Sam Backs Away from 12 Lanes on CRC


Update: here’s the full text of Sam’s statement.


The Oregonian is reporting that Portland Mayor Sam Adams will release a statement today withdrawing his support for a 12-lane Columbia River Crossing configuration.

Meanwhile, members of the local project sponsors council are making clear that the cost of the project must be reduced.

“What they’ve cooked up is this enormous thing,” Metro Council President David Bragdon said. “They’re jeopardizing the whole project by making it so enormous. I think that’s starting to sink in.”

Freeway interchanges are likely to be among the first items on the table for cost reductions.

Let’s hope the outbreak of sanity is contagious…


37 responses to “Sam Backs Away from 12 Lanes on CRC”

  1. Finally. Everyone else is looking at this cost-cutting thing backwards, however. Most of the safety benefits from this project come not from a new, larger bridge, but from improved and more efficient interchanges. If you look at the current data, they show that the bridge itself is one of the safest spots on the corridor—most of the issues are with the outdated interchanges.

    Keep the two perfectly fine bridges we have now, retrofit them, and then improve the interchanges. Construct a supplementary bridge for transit, bicycles, pedestrians, and arterial traffic, and you’ve got nearly all of the benefits of the current project (and a few additional benefits) for significantly less taxpayer money.

  2. Keep the two perfectly fine bridges we have now, retrofit them, and then improve the interchanges. Construct a supplementary bridge for transit, bicycles, pedestrians, and arterial traffic, and you’ve got nearly all of the benefits of the current project (and a few additional benefits) for significantly less taxpayer money.

    Improving the interchanges is an excellent idea, but having a drawbridge on an Interstate corridor just seems counterproductive to me.

    That said, anything over 8 lanes is probably overkill. It’s a shame more consideration hasn’t been given to an arterial roadway paralelling the BNSF railroad tracks between Vancouver and Hwy 30.

  3. The most pragmatic project is one which utilizes existing (paid-for) infrastructure as much as possible. Improvements to the existing bridges could keep them useful for the next 100 years. Supplement this with capacity improvments, possibly including a few more lanes, LRT, and ped/bike facilities, and you’ve got essentially the same project with a lot less new bridge.

  4. Build an 8-lane freeway bridge (thus getting rid of the drawbridge and the narrow lane problems) and keep the existing bridges for light rail, arterial traffic, bicycles and pedestrians. Problem solved, at a fraction of the cost.

    Treat each interchange improvement as a separate project, treat the rehab of the existing bridges for light rail as a separate project, and we wind up looking at just one narrow issue: should there be an eight-lane freeway bridge next to the existing Interstate Bridge.

  5. Cut the light rail and save 3/4 of a billion dollars.

    Most of the CRC lanes are due to interchanges being so close together. Spacing out the interchanges so only one aux lane is needed would be a great first step. 4 through lanes in each direction is pretty standard in most medium sized cities.

  6. Bravo Sam!
    Now let’s fix the rail bridge, extend light rail to Hayden Island on an arterial bridge for local traffic, remove the Hayden Island I-5 ramps, seismic retrofit the I-5 bridges, begin C-Tran Limited service down I-5 to the Yellow Line, re-strip the HOV lanes on I-5 south bound in Clark county. And we are done.

  7. more thoughts:
    Maybe the focus should really now shift to the rail bridge, both the lift
    and the capacity to accommodate more “higher speed” passenger rail and
    increasing freight rail.
    One more thing…did you see the cost of the Marine Dr interchange/flyover!!
    all to get empty containers to T-6 which sees 1% of west coast container
    traffic.

  8. Simply having an arterial bridge between Vancouver and either Hayden Island or North Portland seems like a simple, reasonable solution. It would take some local traffic off the I-5 and that’s good.
    But we need to look further ahead.

    Even though Clark Co. residents who work in Oregon do complain about the income tax, they are dropping about $120 million each year into Oregon coffers. This isn’t something we should turn our backs on. If Washington County moves forward with its urban reserves proposal i think we can expect more jobs to be create there, more people commuting from SW Washington—and thus more tax revenue paid to Oregon.

    A new interstate bridge in the rail corridor, with connections to Hwy 30 and other points west would continue this tradition, and should be much cheaper than the proposed twelve lane structure of the CRC. Thus it should not have the high, costly tolls proposed. Some tolls, yes, until it is paid for…that’s how we have done it before. I don’t see why it could not have some commuter rail provision as well.

