CRC Before City Council – A Key Public Input Opportunity


City Council is holding a hearing on the Columbia River Crossing at the end of the month:

Portland City Council Hearing With Public Testimony
January 29, 2pm
Portland City Hall, 1221 SW Fourth Ave

This will be a critical opportunity for public input on the number of lanes and other major project decisions. Get the full scoop via the Action Alert from the Coalition for a Livable Future.


18 responses to “CRC Before City Council – A Key Public Input Opportunity”

  1. There is an exhibit of Artworks depicting a
    Green Park-Roofed CRC Bridge at the NW Lucky
    Lab Brewpub on NW Quimby above 19th [activity rm]
    I have been told that it was too late to consider
    a Park Roof Design ,but we are suddenly GreenWashed
    with Toy Windmills , hmmm.
    The Park Roof will absorb all rain driven pollution runoff [eliminating costly water treatment and salmon mitigation measures] , and the Park PlantLife will absorb CO2 – 24 / 7 / 365
    NOW THATS GREEN

  2. come on Al, cut consenting adults some slack.
    CRC is the opposite of GREEN; nothing could be “Greener” that the existing bridges with tolls.

  3. Even though I think it is nobody’s business who he’s have “sexual” relations with, and rather offensive that people are interested in the first place (privacy anyone?)… I gotta agree with Al.

    A Lie is a Lie.

  4. Once your a PROVEN liar, its impossible to be taken seriously.

    His career is more important that the truth, he said it himself.

    Don’t worry, he won’t quit, he’s just like George Bush, just the Portland version of tyrant.

  5. The press has no business asking about our leaders’ personal lives. Why not lie? “It ain’t nobody’s business, but my own.” This is Portland’s old prudish roots showing…how tiring. Hang in there Sam.
    Surely Sam’s lie pails in comparison to the Oregonian’s double talk about global warming…on the one hand they argue that its real (agreed), yet on the other hand they assert that a new 12 lane bridge across the Columbia does not make it worse. Hello?

  6. Surely Sam’s lie pails in comparison to the Oregonian’s double talk about global warming…on the one hand they argue that its real (agreed), yet on the other hand they assert that a new 12 lane bridge across the Columbia does not make it worse. Hello?

    Moving cars pollute less, and properly designed auxiliary lanes improve traffic flow between interchanges without allowing for significantly higher volumes.

    According to some CalTrans documents about highway design, the 10 and 12 lane options would likely allow the same number of total cars because once you have over 4 lanes in a direction, you stop getting a gain in number of vehicles that can pass through, it just allows a better flow of the same number.

    I’d love to find the documents that CalTrans released when studying the northern I-5/I-805 interchange in San Diego that showed the maximum number of vehicles does not improve from adding more than 4 lanes, unless they’re physically separated. (Hence, the express/local method they used for that interchange.)

    But hey, what does the truth matter?

  7. “Moving cars pollute less, and properly designed auxiliary lanes improve traffic flow between interchanges without allowing for significantly higher volumes.”

    The problem with this, is that it is based on them being traditional cars. What if all the cars are hybrids, (which, they probably will be significantly more in 20 years.)? Stationary hybrids put out zero pollutants, (and they discourage urban sprawl.) And Priuses going less than 25 mph can run on their battery alone, but once they get about 25 mph, they have to actually emit pollution, and more than if they were going slower (and the engine was cycling to charge the battery,) because of wind resistance effects.

    So the air pollution claims are based upon an cars that probably won’t be built for that much longer after the bridge is finished…

  8. The Traffic Effects of 8, 10 & 12 Lane Scenarios from modeling

    Peak AM & PM Congestion = Less Congestion with the maximum number of lanes
    No Build 15 hrs
    8 Lanes 7 to 9 hrs
    10 Lanes 5 to 7 hrs
    12 Lanes 3.5 to 5.5 hrs

    Annual Collisions = A safer bridge with the maximum number of lanes
    No Build 750
    8 Lanes 300
    10 Lanes 240
    12 Lanes 200

    Total number of daily vehicles I-5 traffic
    No Build 184,000
    8 Lanes 165, 000
    10 Lanes 174,500
    12 Lanes 178,000

    Total Number of daily vehicles combined crossings of I-5 & I-205
    No Build 394,000
    8 Lanes 384,000
    10 Lanes 389,500
    12 Lanes 391,000

