to achieve both goals.
Chris Smith: Nothing magical about it. When you have a freeway that is moving with little delay (or even a moderate amount of delay), people will seek to build subdivisions, shopping malls, office parks, etc. along it
Yet, strangely enough, all of this development is lacking on the Sunset Highway west of Cornelius Pass.
In fact it took some 30 years for the Cornelius Pass interchange to get developed, after the Sunset was widened to freeway standards out that direction…
I-5 south of Wilsonville is still devoid of significant development (although in Woodburn it is finally coming up to I-5 – how many years did this take?) The Donald/Aurora Exit is not home to 10,000 people – it’s home to two truck stops and not much else. Same level of development as was there in 1980 – despite an increasing overall population.
There is still lots of prime developable land in Washington, where supposedly land-use laws are hardly as strong as Oregon’s. Yet just north past the I-5/I-205 split are lots of undeveloped lots, with prime freeway visibility.
Lenny Anderson: Why should you have to get on a freeway to get a drink at Shenanigan’s?
Because you want to go to Shenanigans, you live on one side of the river, and the bar is on the other side of the river. Duh.
You made the conscious choice to patronize a business that built “on the wrong side of the river” when there are hundreds of bars in your side of the river.
If you don’t want to get onto the freeway, then don’t. Apparently a lack of self-control is part of the problem here, so you want big brother government to babysit you because you can’t manage your own transportation affairs.
BTW, you don’t have to take a freeway, you can buy a boat and go across the river by boat. Or use the convenient bike/pedestrian path alongside I-5. Or swim. Or take a C-Tran bus. Or move to the north side of the river and quit your Swan Island job and find work in Vancouver and not use the bridge (and if you have to fly anywhere, you’ll choose Sea-Tac instead of PDX).
John E. quotes an editorial in BC’s Tri City News (apparently no longer available on the paper’s web site) which doesn’t seem to accurately represent some of the elements of the Conference Board of Canada study. (Which incidentally used national data as opposed to regional/urban data, which diluted the results.)
As pointed out by commenters on other blogs, the actual study says things like this:
and
It is interesting that John E is promoting a study which openly embraces the existence of global warming (and uses a model-based approach, which global warming deniers have previously decried as unscientific), when he has previously advocated that the whole concept of global warming is a hoax, and now uses this same study to disprove a concept which the study itself doesn’t specifically claim to disprove — rather it just claims that it isn’t relevant within the nationwide study parameters, and what is relevant only serves to back up what we already knew from previous studies.
John E. – Do you accept the assumption of the study you quoted that human-influenced global climate change is real? Or would you care to let us know which portions of the study you consider valid, which portions you consider invalid, and why?
Erik’s quip about not taking the freeway because one could boat or fly is interesting — let’s turn the question around:
If having just two freeway bridges and no arterial crossings connecting automotive traffic between Portland and Vancouver is sufficient, why do we need to rebuild the Sellwood bridge or why did we need to perform the past rehabs on the Hawthorne and Burnside bridges? Why not just put everything into a massive expansion of the Fremont and Marquam bridges, forget about the other bridges, and call it a day? After all, we can just fly and boat across the river if we don’t like it, right? Start swimming folks, as Erik says, you don’t *have* to use the bridges.
Let’s give ourselves as many transportation choices as we can afford…freeway, arterial, HOV lanes, transit, bike/ped, boat. We already have 16 freeway lanes across the Columbia and substandard transit and bike/ped facilities. Let’s add HOV lanes…in order to capture all those empty seats in existing motor vehicles…; let’s put light rail on an arterial bridge for local traffic with a big wide bike/pedestrian promanade; let’s pay for this with tolls on SOVs, especially in the peaks when lane space is at a premium. Let freight have the HOV lanes in the non-peak hours.
>May 12, 2008 9:34 AM
Lenny Anderson Says:
The inverse is “tear it down, and traffic will go away;” this needs to be applied to the Eastbank Freeway.May 12, 2008 8:30 AM
Chris Smith Says:
could someone explain how building or expanding a freeway makes magic new cars appear?
