Anti-CRC Rally Details Confirmed


From the Coalition for a Livable Future. The BTA joins the call and suggests folks contact their State Legislators to make their feelings know and ask Legislators their position.

CRC Opposition and Alternatives Rally, Noon on April 5th at Waterfront Park
Mark Your Calendars!

What: Rally to demand viable alternatives to a 12 lane Columbia River Crossing bridge
When: Sunday, April 5th at noon.
Where: Tom McCall Waterfront Park in Portland, just north of the Hawthorne Bridge
Special Guest Speakers: Former Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, Portland City Commissioner Amanda Fritz, and others

The Opposition and Alternatives Rally is our chance to speak out to stop funding for the Columbia River Crossing project in its current 12 lane form, and to demand alternatives that are fiscally responsible AND address the environmental and livability issues affecting the region. A $4.2 billion dollar, 12 lane mega-bridge is not the solution to congestion. The CRC is 20th Century thinking applied to a very different world today. This project promotes single occupancy vehicle use, invites unchecked sprawl to southern Washington, harms the health of our neighborhoods, and creates gridlock into the heart of Portland.

Volunteers Needed!

Looking to get more involved in the rally? If interested, please email Amanda (amanda@clfuture.org) with your name, contact info (email and phone), and how you would like to be involved (postcards, table, buttons any other ideas).


24 responses to “Anti-CRC Rally Details Confirmed”

  1. I am glad to see the healthy expression of Democracy , but the reality is that the existing bridges are very dangerous. They have had poor maintenance for decades , and do not meet modern earthquake design safety standards. The logical choice is to build a good size multi-modal bridge.
    The more you make noise about this , the more you will cause politicians to get nervous and stall.
    The Historic Stimulus Dollars will go somee place else. We will be left with a dangerous old bridge with no light rail or bike access. I would love for folks to rally for the positive. How about for putting a world-class park on top of the bridge. The park will absorb CO2 24/7 , retain the rain-driven pollution [eliminating treatment capacity] , and cement our reputation as the green capital of the country. Let’s build a Green Gateway to the Northwest !

  2. If any part of this project needs to be stopped, it is the excessive pork barrel spending for bicycle infrastructure buried deep in the budget of this project which must include narrowing the 20 foot wide bicycle crossing to a width of not more than that of a standard 12 foot wide motor vehicle travel lane. Once again the BTA wants to have gluttonous serving of cake paid for by somebody else, but doesn’t want those expected to pay for that cake to have any.

  3. What is the proposed funding sources for this project? Would Washington and Oregon pay 50/50 (minus federal funding of course)?

    Are there any studies out there regarding people in Washington paying gas taxes in their state but driving a majority of their miles on Oregon roads?

    I think this should be factored in when considering 60,000 people in Clark County commute to the Portland metro area, and are *presumably* filling up most of their gas close to their homes (in Washington) but driving a majority of their miles in Oregon.

    Or is this a crazy thought?

  4. Are there any studies out there regarding people in Washington paying gas taxes in their state but driving a majority of their miles on Oregon roads?

    When working in WA (but living in OR) I made it a point to buy gas up there. I hate waiting for the attendant to decide I’m worth pumping gas for in OR. My driving was split roughly 50/50, cause I usually got lunch in WA.

  5. Terry Parker:

    Leaving aside whether we need a new bridge, what exactly do you mean in your comment that a 20-foot wide bike/pedestrian lane would be pork-barrel spending? What do you suppose are the funding sources for this bridge? If you believe that it will be funded from vehicle registration fees and gas taxes, you are grossly mistaken. Those two funding sources pay for a fraction of existing road maintenance, let alone massive new infrastructure spending. The rest – and all of the funding for this proposed project – comes from general funds, paid by everybody through income and other taxes. I, in effect, subsidize your driving, Mr Parker!

    Now, as for the efficacy of bicycle infrastructure spending, consider this: while bicyclists make up more than 1% of traffic (much more than that in Portland), spending on bicycle projects has never exceeded 1% nationally, and barely more than that in Portland, in spite of Sam Adam’s promises. Those cyclists cause such little wear and tear to the roads that it’s essentially a rounding error in the calculations. Additionally, it’s been shown that properly designed cycling infrastructure can induce increased rates of bicycle use, which correspondingly reduces the motor vehicle load on any given road. So, as a driver, you should be happy that money is being spent on bike lanes. It’s good for your own self interest.

    Now, on to the discussion of what a boondoggle this 12-lane bridge really is, with or without a bike lane.

  6. Major maintenance was done in ’97…one bridge was closed for a week with a massive transportation options effort and NO traffic jams.
    They have also been painted recently and are not on ODOT’s list of troubled bridges. Seismic retrofit to current standards would cost less than removal! Note that safety/incident issues can be addressed by lowering speed limits to 45 on bridge approaches, closing substandard on/off ramps in peak hour/peak direction and other low cost measures. The bridges are fine 90% of the time.