    The I-5 Bridges were not seriously bottlenecked until the job growth in Washington County took off in the late eighties. If enough pressure is taken off I-5 speeds can go up—meaning C-Tran buses can keep a better schedule, also.

    The existing interstate bridges are not much of a hazard. Seismic upgrading technology moves forward every year thanks to the research being done all around the Pacific Rim. We are not likely in a great, immediate danger of anything more than a 6.0 earthquake, if that. And the advantage of waiting a decade or two is that the seismic technology will advance. Pendulum isolation bearings are one of the latest developments.

    This possibility should be studied since it has always been an option in previous discussions and is supported by a number of leaders in Clark Co. They think about solutions on that side of the Columbia, too! This regional problem isn’t just a one sided affair.

  9. Even though Clark Co. residents who work in Oregon do complain about the income tax, they are dropping about $120 million each year into Oregon coffers. This isn’t something we should turn our backs on.

    If we spent every single penny of that on the CRC it would take us over 30 years to pay off the CRC (if it comes in at budget).

    If Washington County moves forward with its urban reserves proposal i think we can expect more jobs to be create there

    Really? So the only barrier to job creation is the Urban Growth Boundary and farmland? Why would the urban reserves proposal instantly translate to job growth? And why would that translate directly to employees from Clark Co?

    The I-5 Bridges were not seriously bottlenecked until the job growth in Washington County took off in the late eighties.

    So it had nothing to do with the lack of land use regulations in Clark Couty, and explosive sprawl and growth north of the Columbia?

    I fail to see your logic how you assume that a job in Washington County Oregon = a commuter across the Columbia.

    What got us congested across the river was the promise of cheap easy land up north. Well, guess what. Everything has a cost. You want to save money by buying a house in Battle Ground – you eat up those savings in commuting costs and time. You want to save money in commuting costs and time, you buy a house that is closer to your job but may cost more.

    We all make our own choices, and to expect everyone else to pay $4billion so that people could move farther out than they should have is just plain rediculus. Where is my $4 billion dollar subsidy so that I can live downtown, where I want to live?

  10. Keep the two perfectly fine bridges we have now, retrofit them, and then improve the interchanges.

    The problem with that is that the FHWA won’t allow reconstruction of just the interchanges without getting the bridges themselves up to current standards as well. The rules on this are strict, and that means they need to build shoulders, reduce the grade of the bridge, and eliminate the lift span. The only way around that would be to decommission it as an I-5, but that’s as unlikely as getting authorization not to modernize it.

    Some of the ramps are needed due to federal rules as well. There’s rules about how close together interchanges can be, and unfortunately the bridge has them too close now, so the bridge itself has to be widened to accommodate these requirements.

    There are cost-cutting measures that can be done, and they illustrated them nicely. Hopefully we can build something that’s more cost effective, since many of those interchanges are overkill. They can easily be separate projects.

    I’d prefer an arterial bridge, but we’re not likely to get much federal funding for that if we ignore I-5.

  11. Valkraider,

    Those demographics I cite may not make sense to you or I. I sympathize with your point. But evidently they make sense to a lot of people. There are a lot of bi state commuters and one reason may be that a lot of people living in Washington decide they want to be close to a zero sales tax area but figure they cannot afford to live in Portland proper. I think you are arguing with discernible realities.

    Furthermore, did I say anything about funding the $4 Billion CRC project? I am talking about an alternative. Ring roads in the Interstate system are the normal plan (you can add mass transit to them, if you like) and it is our NW area where we have a link missing.

  12. I don’t have a lot of time right now, but as a native Portlander who moved to Vancouver, in the early part of this decade, but still works in downtown Portland fairly often, I have a lot of experience with living in both state and the freeway/bridge.

    I grew up in “Lower Alameda” in the 1970s in a modest bungalow that my father bought as a construction worker. I have an advanced degree and make good money – above the median for the Portland area.

    I can’t afford to buy that house in Alameda today. That’s one reason why I live in Clark County. It isn’t due to Clark County’s zoning or growth boundary (yes, we do have one) that houses are cheaper up here. It’s because of distance to Portland, the overall worse image of Vancouver that Portlanders have of Vancouver (it’s less desirable to live here – I’m not sure why). Therefore, housing costs less. Plus I bet that the median wage is higher in Portland than Vancouver, so people in Portland are willing to spend more on housing.

    Another reason I live up here is that the school system, overall, is better than Portland’s. Vancouver students spend 30 more days a year in class than a Portland student. Over 12 years, that’s an extra full year of school.