The best explanation I have ever had was someone telling me that they have taken a class on the topic and it was “too complicated to explain.”
Mel, thanks for trying but you might want to think your arguments through a little more.
No one is suggesting development will happen without demand for it, just because there is a freeway nearby.
If the Eastbank Freeway were removed, it would require upgrades to other roads, probably 405 and 205 at a minimum, one of which would carry the I-5 designation. I haven’t seen anyone suggest otherwise.
New freeway capacity does attract trips from other roads, but it also creates new trips. If a bridge collapsed and I-84 were closed for a year, you’d see more traffic on parallel streets, more transit use, and fewer trips overall as people adjusted their lifestyles to get by. The convenience of a freeway encourages the choice to drive.
Mel –
Corvallis built a bypass on the east side of the river, intended to get trucks out of the downtown core. Within about 10 years it filled to capacity, and new signals/intersections had to be installed, while new subdivisions sprouted up in South Corvallis and between Corvallis and Philomath, increasing traffic on the bypass.
Philomath faced congestion on Highway 20/34, and built a couplet (right through a residential zone). Now, highway traffic has increased as new subdivisions have gone in, supported by this new capacity.
As I said before, in neutral terms, additional capacity supports and encourages patterns of development which take advantage of that capacity. There are many who see those patterns of growth as a good thing, while there are others who prefer to structure growth differently. However, congestion did return to these facilities in a short period of time. Thus, it is not wise to increase capacity if your primary goal is to reduce congestion. It may be wise to increase capacity if your goal is a particular pattern of development.
For those arguing that “induced demand” doesn’t exist in rural/uncongested/low-growth areas, that goes without saying. When talking about “induced demand”, we are talking about patterns of development and transportation networks in growing regions. After all, there is no need for increased capacity in regions which have no growth — we are only talking about this stuff because our own region is growing.
Corvallis built a bypass on the east side of the river, intended to get trucks out of the downtown core. Within about 10 years it filled to capacity, and new signals/intersections had to be installed, while new subdivisions sprouted up in South Corvallis and between Corvallis and Philomath, increasing traffic on the bypass.
Philomath faced congestion on Highway 20/34, and built a couplet (right through a residential zone). Now, highway traffic has increased as new subdivisions have gone in, supported by this new capacity.
A quick search of ODOT traffic volumes on this highway does not prove these allegations:
In 1993, Highway 33 (U.S 20/Oregon 34, Corvallis-Newport Highway) had 13,000 ADT at the east city limits of Philomath (MP 52.1), and 15,000 ADT at MP 55.44 (S.W. 15th Street).
Fast forward to 2006, the traffic counts were 14,100 (7.8% increase over 13 years at east Philomath) and 21,000 ADT (28.6% increase in Corvallis). Meanwhile, the highway is still operating below the maximum capacity of the highway – it is hardly “filled to capacity”.
There are other reasons for the bypass – including a through route to I-5 that bypassed Albany, and eliminating trucks from having to make repeated turns to navigate through downtown Corvallis (try to stay on U.S. 20 through Corvallis and you’ll see what I mean – westbound requires a right turn from 2nd to Harrison, left from Harrison to 4th, right on 4th to Western.)
It should be noted that a number of large businesses have chosen Corvallis to grow operations, and Corvallis has a very well established local transit district – probably one of the best local transit services in Oregon. And it doesn’t need Streetcars to be successful.
[Moderator: Italics corrected for clarity.]
Thus, it is not wise to increase capacity if your primary goal is to reduce congestion.
It would seem that this statement should be used to validate the cancellation of all MAX expansions.
If MAX is extended to outer areas (i.e. Vancouver) it will encourage development (because the politicians will hand out tax benefits like candy) along the MAX line, and it’s well known that the majority mode of transport is still private automobile for these developments.
(Proof: increasing congestion and road widening projects around Orenco Village – Cornell, Cornelius Pass and Evergreen were all widened to five lanes, the Cornelius Pass interchange was recently rebuilt, and Sunset Highway traffic has grown significantly in the last 10 years).
