Friday’s City Club program on the Columbia River Crossing has gotten a fair amount of press coverage:
- Rumble! It’s the City Club Forum on the Columbia River Crossing Portland Mercury Blog
- Sparks, opinions fly in I-5 bridge project debate Portland Tribune
- Interstate 205 bridge over the Columbia River may get tolls Oregonian
- Issues pile up for I-5 bridge project Portland Tribune
The Mercury also has the audio file online (52M mp3).
My own impression is that Cortright clearly had the crowd with him, and was the stronger speaker. Rex gave the impression of being an apologist for something he’d prefer not to be doing…
0 responses to “CRC City Club Forum Widely Covered”
Once again, I come up with a slightly different suggestion. Eventually, but not necessarily right now, the old bridges should be replaced, not reinforced. I once favored the Supplemental Bridge with light rail until I saw how the pedestrian improvement is to be made on the east side of the old northbound bridge. Not happy about that. If the Supplemental Bridge w/light rail can include pedestrian/bicycle pathway, that would be better, seemingly. And then remove the old bridges later, their replacement to resemble the Supplemental Bridge. Short of that, a light rail bridge with pedestrian/bicycle pathway alone would be my next preferred option.
With the Replacement Option, all those ramps on Hayden Island sure look like they’ll have a huge impact.
I do remember the Portland Vancouver Interurban line..the tracks are imbedded under a lot of pavement on the east span, which might suggest digging down and using them again as the light rail route… they are standard gauge…
but I still favor a line up the existing track [BNSF] to Castle Rock.. there are rails in place to use, lots of countries mix freight and passenger services on the same rails…one drawback, the PDX-Vanc rail went broke first for lack of acceptance..
The Trib desperately needs to correct their article and change the price from $4.2 million to $4.2 billion, and not only for journalistic ethics and accuracy. Honestly, the absurd cost of this project is sadly the best wedge we have to promote the sustainability, social justice, and future transit goals we have in mind by stopping the movement on this project.
Here’s a question:
Why tear out the existing bridges at all? As Cortright pointed out, it doesn’t cost much more to fix them than to tear them down?
So picture this: Build a new eight-lane freeway bridge with wide shoulders (which I agree is unnecessary, but it keeps the freeway guys at ODOT and WSDOT happy) but keep the two existing bridges and refurbish them, since renovation won’t cost very much more than removing them.
Use the existing bridges to connect highway 14/downtown Vancouver to Hayden Island/North Portland. Put two arterial lanes and a light rail track on each bridge, and widen the sidewalks (as was done on the Hawthorne bridge) for pedestrian and bicycle crossing.
That should trim a couple billion dollars off the project right there.
As Rex pointed out the existing bridges are
aantiques sitting on rotting logs in the mud.
It would be great if economists and poets and hippies would stop talking wildly about real
engineering issues and costs. If I have a gapping chest wound , I want a Doc , and if I have a
decayed rusting old bridge , I want a Structural
Engineer….
“As Rex pointed out the existing bridges are aantiques sitting on rotting logs in the mud. It would be great if economists and poets and hippies would stop talking wildly about real engineering issues and costs. If I have a gapping chest wound , I want a Doc , and if I have a decayed rusting old bridge , I want a Structural Engineer….”
???
Logs don’t rust. Embedded in the mud, they don’t even decay very fast. Ever look at an old dock? The wood near the surface, (where it repeatingly gets wet and then drys out) is in the worst shape, followed by the stuff above the water. The wood below the water lasts for many hundreds of years. There are a ton of old wooden ships that sunk, and have recently been recovered, and are now decaying much faster in open air than they were underwater. Probably the most famous is the Vasa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)
“So picture this: Build a new eight-lane freeway bridge with wide shoulders … but keep the two existing bridges and refurbish them, since renovation won’t cost very much more than removing them.”
I have been advocating and testifying on such an option (but with a six lane bridge for I-5 through traffic) for about one and one-half years. Three of the six pages I submitted as my response to the Draft Environmental Statement discussed (with diagrams) this kind of an option that would be a SAVINGS for TAXPAYERS while still building a project that will meet the needs of the region, interstate commerce and the West Coast international I-5 Highway corridor.
“As Rex pointed out the existing bridges are antiques sitting on rotting logs in the mud.”
Some of the bridges in Portland across the Willamette are older including the Steel Bridge that Max uses. Within the last several years, the existing bridges were thoroughly inspected and found to be sound. Things became rotten when the politicians came to the conclusion that by replacing these historical structures is a way motorist tolling dollars could be siphoned off and poached to pay for a new transit and bicycle crossing.