    It is correct that I bought a house in Vancouver because I could get more for my money than in Portland. Plus, my wife worked in Vancouver at the time, so we saved some money on state income tax and she had a nice, short commute to work. Plus it’s very quiet in the suburbs up here at night, which is a nice change after living in NE Portland for a long time.

    I am willing to pay a toll to cross a new bridge because I can afford a toll and my time is more valuable than the cost of a reasonable toll ($10 each way would be too high for example). Most Vancouverites are against a toll because they’re upset about paying Oregon income taxes and then also having to pay an additional toll to get to work in Oregon. I’m not saying that they’re right – I’m just saying that’s what they’re thinking and feeling.

    However, I am pretty p-od at Sam Adams right now because he is not being fair to all of the future users of the bridge. He states that drivers have to cover the cost of the bridge, but will only support a bridge if it has light rail. Light Rail is heavily subsidized and riders do not pay the full cost of their transportation. Adams is demanding that one mode of transport – drivers – have to pay a toll. Mayor Adams would be forcing drivers to pay for construction of the light rail.

    Removing light rail from the bridge would greatly pare down the cost of the bridge, which would push down the cost of tolls or even remove them outright.

  13. Dave H Says: The problem with that is that the FHWA won’t allow reconstruction of just the interchanges without getting the bridges themselves up to current standards as well.
    JK: People have been lying to us about the federal requirements. For instance, most of us have heard that the Feds won’t let us build a bridge without “high capacity transit”. That was a lie.

    So I ask, do you have proof that “FHWA won’t allow reconstruction of just the interchanges without getting the bridges themselves up to current standards as well”. If you can’t show the regulation, I suggest that it is most probable that you have been lied to.

    Dave H Says: The rules on this are strict, and that means they need to build shoulders, reduce the grade of the bridge, and eliminate the lift span.
    JK: What grade? What is the max grade allowed?
    One option in the DEIS is to keep the current spans for North bound traffic and build one bridge for South traffic.

    Again, if you can’t show the regulation, I suggest that it is most probable that you have been lied to.

    Dave H Says: The only way around that would be to decommission it as an I-5, but that’s as unlikely as getting authorization not to modernize it.
    JK: Do nothing (“not to modernize it.”) is one of the options. As sam the tram is saying: no tolls, no rail = no bridge.

    Dave H Says: Some of the ramps are needed due to federal rules as well.
    JK: Which ones & which rules?

    Dave H Says: There’s rules about how close together interchanges can be, and unfortunately the bridge has them too close now, so the bridge itself has to be widened to accommodate these requirements.
    JK: One option was to close the Hayden island ramps & build a separate small bridge to Hayden island from Marine Dr.

    Dave H Says: There are cost-cutting measures that can be done, and they illustrated them nicely. Hopefully we can build something that’s more cost effective, since many of those interchanges are overkill.
    JK: Simple, dump the worthless light rail and postpone the intersection work until actually needed.

    The real reason for the intersections and tolls appears to be to pay for light rail.

    Thanks
    JK

  14. So I ask, do you have proof that “FHWA won’t allow reconstruction of just the interchanges without getting the bridges themselves up to current standards as well”.

    I’m going by CalTrans and their dealings with the FHWA as far as CA-15 (soon to be Interstate 15) from I-8 to I-5 in San Diego, among other projects. Until the ramps meet the FHWA requirements, it’s not an Interstate, per that example.

    To modernize any part of an Interstate Highway with federal funds, you have to get it up to current standards, which include shoulders, 12 foot lanes, etc. That’s part of why the I-5/I-805 merge in San Diego had to be rebuilt with weave ramps rather than just widening existing lanes and shoulders as another recent example.

    One option in the DEIS is to keep the current spans for North bound traffic and build one bridge for South traffic.

    A DEIS doesn’t have to study only options that will be funded, that’s why no-build is required for environmental impact statements. There are grading requirements I can dig up tomorrow, but they apply to bridges now, which they didn’t when the Interstate bridge was built.

    Regardless, a drawbridge is absolutely a no-go on an Interstate. If you need more details past that I can dig them up, but the lift span is a big problem for a no-build option. No federal funds if there’s a deficiency. And a drawbridge or traffic light is a huge deficiency on an Interstate.

    Do nothing (“not to modernize it.”) is one of the options.

    Yes, that’s a federal requirement to get a baseline of what happens if we do nothing. It’s called No-Build, and it’s been discussed for everything from MAX to freeway interchanges on this site even.