So, by building MAX to Vancouver will result in more development which will encourage more trips to Portland – many of those trips will NOT be taken on MAX, but on Interstate 5.
Just as, Westside MAX didn’t reduce congestion on the Sunset Highway – the Sunset had to be widened to four lanes. (It is a moot point that the widening project was “planned” – if the purpose of MAX is to help reduce congestion, the freeway widening should not have been necessary.)
For those arguing that “induced demand” doesn’t exist in rural/uncongested/low-growth areas, that goes without saying. When talking about “induced demand”, we are talking about patterns of development and transportation networks in growing regions. After all, there is no need for increased capacity in regions which have no growth — we are only talking about this stuff because our own region is growing.
Induced demand like adding density to existing areas? Don’t you think better access from Downtown Vancouver to Portland might give businesses more reasons to locate in Vancouver? The current I-5 bridge in part causes the downtown areas of the Couv to back up, making driving around there as a destination suck pretty badly.
I really like the idea of a new railroad bridge connecting Mill Plain to Marine Dr, but we should plan for the future. We can drag out the planning and construction phases if needed, but we should at least decide how we’ll handle I-5 some day.
It seems naive to assume cars will go away. Nissan just announced plans for their first electric only US car today. (See also: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/business/13auto.html?_r=1&oref=slogin ). Cars might change, but people will drive. It’s evolution.
Here is a well balanced article on incuced demand:
fhwa.dot.gov/planning/itfaq.htm
Thanks
JK
Another green tale is derailed
From the May 11, 2008 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel :
When I checked with head researcher Steven Polzin at the transit-friendly National Center for Transit Research, he said the numbers were good [O’Toole’s numbers] and the conclusion true. Most people assume rail is far more efficient, “but the empirical data isn’t very compelling,” he said.
Read it all at:
jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=749119
Thanks
JK
When roads appear, or disappear for that matter, travel patterns change in the short run, development patterns in the long run. Just look in the mirror and ask yourself how you would get from point A to point B, if a better, faster option…either road, transit or bikeway…was made available? or was snatched away?
Lenny Anderson: When roads appear, or disappear for that matter, travel patterns change in the short run, development patterns in the long run. Just look in the mirror and ask yourself how you would get from point A to point B, if a better, faster option…either road, transit or bikeway…was made available? or was snatched away?
Well, if that’s the case, then there should be an outright moratorium on ANY form of new transportation, regardless of mode:
NO NEW ROADS.
NO NEW LIGHT RAIL.
NO NEW STREETCAR.
NO NEW BIKE PATHS.
And every existing transportation infrastructure that needs repair/replacement must have a cost/benefit analysis performed on it to determine whether we even repair the infrastructure or if it gets removed (or left to wither and die). That would include decisions to repair the Sellwood Bridge, as one example. (Yes, that would also include replacement of TriMet’s antiquated, polluting bus fleet, as another example.)
With that, then there would be an instant incentive (without resorting to tax incentives) to build housing close to commercial and industrial zones where people work. Developers who want to make money developing would have to build housing projects that people are willing to buy, at a price they can afford, at a location that requires little in the way of transportation infrastructure.
This would also provide benefits to the Union Pacific and BNSF Railways, as their railroads wouldn’t be impacted by the disinvestment in the publicly owned and operated transportation network.
>”Unit Says: Mel, thanks for trying but you might want to think your arguments > through a little more.
No one is suggesting development will happen without demand for it, > just because there is a freeway nearby.
If the Eastbank Freeway were removed, it would require upgrades to > other roads, probably 405 and 205 at a minimum, one of which would > carry the I-5 designation. I haven’t seen anyone suggest otherwise.”” New freeway capacity does attract trips from other roads, but it also creates new trips”” If a bridge collapsed and I-84 were closed for a year, you’d see more > traffic on parallel streets, more transit use, and fewer trips overall > as people adjusted their lifestyles to get by. The convenience of a freeway encourages the choice to drive. ” “Bob R. Says: Corvallis built a bypass on the east side of the river, intended to get trucks out of the downtown core. Within about 10 years it filled to capacity, and new signals/intersections had to be installed, while new subdivisions sprouted up in South Corvallis and between Corvallis and Philomath, increasing traffic on the bypass.