“IF” tolling is implemented for any kind of motor vehicles, then the users of ALL modes of vehicular traffic MUST be required to pay a toll or a user charge. Transit passengers must be obligated to pay any proportionate local share of the transit infrastructure costs with a surcharge on transit fares – and, instead of just providing lip service and freeloading, bicyclists too must be expected to pay their own way with a bridge toll to cover any local match monies spent on providing bicycle infrastructure. As it now stands, the price tag for any bicycle infrastructure along with any authentic numbers of projected bicycle crossings using the bridge has been concealed from the taxpaying public. This is undoubtedly a politically motivated cover up that is catering to the special interest bicycle agenda because it is highly probable that any bicycle infrastructure constructed will not pencil out as actually being cost effective. Furthermore, any posh ultra expensive so-called world-class bicycle facility the dictators at City Hall may want must not be subsidized and pay its own way by the bicyclist users themselves. Therefore, it must only come with a mandated and pricey first-class ultra expensive toll assessed only to the pedal pushing bicyclists.
As for the eco-critics that suggest the number of lanes on any kind of expanded motor vehicle crossing will lead to more sprawl, a bigger carbon footprint, etc; get real, it’s NOT the bridge. Quit living in a bubble and ignoring the real issue. Confront and address runaway population growth.
I think the 8-lane option is the threshold where Portlanders largely find this project acceptable. The 12 and 10-lane proposals are out-of-scale, smack of obsolete highway planning, and are destined to crash and burn. I wonder whether WashDOT would ever agree to 8 lanes (6 thru).
Just to clarify, auxiliary lanes would not be needed if a new I-5 bridge was built for through traffic only, The refurbished and earthquake strengthened existing historical bridges would carry the same local and interchange traffic from the North side that would be accommodated by the auxiliary lanes on the big bridge alternative.
“Transit passengers must be obligated to pay any proportionate local share of the transit infrastructure costs with a surcharge on transit fares – and, instead of just providing lip service and freeloading, bicyclists too must be expected to pay their own way with a bridge toll to cover any local match monies spent on providing bicycle infrastructure.”
Do you believe in taxation to encourage/discourage certain types of behavior? I believe someone could easily argue that bicycling is an activity that governments (especially Portland’s government entities) want to encourage. A bridge built to accommodate 100 bicycles a minute would easily be cheaper to build and maintain than a bridge built to accommodate 100 cars a minute. Therefore, perhaps letting bikes cross the river for free might be a way to encourage a handful of would be automobile Vancouverite passengers to leave the car at home, especially when auto congestion is factored in.
An argument I’d like to see transit/bike/ped advocates use more often: Every person you “incentivize” out of an automobile means that much better air quality, that much less auto congestion, that much less of a burden on our health care system, that much less demand on oil (oil that could be used for air travel or things we REALLY need it for besides 2 minute trips) which theoretically drives the price of oil down.
Investment in bike amenities such as bicycle boulevards are some of the highest returns we can get on modal shift.
“Do you believe in taxation to encourage/discourage certain types of behavior?”
No, absolutely not as it applies to transport mode choice. These types of subsidies are socialism. Sustainability starts with financial self-sustainability. Furthermore, with the sky rocketing costs of motor fuels, NO outdated, dictatorial and subsidized incentives are needed to promote alternative forms of transport. For simple tax equity purposes, bicyclists must be directly taxed for the use of and to pay for any bicycle infrastructure. Bicyclists don’t see it that way because they have been spoiled by the freeloading pass they currently receive. In a real world with tax equity, bicyclists would be paying their own way including the energy costs to construct the specialized infrastructure.
One argument that alternative transport supporters completely avoid and ignore is that approximately one in every ten jobs is tied to the automotive/motor vehicle industry. Therefore reducing VMTs is also reducing the numbers of people employed in these family wage jobs. Furthermore, switching travel to transit and bicycle modes replaces only a small fraction of this employment. Jobs associated with bicycling pay on average significantly less. Therefore, the high price of oil is not only reducing driving, but it is also forcing people out of their jobs, fueling recession and the major cause of a down economy. Government taxes and subsidies designed to force or coerce people out of their cars can have the same effect.
The “economy” cannot continually be used as a trump card to override the environment.
Period.
How long can you live without air? How long can you live without water? How long can you live without food?
Except for the fact that the “market” does not even provide most of the truly sustainable options. We couldn’t even make the choices if we wanted to.
For example, why do we not have the 50mpg diesel Mini available to purchase in the USA, but we have plenty of Heavy Duty Duramax Chevy trucks? Both use the same diesel – and emit the same pollutants.
What about clear cut logging? Why can they do selective logging in Europe which is healthy for the forest, but in the USA we clear-cut? How do I personally choose?
What about plastic bags? I have had cashiers put one bottle of aspirin into a full sized plastic bag, and when I say “no thanks, I don’t need a bag” they take the unused bag and throw it in the trash.
Without some form of governmental “encouragement” and “incentive” the free market will ALWAYS take the cheapest, easiest, most cost effective path – which will kill us.
Maybe because WAL-MART has destroyed the American retail channels. Almost no bicycles are made in the United States any more, they have been moved to production in China where it is cheapest to make them (see above point). Just try and find a children’s bicycle actually MADE in the United States. Not even the American companies like Trek and Breezer make their bikes in the USA, and only a couple of Cannondale bikes are made in the states.
Imagine if we re-tooled the auto assembly lines to make bicycles, and stopped shipping them in from Asia…
So can tax subsidies for Oil companies who make trillions of dollars NET PROFIT annualy.
Or trillion dollar oil wars.
Or are those facts too inconvenient to bring up here?
We simply cannot use “the economy” as an excuse to keep destroying things. We MUST find a way to make money doing what is right. And that often has to begin with government regulation to get the corporate powers out of their rut…
People claimed that non-smoking laws would destroy the restaurant and bar industry… But California, New York, and many other states are proof otherwise… Not every bit of government regulation will devastate the economy. Resourceful people have always found ways to make money within the constraints they have to operate in.
Except for the fact that the “market” does not even provide most of the truly sustainable options. We couldn’t even make the choices if we wanted to.
Actually the market is working just fine. The Mini does not serve a useful purpose for the majority of people here; diesel fuel for automobile use is extremely unpopular in the U.S. for a variety of reasons. Thus the Mini is not offered here in the U.S.; the market will not support it.
If you as a participant in the free market wants to take on the risk to import the diesel powered Mini, there is absolutely nothing stopping you but your own unwillingness to accept the risk.
And, no, I won’t buy a Mini, or any similar sized vehicle. It does not serve the purpose for which I need a motor vehicle. (And no, I don’t own a pickup, or an SUV.)
What about clear cut logging? Why can they do selective logging in Europe which is healthy for the forest, but in the USA we clear-cut? How do I personally choose?
“Selective Logging” is being done in the U.S. Not every logging project is a clearcut.
If you want to “personally choose”, again, you are welcome to create your own company that exclusively logs forests in a selective manner.
What about plastic bags? I have had cashiers put one bottle of aspirin into a full sized plastic bag, and when I say “no thanks, I don’t need a bag” they take the unused bag and throw it in the trash.
That’s an issue of one individual, not a company. Most places I go to, if I’m only buying one thing the cashier has always asked if I needed a bag. Even Subway is now asking me if I want a bag with my sandwich if I get it to go.
Without some form of governmental “encouragement” and “incentive” the free market will ALWAYS take the cheapest, easiest, most cost effective path
So government is the answer to all problems? We should just govern our lives away – I thought this was America, not China.
Speaking of China, how’s their environmental record? Are you planning on participating in the Summer Olympics, smog and all?
Almost no bicycles are made in the United States any more, they have been moved to production in China where it is cheapest to make them (see above point). Just try and find a children’s bicycle actually MADE in the United States. Not even the American companies like Trek and Breezer make their bikes in the USA
Buy a Kettler bike for your child, they are made in Germany. Not the U.S., but it’s not China either. My son has one.
As for Trek – they do make bikes in the U.S. – their high end bikes. The lower end, consumer bikes – yes, are made in China (as is my own Trek). Again – if you want your bike made in the U.S., start a bike factory.
I don’t know why Portland hasn’t tried to recruit a mainstream bike manufacturer here; Portland is more interested in the “craft” industry which spins out $3,000 bikes that the average Joe can’t afford. I don’t own a $3,000 bike and the City of Portland isn’t going to also encourage a company that will let me finance a bike like my car is financed. $3,000, over five years, $600 a year, $50 a month. Even 10% interest is only $5/month, or $55.
Imagine if we re-tooled the auto assembly lines to make bicycles, and stopped shipping them in from Asia…
Nobody is stopping you from buying a closed auto assembly plant. Chrysler is shutting down a plant; have you offered to buy it?
So can tax subsidies for Oil companies who make trillions of dollars NET PROFIT annualy.
Please state your source. Not one oil company has reported a “trillion” dollar profit in one year.
Or trillion dollar oil wars.
Brought to you buy the same government that you believe will solve all of our problems.
We MUST find a way to make money doing what is right.
And that starts by people willing to accept a risk to meet the challenge – not government intervention.