    Which ones & which rules?

    Acceleration speeds, there’s minimum distances based on freeway speeds. You need to give a certain distance to speed up, and the current ramps are too close together. I’ll dig them up tomorrow when I’m less tired if you really can’t believe that ramp requirements have changed in the past 55 years, but either way SB I-5 off and NB I-5 on in Jantzen Beach require more space for vehicles to build up speed than can be allowed without expanding the current bridges, without a major rebuild of both.

    One ramp per mile is the current suggestion, more are allowed but you need aux/weave ramps. Again, I can dig up the specific DOT requirements in the morning.

    One option was to close the Hayden island ramps & build a separate small bridge to Hayden island from Marine Dr.

    Great plan, we’ll see how far that gets with the Port of Portland and business owners in Jantzen Beach. I’d prefer a third bridge, but it’s unlikely in this situation to get an federal funding.

    The real reason for the intersections and tolls appears to be to pay for light rail.

    I’d guess the interchanges have more to do with getting it funded now rather than as a separate project. Congress traditionally has been more willing to lump-sum pay out for infrastructure than do it in phases.

    That and the current Delta Park Project makes a clean south end, and north of WA 500 is being worked on, so it basically fills in gaps that Congress has already funded.

  15. As a light rail supporter, I think there should be a surcharge on fares for passengers that cross the river that goes to pay for the bridge. BART has one for all Transbay Tube crossings and the old Key System crossing the Bay Bridge had one. I’d suggest one for the ped/bike path but the funds would probably just go to cover the cost of collecting the tolls.

  16. Now IANAHWE, but Dave clearly hasn’t driven I-5 through downtown Seattle, which has very narrow lanes & left-side offramps.

    Existing infrastructure is always grandfathered in; its not like the Feds would decommission the existing I-5 bridge if, for instance, we added sidewalks to the bridge and did no other work.

    Those same sidewalks aren’t ADA compliant, yet the DOTs aren’t being sued for this requirement, either. And ADA takes precedence over pretty much all other considerations for design work.

    Anyways, one alternative that has already been brought up several times would be to align the RR and highway bridge’s lift spans so as to minimize disruption to traffic. A better bridge could support commuter rail traffic, which would give you ~15 minute commutes between downtown Vancouver and downtown Portland.

    Not to mention the potential for the MAX to take 10s of thousands of commuters off the roads. My only gripe about that would be that it would also encourage additional growth to Clark County.

  17. “JK: What grade? What is the max grade allowed?
    One option in the DEIS is to keep the current spans for North bound traffic and build one bridge for South traffic.”

    Jim, if any new project is added in the I-5 corridor (proper) it will increase traffic—and thus bring us closer to a call to bury I-5 and remove the Marwuam bridge. This would be a total money waste. I thought you were against that kind of spending? That is an even mor important reason for not building the CRC project, no matter how scaled back it is, and basically you are talking about a scaled back version. It’s not just the money spent on CRC; it;s the huge rconstruction of I-5 likely to follow.

    We can foresee major increases in congestion as long as we have only two routes, because of the inevitable population growth. It will be bad enough without unnecessary construction projects bringing more people here. The third bridge in the rail corridor solves the vast majority of transportation issues in the bi state area. That’s why SW Wa RTC had it on its list.

  18. The newer cable-stay designs appear to lack light rail and bike/ped infrastructure. No way that’s gonna fly. Outside bridges block views. Yuck. Of the 3 designs, I like enclosed bike/ped/light rail design best. Though there are security concerns, the shelter from rain would be nice.

    Reducing elevation through Hayden Island and eliminating the center underpass is something. It would decrease grade and improve both decelleration and accelleration at exit and entrance ramps, possibly reduce ramp lengths. Port of Portland wants to make West Hayden Island a major terminal requiring major truck access. Insane.

    The DOTs have to overbuild the thing so I-5 traffic can reach maximum speed, (plus at least 10mph over the speed limit).

  19. Now IANAHWE, but Dave clearly hasn’t driven I-5 through downtown Seattle, which has very narrow lanes & left-side offramps.

    Existing infrastructure is always grandfathered in; its not like the Feds would decommission the existing I-5 bridge if, for instance, we added sidewalks to the bridge and did no other work.