  7. Major maintenance was done in ’97…one bridge was closed for a week with a massive transportation options effort and NO traffic jams.

    I seem to recall that this so-called “major maintenance” was replacing what is essentially an axle atop one of the towers that had cracked and was in danger of failing (which would have rendered the lift span unusable, and likely would also cause damage to the structure itself).

    That was it. No repaint, no replacement of the bridge deck, no replacement of the machinery…it was one fix but because of the nature of it required a total shutdown of the bridge.

    That the plan to use alternative methods of travel worked – was only because the alternatives were for a short period of time and as a result many downtown Portland businesses agreed to the alternatives – including alternate work arrangements (work from home, different start/stop times) – that would have never happened for a prolonged period of time. I can tell you, my employer doesn’t care if there’s a foot of snow on the ground – I’m still expected to be at work on time, on schedule…and no bridge failure is going to change that.

  8. FYI – The rally location has shifted a bit to the north (apparently something related to city permits). It’s now under the Morrison Bridge. See you Sunday!

  9. Ws – Most people that live in Washington only travel to Oregon to do some shopping or to work in Oregon. Working in Oregon means paying 9% income tax, even though they get no benefits from the state of Oregon (in-state college tuition at U of O or OSU is one example).

    I almost always fill up in WA because I can’t count the number of times the OR gas jockeys have spilled gas on my car.

    OR gets way more taxes from Washingtonians than the Washingtonians cost the state of Oregon.

  10. No one is forced to live in WA and work in OR. If this arrangement is not to your benefit, perhaps you made a poor choice.
    The I-5 bridges are not on ODOT’s list of at risk bridges that are currently be repaired and rebuilt across the state.
    TSM and TDM together can make the existing spans safe and effective routes for freight at relatively little cost.

  11. Lenny – I didn’t mention anything about choices and I’m not complaining about the tax situation.

    I replied to your comment that you think that Washingtonians free are riding in OR by not buying gas in OR and paying OR gas taxes while driving in OR. I pointed out that OR receives way more taxes from WA residents than we cost the state of OR in services. I didn’t mention anything about choices and you almost appear to be flaming me even though all I did was provide a counter-argument to your claim that WA residents are free-riding in OR (we are not).

  12. No flaming intended. Not sure what comment you are refering to. I never said anything about “WAs riding free, etc”
    I merely argue that the current bridges are fine; they just need to be managed, which could include tolls.

  13. I merely argue that the current bridges are fine; they just need to be managed, which could include tolls.

    Trying to upgrade a facility requires it meets certain standards is the problem with that approach. You can’t just close the Jantzen Beach off ramps or on ramps for hours a day without another option for the residents and businesses to be able to move. Shutting down the Marine Dr or SR-14 ramps would cause major jams of cars that use those routes trying to re-route to Interstate or Mill Plain.

    I can’t imagine getting support from Jantzen Beach or Vancouver residents on the plan ever, and without their support I don’t think the toll & close ramps option will work. If we built another bridge to give access to Jantzen Beach, we might be able to remove the ramps, but tolls still would be a problem. (And a new bridge is pretty expensive as well.)

    There are federal laws in place to prevent locales from doing exactly what you’re proposing because of the national significance of the Interstate Highway System.

    Without upgrading to meet current standards we can’t just toll the bridge. The CRC is the solution that allows us to toll. We could try to change federal law, but it’s incredibly unlikely to pass, since other communities would love to toll existing roads to increase revenues as well.

  14. Just make I-205 I-5, tear out the existing freeways at both ends of the old bridges, replace them with boulevards and stop lights, develop the vacant land that is now paved, and move on. People will adjust.

  15. vancouver resident:Most people that live in Washington only travel to Oregon to do some shopping or to work in Oregon. Working in Oregon means paying 9% income tax, even though they get no benefits from the state of Oregon (in-state college tuition at U of O or OSU is one example).

    I am not saying that people in Clark County are not contributing to the Oregon’s economy and don’t deserve investment in the area, however, income taxes do not go towards highway development.

    This does not take away from the fact that a good majority of people in Washington fill up in WA and drive on Oregon roads. While Oregonians are paying income taxes and state gas taxes.

    Clark county contributes about 3.3% to Oregon’s income tax pool, whereas Multnomah (17.8%) and Washington Co (12.5%) are contributing much more. Lil’ old Yamhill county is almost on par with Clark County’s contributions to the state.

    http://www.oregon.gov/DOR/STATS/docs/101_406_08/101-406-08.pdf

    The question is, should the 60,000 or so work commuters (plus additional shoppers) be benefiting the most from this new bridge over Oregonians?