I just read a report about converting to solar power, and it found that solar power – despite it being on the market for 30+ years – is not cost effective for a residential dwelling because the costs of the solar arrays are going up, not down. I know some people who are doing it because they live in a remote area, so the cost of solar is worth it when compared to bringing in power lines from the nearest distribution line, but where electric service already exists – solar cannot make it. And yet tax incentives are still available if you build solar on your home.
The government is mandating the use of ethanol in gasoline yet numerous studies are questioning whether ethanol has any positive benefit – it is not carbon neutral, provides little environmental benefit at the tailpipe, requires more fuel to burn in the vehicle and is helping to contribute to food shortages. Thank you, big government.
And it was my government that is disinvesting in local bus service in favor of limited reach light rail programs that serve a small portion of the area’s population. It was my government that says that a bus rider is not worthy of air conditioned busses but a MAX rider and a Streetcar rider is guaranteed air conditioning. Government works only when it treats each person fairly; or should we have a Communist/dictatorship style government where only party favorites receive favors and the common folk suffer? (North Korea and Myanmar come to mind here.)
If you want the market to work the way you want it to, you have to stimulate the market to do what you want it to do. Sometimes, it means taking your own capital and doing it. And if you don’t have the capital yourself, find someone that does. Do you think Wal-Mart started their environmental initative because they were forced to by a Federal Court? Do companies build their new buildings to LEED standards because of a state law? Those compact florescent light bulbs – which law brought those to market? Which law required Mercedes to import the Smart Car? Those were all done – because of the free and open market and those companies which chose to accept a risk to bring those products to market.
Many products have come to market and failed as well, because those companies accepted risk, took a gamble, and generally learned from their mistakes. McDonald’s, as one example, has introduced many products to their restaurants that are no longer on the menu boards for one reason or another. And McDonald’s, as a corporation, is doing quite well because they listen to their customers and innovate – regardless of whether you personally believe their products should or should not be sold.
Speaking of which – the government does not take the risk if I get sick. I don’t have government paid for health insurance, so I don’t want the government telling me what I can and cannot eat. The second the government says that, is the day I cancel my employer paid health insurance, and enroll in Medicare.
I said “companies”, plural. Exxon Mobile alone made $40 billion in net profits in 2007.
And how does buying a German bike help those Americans out of work because I am not buying a car?
But I am glad to see your solution to everything is that I should buy factories and start companies. That is so helpful. Thanks!
Good thing BMW has ignored the thousands of letters they have been sent to bring the CooperD to the USA. I’ll just import them myself…
And diesel is so dead in the USA that there are huge waiting lists for the few diesel cars that are available, and used diesel vehicles sell for premiums… VW can’t make TDIs fast enough.
But if the “free market” is so great, then let it build a 4 billion dollar bridge. Without public funds.
Sorry about the double post. Some “preview” wonkiness going on…
[Moderator: I’ve removed the duplicate post. Don’t worry about posting accidental duplicates… I usually spot them eventually and delete them without comment.]
John wrote: Good thing BMW has ignored the thousands of letters they have been sent to bring the CooperD to the USA.
And what is your solution? Pass a federal law that requires BMW to import the diesel powered Mini Cooper, or they will be prohibited from doing business in the United States? Or fine them because they don’t want to take a risk (which would cause them to voluntarily pull out of the U.S.)?
And diesel is so dead in the USA that there are huge waiting lists for the few diesel cars that are available, and used diesel vehicles sell for premiums… VW can’t make TDIs fast enough.
I never said diesel was so dead. I said:
diesel fuel for automobile use is extremely unpopular in the U.S. for a variety of reasons
If the demand is so high, then the manufacturers such as Volkswagen and BMW would likely want to build more…but…then you run into the laws of supply and demand, just as Toyota is doing with the Prius. Toyota could build more plants, but why? Demand is high. Restrict supply and make a few extra dollars while you’re at it.
Again – if you don’t like the policy, you’re welcome to do it yourself, but it appears from your very forceful response that you feel that someone else should hold your hand and do the dirty work for you.
But if the “free market” is so great, then let it build a 4 billion dollar bridge. Without public funds.
Fine. I have a solution for that as well.
1. Eliminate the public transit subsidy from the Highway Trust Fund, which accounts for 20% of the annual fund expenditures. Move that money back to highway spending.
2. The CRC project is only $4B if you include the pedestrian/bike and light rail components. The highway-only bridge is something like $2.5B, and that includes the interchange improvements on either side of the river.
Just releasing the 20% mass transit account of the Highway Trust Fund could pay for a highway-only bridge in one year, paid for through the federal gasoline tax.
So if the idea is to have a “user pays” program for transportation, that’s fine by me. Let me know how long TriMet will survive by losing its tax base and relying only on farebox revenue.
[Moderator: Personally directed remark removed.]