    When did those sections last get federal funding for anything more than paving? The last upgrades I can find a record of from WADOT’s web site is in the early 80’s, which was before a lot of the standards were changed. (Also the lanes in downtown Seattle are definitely wider than on the current bridge, I just drove a U-Haul truck up there Labor Day weekend. The CRC was a much tighter fit.)

    They’d be more likely to get an exemption too, since they have the express lanes (which allows you to bypass the left exits and things) in addition to that being in a downtown area with little ROW available.

    The problems for us is that the ROW near the CRC is available (at a reasonable price/without displacing neighborhoods), and it would be nearly impossible to add what are now considered safe ramps to Jantzen Beach without modifying the bridge structure itself.

    The drawbridge alone isn’t the problem, the ramps alone aren’t the problem, the grade alone isn’t the problem, the lane width alone isn’t the problem, the age and condition of the existing bridges alone isn’t the problem, the lack of space between ramps alone isn’t the problem, and the congestion alone isn’t the problem. The problem is that all of those exist in the same stretch of highway, and we’re expecting federal money to fix it. The feds want to see the value for the money they put it. Re-conditioning the current bridges, but not improving them is expensive pretty expensive but fixes none of the problems above. For a bit more, we can solve all those problems and not worry about the bridge having structural issues anytime soon.

    It’s possible the BNSF bridge getting upgraded and becoming an arterial bridge between Vancouver and N Portland, as well as fixing the shipping problem and possibly taking MAX too, could get funding since it has a transit element and is a slow point between Seattle and Portland for passenger rail.

    I think that would be a fairly easy way to solve for the current problems, and probably could be done cheaper than the CRC concept. We could table that for at least a decade or two if we had more connections between the cities.

  20. SW Wa RTC has also considered a bridge between Hwy 14 near Camas and Troutdale. The shortest hop would be from Hwy 14 as it drops south on Lady Island just west of Camas. This could link to Hwy 26.

    I am not ‘owning’ that idea—just tossing it out as one of the proposals floated on the Washington side. So don’t blast me if you don’t like it. I am just trying to say that I don’t think replacing the I-5 bridges will ever be needed–at least not for many decades, and maybe we would have a better technology by then, anyway. There are always a lot of advances in bridge design over time.

  21. I’ve thought about that idea myself; though it’s too far out to effectively deal with transit issues. And were a highway link to run between Camas and the limited-access portions of US26 southeast of Gresham–I think the most important piece of that route would be the stretch between US26 and I-84, keeping Mt. Hood traffic out of Gresham city streets and/or the Damascus corridor.

    Traffic between east Multnomah County and Camas/Washougal probably doesn’t justify a bridge.

    An idea I’ve had that might make more sense for transit would be a crossing which extends NE 122nd north past Marine Drive onto Government Island; travelling east for a while on the island, and then crossing the main Columbia channel and joining up with 164th in the Fischers Landing area. Such a route would might be a good way to get MAX across the Columbia east of here, given that the Glenn Jackson bridge (contrary to rumor) isn’t designed with LRT in mind, and that lots development is occurring in this part of the Couv.

    That’s just a looking-at-the-map idea, which has had no serious scrutiny, either on my part or on anyone else’s.

  22. Traffic between east Multnomah County and Camas/Washougal probably doesn’t justify a bridge.

    The reason Washington is looking at it would be to get trucks heading I-84 East to SR-14 to I-205, instead of I-84 all the way to I-205. It would probably help relieve freight congestion a little, and would likely do a bit to help clear up I-84 as well as the Glenn Jackson.

  23. JK – Why are you against tolling? Are you pro-private enterprise operating roadways?

    I say hand it over to the private sector and just let them fund it. It’ll get built for less money in half the time, but I promise they’ll charge everyone a cost + 5-10% profit. Which should still be less than what is suggested now.

    …ah, honesty and integrity in infrastructure a pipe dream in modern America.

  24. …oh yeah, on topic.

    Bridge #fail! YES!

    This economic monetary collapse we just went through seems to be doing Portland more good than bad these days. Sure, we have a horrid unemployment rate but it has already put the CRC at odds with reality and killed the HQ Hotel…

  25. This economic monetary collapse we just went through seems to be doing Portland more good than bad these days. Sure, we have a horrid unemployment rate but it has already put the CRC at odds with reality and killed the HQ Hotel…

    Yee-haw! Let’s kill any chance of being economically competitive with other cities of our size!

  26. Dave H – ? Economically competitive? The monetary collapse is a symptom of Keynsian Economics, doesn’t have anything to do with Portland.