    I understand we live in a region, but when the the bills are handed out; I think that Washington should cover more of the bill based off of the little contribution Clark County gives to Oregon, and the amount of “tax evasion” that goes on in regards to gas/registration taxes that go to the state of Washington instead of the state of Oregon.

    Allow for Clark County workers to utilize in state costs for Oregon public schools, for all I care.

  16. Just make I-205 I-5, tear out the existing freeways at both ends of the old bridges, replace them with boulevards and stop lights, develop the vacant land that is now paved, and move on. People will adjust.

    Yeah, the feds would agree to that, sure. Do you really think this is a reasonable solution that would get support from anything but extremists?

    Again, this is in large part a national issue. The feds generally are not okay with a state removing an Interstate without permission.

  17. Here is a resource to guide you to information about tolling: http://www.smarterbridge.org/?q=node/28

    The idea that we can only apply tolls if we build the CRC, or that we can’t perform incremental upgrades that do not bring an Interstate up to current design standards, is an old argument that does not seem to be supported by the facts.

  18. Do you really think this is a reasonable solution that would get support from anything but extremists?

    Yes, it absolutely is a reasonable solution. If one of the “problems” this monster bridge is supposed to fix is an insufficient bridge on Interstate 5 … well, just move the interstate by simply flipping the signs, change the route designation on future maps. Interstate 5 — carrying freight traffic from Mexico to Canada — will cross the Glenn Jackson Bridge, eliminating all potential problems with drawbridge delays or narrow lanes. Problem solved. The Interstate system loses a bypass (current I-5 from Wilsonville to Salmon Creek) but the system as a whole remains intact and connected.

    Yes, it means some creative re-use of other portions of our infrastructure. But realistically, we can solve a lot of the Portland-Vancouver congestion problems by building new toll bridges to cross the river at various points, steering traffic away from the bottleneck that the CRC will NOT remove.

    And we would save taxpayers several billion dollars.

    This is hardly an “extremist” proposal. It’s simply thinking outside the box.

  19. We need to drag the “feds” into the 21st century.
    If you really hyperventilate over freeway removal, then you should check out the Embarcadero boulevard in SF where the elevated freeway used to be. Or Waterfront Park…on Sunday, April 5, Noon…where Harbor Drive used to be.

  20. Of course, neither Harbor Drive nor the Embarcadero were Interstate highways (though the Embarcardero Freeway *was* slated to be Insterstate 480–a designation which was never applied). Harbor Drive was of course made obsolete by the construction of I-5 and I-405 downtown; and the portion of the Embarcardero that was build and later demolished was never a through freeway–it was FTMP an extra long ramp connecting to the Bay Bridge.

    A closure of the Interstate Bridge would be more like San Francisco residents demanding the Bay Bridge itself be closed, with the observation that trucks needing to get to San Jose can use the San Mateo bridge, or drive down through Fremont and Hayward. Unlikely to happen.

    Interstate shippers (i.e. truck drivers), of course, are free to take whatever routes they want, subject to any explicit restrictions to the contrary. Some through trucks (without stops in Portland) take I-205 today, some don’t–given that truckers are generally outfitted with pretty nice navigation systems these days; I suspect the decision is often based on local traffic conditions.

    Shutting down, or severely restricting the Interstate Bridge, will simply move traffic elsewhere–and that elsewhere today is the Glenn Jackson. Building bridges in other locations might be feasible (I assume you mean non-freeway bridges), though the most useful spot for a crossing west of the Glen Jackson is right where the Interstate Bridge presently sits.

    Any any rate, if you want to “drag the feds into the 21st century”, you have work to do to get better feds elected. The Obama Administration is probably friendlier for transit than its predecessor (Bush seemed utterly hostile to anything that didn’t burn fossil fuels), and Obama has oil dependence on his stated “to-do list”; but he has already shown a willingness to use transit as a bargaining chip (lots of money for transit was cut out of the stimulus package in order to get a filibuster proof majority in the Senate).

    Given the present economic conditions, spending money on infrastructure isn’t a bad idea. Of course, there are probably better things to do with $4 billion than build the current bridge.

  21. This is hardly an “extremist” proposal. It’s simply thinking outside the box.

    That’s also not even close to what Lenny has repeatedly suggested, which he keeps stating as closing ramps, adding tolls, and seismic upgrades. It leaves off the whole part you mentioned about adding additional bridges.

    Also just “swapping the signs” doesn’t make I-5 not an Interstate anymore. The only constructed Interstates that have ever been removed from the system have been incomplete stubs (like I-480 in SF and I-794 in Milwaukee.)

    As far as the tolling, I read a lot of what was linked by Doug, and the changes that are being suggested aren’t the same type that allow tolling. We can toll I-205 if we build the CRC, but tolling both as TDM isn’t approved for any similar project.

    The two pilot projects involving tolling an entire roadway (and not just HOT or express lanes) are for statewide reconstruction and modernization. It’s not just slapping tolls on a substandard portion of freeway. In general, the FHWA seems to feel that if you’re not going to meet their standards, nothing else can change either.

    It’s unlikely they’ll let us toll the existing Interstate Bridge without upgrading it. It’s not to say it’s impossible, it just flies in the face of every decision they’ve made for decades.

  22. Of course the current bridges would stay; they would simply be converted to arterials…linked to MLK and “Cesar Chavez Blvd”…former I-5 freeway thru north Portland.
    Freight could be accommodated on those routes as well as via Greeley & Basin Avenues to a new two lane tunnel parallel to the UPRR tunnel to a new freight only bridge over the Columbia built as part of an expanded RR bridge (for freight rail, highspeed rail, commuter rail, etc.)
    Come on let your imaginations soar! The last thing we need is just more 20th century lanes.

  23. Lenny Anderson wrote: No one is forced to live in WA and work in OR. If this arrangement is not to your benefit, perhaps you made a poor choice.

    No, but land use policies have created unaffordable housing here in Portland, which has created demand for more affordable housing in Clark County (as well as Clackamas and Washington Counties, and east Multnomah County).

    Meanwhile, the majority of jobs are on the Oregon side of the river – most of the region’s transportation infrastructure is on the Oregon side, for instance.

    If Oregon doesn’t want people living in Clark County, then Oregon needs to step up to the plate and build affordable housing, and right now no one in Oregon has any interest in doing so – especially Portland. So the government very much has created a portion of the transportation demand.

    TSM and TDM together can make the existing spans safe and effective routes for freight at relatively little cost.

    Not over a long term period. It was demonstrated for what, nine days? Employers will adjust for nine days. Permanently? They’ll move out of town.

    Of course the current bridges would stay; they would simply be converted to arterials…linked to MLK and “Cesar Chavez Blvd”…former I-5 freeway thru north Portland.
    Freight could be accommodated on those routes as well as via Greeley & Basin Avenues to a new two lane tunnel parallel to the UPRR tunnel to a new freight only bridge over the Columbia built as part of an expanded RR bridge (for freight rail, highspeed rail, commuter rail, etc.)

    MLK is certainly incapabable of handling that amount of traffic, especially truck traffic. It’s barely adequate for what it has right now.

    Remember that pre-Interstate 5, 99E was on Union Avenue (now MLK) and 99W was on Interstate. Thanks to MAX, Interstate Avenue is a fraction of the size it was, and therefore is not a suitable through route. Besides I-5, there are no other north-south routes capable of handling the volume of traffic that even Lenny suggests would occur.

    Greeley is find for Swan Island traffic moving south, but does nothing for Terminal 4/5/6/Rivergate traffic, or for Swan Island traffic moving north. And truck traffic from downtown, Washington County…would all be forced onto U.S. 30 – and we’d just end up building two Interstate Highways (U.S. 30 and I-5) between Portland and Kelso. That seems rather counter-productive.

    I see though that we have no shortage of crazy ideas like a “freight-only bridge” or a “freight-only tunnel” though. Certainly those people need to get to/from work; what are we proposing for that? A Streetcar line to Kelly Point Park? An Acela Express train from Gresham to Linnton? And where does the money come from, an 85% income tax? We might as well hang up the “Closed for Business” sign…

  24. One other point regarding Harbor Drive and the Embarcadero.

    In those cases, freeways were removed to enable competing uses of the land in question. Turning I-5 in N Portland back into Minnesota Avenue (the street that I-5 destroyed did have a name, after all) or Cesar Chavez Avenue (given that nobody has an I-5 mailing address, I doubt that proposal would satisfy the pro-Chavez activists–who have made it clear, it seems, that a proper tribute to the labor leader will require citizens be inconvenienced, just like was done for MLK) doesn’t really solve any land use problem. You still have an ugly trench through N Portland.

    You could fill in the trench, I suppose, but as Erik points out–you still need trucking infrastructure. And the suggestion to then build truck-only routes kinda reveals the rationale behind this proposal–to annoy motorists out of cars.

    There are certainly valid reasons to discourage driving, in particular the SOV commute. But tearing down freeways is an expensive way to do it. And I’d rather encourage transit use by making the transit system (bus, train, whatever) MORE desirable, rather than by crippling competition.

    And besides–if we really don’t like freeways, why limit ourselves to I-5 northbound? Why not turn I-84 and I-5 south into parks or boulevards or whatever as well–motorists can always take Sandy or Barbur…. or is there some pique reserved for those metro residents who choose (for whatever reason) to live outside of Metro’s jurisdiction?

Leave a Reply to ws Cancel reply

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