Philomath faced congestion on Highway 20/34, and built a couplet > (right through a residential zone). Now, highway traffic has increased as new subdivisions have gone in, supported by this new capacity.” “As I said before, in neutral terms, additional capacity supports and encourages patterns of development which take advantage of that capacity. There are many who see those patterns of growth as a good thing, while there are others who prefer to structure growth differently. However, congestion did return to these facilities in a short period of time. Thus, it is not wise to increase capacity if your primary goal is to reduce congestion.” “It may be wise to increase capacity if your goal is a particular pattern of development. For those arguing that “induced demand” doesn’t exist in rural/uncongested/low-growth areas, that goes without saying. When > talking about “induced demand”, we are talking about patterns of development and transportation networks in growing regions. After all, there is no need for increased capacity in regions which have no growth — we are only talking about this stuff because our own region is growing.”
“It takes an unhappy person to want to deny people the option…”
“You use terms which have specific definitions and then create your own definition because you cannot support your original statement.”
Mel –
I haven’t redefined anything. The theory of induced demand has always been linked to growth and development patterns.
I have taken care to discuss this issue in neutral terms and not attach value judgements to the type of development pattern associated with freeway capacity increases, but apparently that doesn’t stop you from questioning people’s motivations.
“Do you think it is just a quirk of fate that the City of Portland has not attracted a major employer since Wacker Siltronics in 1977.”
I’ll skip over drawing inferences as to what your definition of “major employer” is, and just point out that I-205 didn’t even exist in Portland in 1977. It would seem that your argument implies that despite the subsequent completion of the I-205 freeway, and the later construction of the Glenn Jackson Bridge in 1983, no new “major” employers were attracted to Portland.
Today in the Columbia I saw this:
http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/2008/05/05142008_Residents-seek-vote-on-light-rail.cfm
and this:
http://www.columbian.com/opinion/news/2008/05/05142008_In-our-view-Vancouver-transportation-officials-support-replacement-bridge-light-rail.cfm
Given the original post in the thread, it seems interesting to read the counter-point as well.
I got thinking about what would be a good option for getting between N Portland and Vancouver if the CRC thing doesn’t pan out, and playing with Google Maps I came up with this idea for the railroad bridge & Vancouver:
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2044/vancouverjq9.jpg
The orange/yellow line would be a new multi-modal bridge for rail and local traffic between N Portland and Downtown Vancouver, running from N Portland Rd at Marine Dr to W Mill Plain over the railroad tracks.
The MAX would cross Jantzen Beach in the hopes that some of the parking lots might be made more useful with the better access, then merging with the multi-modal lift bridge (aligned for the current I-5.)
At Mill Plain it would run like Downtown Portland MAX, basically in traffic. (Mill Plain is a wide enough couplet to handle this, I think.)
Main St being the connector to McLoughlin I’m second guessing, C and Broadway as a couplet might work better. Anyway, from there cut up to Clark College, just like they’re discussing now.
The downside is this MAX route would leave out some areas they’re trying to develop, but has the bonus of an optional elevated platform at the Amtrak station. To compensate, I thought why not an Esther Short Streetcar?
Pollard has mentioned looking into a streetcar, so it makes sense if MAX isn’t serving the Esther Short area of downtown, why not run it right past?
With the newer developments, the Hilton, Columbian Building, and the possible Boise-Cascade site it seems doable.
Plus they might be able to offset some costs of the streetcar with the increased value of Block 10 and other city-owned parking lots in the impacted area.
Maybe I’m just thinking too big for Vancouver, but it’s downtown definitely seems to have some potential to become a more significant employment center, if things are done to foster the right climate.
Bob R.
You just repeat nonsense.
Employers avoid Portland, in general , and the Portland CBD, in particular, despite 205 and I-5. Besides high taxes they have people like you who live in a dream-world.
No point in further discussion.
“Employers avoid Portland, in general , and the Portland CBD, in particular”…
If you go to any city in the US, you’ll hear the exact same argument: “Houston isn’t business friendly”, “Atlanta isn’t business friendly”, “Detroit isn’t business friendly”… Turns out that some people just like to claim that. You know what those people think is business friendly? New Delhi. No sewer system, and 20% of the population begging on the streets, but the tax rate is low.
“The downside is this MAX route would leave out some areas they’re trying to develop, but has the bonus of an optional elevated platform at the Amtrak station. To compensate, I thought why not an Esther Short Streetcar?
Pollard has mentioned looking into a streetcar, so it makes sense if MAX isn’t serving the Esther Short area of downtown, why not run it right past?”
I’ve been suggesting this—as an alternative to the expensive boondoggle Charlie Hales has proposed in the ‘Couv. Routing a streetcar between the AMTRAK station and downtown negates the need for the expensive penetration of the railroad berm. (Or it could circulate entirely around a much larger area of the waterfront and go through at an existing opening.)If proponents of alternatives to auto transit are serious they should get behind ideas that would enhance AMTRAK stations with potential, but presently suffering from neglect. Vancouver AMTRAK station is a good candidate because of rapid growth in Clark County plus the potential for the immediate neighborhood to be a great urban renewal project. A streetcar could be the catalyst for Vancouver to really take off—without the ground-zero disruption of the “Mega Bridge” and MAX landing like a bird of prey on the historic district of Vancouver.
The Interstate MAX could cross on the multimodal bridge and go to the AMTRAK depot.
[Moderator: Italics added for clarity.]
“…they have people like you who live in a dream-world.”
“No point in further discussion.”
That’s fine — If you’re going to continue to berate people, you can do it somewhere else. Bye.
Vancouver AMTRAK station is a good candidate because of rapid growth in Clark County plus the potential for the immediate neighborhood to be a great urban renewal project.
But, but, I thought the FHA wouldn’t dare lend money towards anyone living near a railroad?!!!!
That’s what I was told in another thread, in which our Moderator berated me for saying “wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG, WRONG!!!!”
Now, we’re suggesting putting housing RIGHT NEXT TO AN ACTIVE RAILROAD YARD with a half dozen railroad crossings?!!!!
C-Tran already tried to run a shuttle bus between the transit mall and the Amtrak station and it failed due to low ridership. So right now C-Tran pays for a taxi for anyone that wants to get between the two. The area is heavily industrial, with chemical plants, an asphalt plant, a cement plant…
So since, according to “factual” posters that I am not allowed to prove incorrect, this area would not be supported by the federal home mortgage entities for housing. So this “mixed use development” can’t exist – and therefore the premise of building Streetcar to entice development is a faulty proposition.
(Or, is there a proposal to bury the ENTIRE Vancouver railroad yard in a tunnel too?)
Now, we’re suggesting putting housing RIGHT NEXT TO AN ACTIVE RAILROAD YARD with a half dozen railroad crossings?!!!!
Like Portland did along NW Front? So? Maybe I’d rather live near an urban railroad track than an older neighborhood in Tualatin that had railroad tracks nearby. Or somewhere else in NW where I can hear trains. Oh no, the horn!
Personally, I lived in Tualatin. I moved to NW Portland because I wanted to drive less, and the transit options here are awesome. I pay a little more, but it’s so worth it what I save. And the trains are much quieter. The buses though…
and therefore the premise of building Streetcar to entice development is a faulty proposition.
I missed this at first, but did you look at the map I happened to post?
It doesn’t serve the neighborhood you describe, I mentioned it as a potential MAX stop since it was pass directly above it, in a suggestion.
Streetcar was mentioned as a transfer serving the Esther Short Park area, as Pollard’s ideas also have suggested. This is an already built area facing more developments like Block 10 (the block NE of Esther Short Square), Boise Cascade (south of the railroad berm), Riverwest (now a car dealer), etc. Not a heavily industrial area, with chemical plants, but a potentially vibrant downtown.
“That’s what I was told in another thread, in which our Moderator berated me for saying “wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG, WRONG!!!!””
Rule #1: Constructive disagreement is welcome, but simply repeating your disagreement is not.
Lets see, you repeated your disagreement 6 times, the last two time involved shouting. Humm, I wonder why the moderator might have said something about that…
Lurker commentary regarding blog rules:
Using “wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG, WRONG!!!!”: Impassioned but not offensive and didn’t detract from conversation.
Replying “Chill Out”: A reasonable response to Erik’s exclamation.
Folks: stop whining to the moderators. Moderators: stop fanning the flames.
I’ll second that JHB.
Political mindsets and special interests have meddled in, hindered, attempted to change the direction and alter the focus of this project for which the primary objective, stated or not, is to cost effectively meet the regional needs of transport based economy, meet the needs of an Interstate Highway System, and meet the needs of a local river crossing for ALL users. Alternatives one through five all are lacking in one or more of these aspects. The no-build is capacity deficient. The big bridge is simply too massive and expensive. The supplemental bridge as developed by the ad-hock middle ground sub-committee is a pointless folly designed to be a failure as proposed, and the transit component is too much of a dictatorial mandate while the motorist only tolling/congestive pricing concept is a discriminatory tax hike aimed straight at the pocket books of working middle class that will negatively affect mainstream household incomes and therefore negatively impact the local economy. There is and has been absolutely far too much discussion involving political and special interest agendas about ways this project can dictate the travel and mode choices people make. Now it is time for logic, common sense and democracy to intervene by providing a reality check to the mayhem, setting aside this discussion of controlling choice and getting back to developing an impartial, unbiased and balanced plan that accommodates and treats all users EQUALLY regardless of mode choice.
A new I-5 Columbia River Crossing is needed for interstate highway mobility purposes and to meet the modern safety standards of a freeway. One of those safety standards is not to have a lift span that stops and backs up traffic, and is prone to causing crashes on an Interstate Highway. Therefore a new bridge MUST be constructed for I-5 through traffic. However this bridge only needs to have six full width full service lanes, three in each direction, with adequate shoulders along with other safety amenities if the current twin bridges are retained for local and interchange traffic, bicycles and pedestrians, and the chosen transit option. Using the existing bridges in this manner lessens the construction disruption as compared to total replacement, lessens the amount of energy needed for construction, lessens the footprint of the project, and preserves a historical structure – all of which equate to a SAVINGS for TAXPAYERS while still building a workable project that will meet the needs of the region.
Furthermore, it is time to take the all politics out of the tolling issue. “If” tolling or congestion pricing is implemented for any kind of motor vehicle(s), then ALL modes of vehicular traffic, including transit passengers and bicyclists, MUST be required to pay a toll or similar user charges. If the sensationalism promoted by Al Gore is to be believed that man is the root and primary cause of global warming as opposed to it being a natural occurrence, then population growth creates global warming thereby making the only logical and appropriate toll to fight global warming a tax on giving birth.
However this bridge only needs to have six full width full service lanes, three in each direction, with adequate shoulders along with other safety amenities if the current twin bridges are retained for local and interchange…
Wow, a very well stated post on the basics of how a project involving a roadway that was already paid for by the entire US has to help those who don’t live here as well.
I love the idea of leaving the current I-5 in place, but reducing width to create shoulders to two lanes.
In addition, build a 3 lane (directional) bypass between Interstate Ave and between Fourth Plain and SR 500. I’d bet they could do this, with a pedestrian/bike/transit bridge cheaper than CRC, meet all federal standards, and not throw away a functional bridge that could be safer and well-maintained if desired.
Now that the Delta Park project is underway I’m not sure the CRC can or should be stopped, unless a well balanced plan comes into play.