    As for being competitive, if Portland honestly thinks this bridge OR the HQ hotel are going to help our competitiveness – this city is lost. It’ll take decades to straighten out that type of short sightedness.

    The city seems to be doing fine at what it is really after. Creative, upper class white collar workers – with a smidgen of real blue collar work. Makes for a horrid unemployment rate during bad times (like now) and does great for gentrifying growth during good times. :)

  27. To clear up some misconceptions:

    There are few hard-and-fast rules as to what can/can’t be done in the Interstate system. Of course, there are regulations, but exemptions occur all the time. The idea that FHWA is forcing the design of this bridge is misleading. We engineers love to shift responsibilty for our designs to faceless bureacracies.

    If the feds required standards lanes and shoulders, the Lincoln, Holland, Brooklyn-Battery, Eisenhower tunnels, Hubbard’s Cave, and hundreds of other tunnels (and bridges) nationwide would have to be decommissioned.

    If the feds required spacing standards to be met upon reconstruction, Chicago would have had to close 90% of their interchanges on 90/94 downtown. They didn’t.

    If drawbridges were truly a no-go, the brand shiny new Woodrow Wilson Bridge would probably not have one. It does.

    Further, engineers love to blame the feds for dictating the number of lanes. This is equally misleading; the feds have an opinion but it’s always a local decision. Unfortunately, state DOTs usually make this decision and we all know their biases.

    The feds absolutely DO NOT require bridges to be scrapped to meet current standards. Exemptions can be and are approved so that we spend our money wisely. I think Karlock is right in this case that you (and many others) have been lied to.

  28. Adron:JK – Why are you against tolling? Are you pro-private enterprise operating roadways?

    [Moderator: Personally-directed remark removed.]

  29. I am glad that Unit and Jim Karlock have questioned the claims that the Feds require this or that. I have seen these claims before, but never a citation from any regulations.

    I have observed numerous transportation projects over the years. Consultants and local bureaucrats love to make claims about what the Feds require. Too often, it is wishful thinking about what they would like the regulations to mean.

    The FWHA web site gives a wealth of factual information about what actually is Federal policy. The draw bridges can stay. The existing freeway can have safety improvements added. Absolutely.

  30. The operation of the liftspans on the I-5 bridges can be altered by the authority of Congress. Every similar bridge has its own policy established…I think with major input from the Coast Guard. Presently during commute times lifting the span is at the discretion of the operator. I don’t know why they couldn’t forbid recreational boats from asking for a bridge lift except during certain hours. This would be sailboats–and ones that big usually plan out their voyages, anyway.

    Few accidents occur on the bridges. They are more likely to occur at nearby approaches and ramps.

    The concrete piers that support the bridges are absolutely HUGE. I have calculated that they are 150′ wide (connecting both structures) and have four pilings about ten feet diameter at the top and much larger at the bottom all connected by a web wall about four feet thick. By comparison the Morrison Bridge downtown has some very wimpy concrete supports–even though it also has six lanes. The eastern piers have four, square columns 36 in. by 42 in. The S. bound ramp from I-5 to I-84 is sitting on 6 ft. diameter columns. There are even some three foot diameter columns (very short) in places supporting the I-5 freeway.

    I don’t think there is any observable or recorded earthquake damage in the 90 years that the oldest span has been here.

    Most criticisms of the I-5 bridges are unfounded. If congestion were eased, by putting in some other Columbia crossings, traffic could return to normal speed and transit buses would also not be getting stuck in traffic.

  31. Vancouver Resident:
    The whole point of light rail is to offer a reasonably reliable transit alternative to driving across the bridge, to give your neighbors choice other than driving, especially alone to work. We could just stripe HOV lanes.
    Your Oregon state income taxes have nothing to do with transportation, but pay for higher education….which in part drives Portland’s economy and social services/prisons/justice system, which one would think a person working in Portland would be happy to pay for.
    In the early 60’s we threw 2 dimes into the basket each time we crossed the River, gas was 30 cents a gallon, cigarettes .25 a pack. Now gas is $3, so a $2 one way or $4 two way toll…rounded up to $5 in the peaks…is just the same as last time round. I’m with Sam…no tolls, no train, no bridge. Actually, I’d put tolls on the bridges we have, and then all would be fine.

  32. I still say they should tear down all bridges to Washington, build a wall to keep everyone out of Portland except those that live here and ride bicycles, and declare an independent country.

    PORTLANDIA!

Leave a Reply to Doug Allen Cancel reply

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