    Total number of daily vehicles traveling a longer distance diverted from I-5 to I-205
    No Build N/A
    8 Lanes 9000
    10 Lanes 4500
    12 Lanes 3000

    Regional VMTs (Note the higher numbers decline with more lanes due to less vehicle diversions to I-205)
    No Build 56,659m
    8 Lanes 56,770m
    10 Lanes 56,750m
    12 Lanes 56,746m

    Summary: the 12-lane option offers the most significant reduction in emissions due to the least amount of congestion (vehicles just idling on I-5) and the least number of VMTs traveled due to the least number of vehicles diverted to I-205.

    Furthermore, the cleaner technology and fuel sources that has yet to be developed and will likely power the cars of the future has not even considered as additional factor related to lowering emissions. Therefore, any decision to build a less than 12-lane bridge that due to regional population growth will be obsolete tomorrow must not be based on the motor vehicle technology of today.

  9. So the air pollution claims are based upon an cars that probably won’t be built for that much longer after the bridge is finished…

    Fair enough, but it disputes Lenny’s point even more since most hybrids can be tuned to allow for up to about 55 mph without significant gas usage.

    I still prefer building out an alternate option along the rail corridor first, I just don’t like false info about a project being spread as gospel.

    Yes, it’s an overpriced over-solution for what we need now. If we do a new BNSF corridor road/bus/LRT/train corridor from Mill Plain to N Portland Rd we have a more viable solution, but that’s not an option anymore. It’s unfortunate, because it would help develop downtown Vancouver better I think, but we have what we have.

    Maybe it’s not too late, but the Portland area can do better for what we have crossing the Columbia. (Or what’s proposed.) I don’t think I-5 is worth $4 bil or so to fix the moment, but it’s worth a legitimate look.

  10. A couple of other notes:

    70 percent of the traffic using the I-5 bridge, including trucks, either gets on or off I-5 in the bridge impact area between SR 500 to the North and Columbia Boulevard to the South, or Both. The CRC acts as both an Interstate highway bridge and a local bridge. The question I have asked and has yet to be answered is: What percentage of traffic is going to downtown Portland (where Max goes).

    Another question I have asked and also has yet to be answered is: What is the actual cost of just the bicycle infrastructure to be built as part of the CRC project?
    The answer to this one maybe in those 5000 pages JK was talking about (another thread), but with 56k, I am not going there.

  11. Education drives modern economies, not transportation. Spend $4B on k-12, community colleges, Universities and research institutes.
    Put tolls and HOV lanes on I-5 and move on.

  12. Education drives modern economies, not transportation. Spend $4B on k-12, community colleges, Universities and research institutes.
    Put tolls and HOV lanes on I-5 and move on.

    My friends and colleagues at Portland Community College would be happy to hear this position. However, without infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) and mass transit, how will people access education facilities? Transportation and education go hand-in-hand.

  13. Lenny Anderson wrote: Education drives modern economies, not transportation. Spend $4B on k-12, community colleges, Universities and research institutes.

    Interesting now that the call is for road-users, through a gas tax, to subsidize education.

    Let us never, ever ever speak of the “hidden subsidy” to road users.

    By the way…so how does one get to PCC Sylvania or PCC Rock Creek? I can tell you that it isn’t by a MAX train, or a Streetcar, or a WES train…

  14. Interesting now that the call is for road-users, through a gas tax, to subsidize education.

    Who proposed that? Lenny was proposing how $4B would be better spent, not where the $4B was coming from. (Lenny, correct me if I’m wrong.)

    Let us never, ever ever speak of the “hidden subsidy” to road users.

    Let me see if I follow:

    1. Lenny says something
    2. You interpreted it a particular way (which may be right, but isn’t the only interpretation and certainly isn’t stated directly in what Lenny said)
    3. You now use that interpretation to demand that _we_ (not just Lenny) “never, ever ever” address a particular topic again.

    I’ll tell you what… I’ll never bring it up again if you don’t try to start another rail vs. bus argument again.

    By the way…so how does one get to PCC Sylvania or PCC Rock Creek? I can tell you that it isn’t by a MAX train, or a Streetcar, or a WES train…

    Oh. Nevermind.

Leave a Reply to Adron Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *