A “personal statement” from Metro President David Bragdon about the current state of Columbia River Crossing discussions popped up on Metro’s web site today.
Included in the statement:
We can’t afford that version, and it wouldn’t work anyway: the jumbo proposal has no realistic financing, loses public support the more people learn about it, and would probably make traffic much worse than it is today and/or simply move the traffic to places where it would be even more detrimental to our communities on both sides of the river. There is certainly no point in spending a huge amount of money in ways which just make congestion worse. But there is still a path to success for a Columbia Crossing: over the next several months, working together through the Project Sponsors’ Council on which I serve, local officials and congressional pressure must refine this project back into what was originally intended: a replacement bridge that meets our current and future needs and budget.
Bragdon still favors a replacement bridge, but is clear that the current “jumbo” proposal (his word) is not going to fly.
14 responses to “Bragdon on CRC”
A smaller version isn’t “going to fly” either. There is no point in tearing down the perfectly functional I-5 bridges. They are not worn out. If age were a factor then we would have to soon consider tearing down the Golden Gate Bridge, which also is in a far more active earthquake zone.
Why tear down something useful—and neglect something we need?
Just add a new 4-lane supplemental arterial bridge connecting the local street grids of Downtown Vancouver, Hayden Island and North Portland. LRT tracks and a multi-use path on one side of the new bridge. Locate this new bridge just to the west of the existing I-5 bridge. New supplemental bridge can be fixed or operable and of a basic efficient design. Improvements to the existing I-5 bridge. No toll. Realign the bridge opening of the BNSF RR bridge to allow a clear straight route for river traffic.
I understand where Bragdon is coming from, but he’s advocating for the same lanes as there are now if I am not mistaken (three through lanes in each direction).
Except his vision includes tolls to pay for the same capacity w/ increased pedestrian, bike, and light rail movement.
I believe in urbanity, walking, biking and transit moreso than even the average sustainable-joe, but not at the expense of other people. I will time and again point out that automobiles do not pay their way, but that does not mean that I want to be punitive in nature. I think that too many leaders have been drinking the anti-car-urban planning Kool-Aid, and I would really champion a moderate leader who would step up to the plate and make an amicable decision that’s not totally based off of partially true facts (i.e. yes induced demand exists, but not always).
We need multi-modal cities for tomorrow, but his plan is multi-modal at the expense of automobiles (before I get bashed, I have also stated that I believe Vancouverites are complaining about traffic they create in the first place).
But at least I can criticize both sides of the issue — the pavers and the smart growthers.
The existing bridges are dangerous to all of us right now. They have had restricted sub-standard maintenance and painting for decades. What will our hand-wringing politicians do if an earthquake drops them in the river next month.
This project has never been about moving cars. It has been about how to extend Metro’s reach into Vancouver.
Why would Clark County as a whole want to tax themselves into paying for Portland’s downtown(Portland)-centric transit system?
Anthony wrote:
Why would Clark County as a whole want to tax themselves into paying for Portland’s downtown(Portland)-centric transit system?
By the same token, why would Oregon want to tax ourselves to let Vancouver commuters get to work a few minutes earlier?
It’s a regional (and national, given the importance of west coast freight movement) issue, not a Portland issue vs a Vancouver issue. People who whine that it is a Portland-focused bridge or a Vancouver-focused bridge miss the point–it needs to be an improvement for users on both sides of the river. A transit-only bridge which doesn’t improve I-5 (other than allegedly diverting traffic from it) won’t fly–no matter how much Oregon greenies might desire this outcome; nor will the current CRC proposal, with or without transit lanes.
Are you saying I-5 is Vancouver centric? How about our entire outdate freeway network? I see mostly Oregon plates when making a trip on any freeway in the area.
I guess I should say “why would anyone tax themselves into paying for Portland’s downtown-centric transit system that is only used by a tiny fraction of anyone”
No, I’m simply disagreeing with your contention that Tri-Met is “downtown-centric”. Given that it serves three counties in Oregon (does it go into Columbia County?), it’s a legitimate regional transportation resource.
Most of the freeways in Portland, you’ll note–go downtown. Does that make them “downtown centric”?
The point is–transit is an important part of the overall transit network. Certain auto-philes like to think that it’s irrelevant, and indeed most trips are made by auto, but each morning at rush hour, about three freeway-lanes full of commuters cross the Steel Bridge on trains.
Actually, yes, both the transit system and freeway system are downtown centric. Both are based on a “hub and spoke” model which doesn’t make sense in a region where most people just aren’t going downtown.
Tri-Met is the worse offender, with almost all routes going directly downtown and very few suburb to suburb routes. All MAX routes (including routes that are being planned) go downtown and the streetcar system only runs downtown. One notable exception would be the WES, which shouldn’t have been built in the first place.
I too agree that transit is important– in providing transportation– though in Portland it seems that providing transportation is a low priority compared to attracting development subsidies.
If age were a factor then we would have to soon consider tearing down the Golden Gate Bridge, which also is in a far more active earthquake zone.
Different style of bridge, so I’d need to see studies about it’s maintenance/upgrade history as well as current status.
Just add a new 4-lane supplemental arterial bridge connecting the local street grids of Downtown Vancouver, Hayden Island and North Portland.
That’s a project I’d throw myself behind. It seems like a good way to connect our region without throwing away bridges that could likely be brought up to the safety standards, while achieving all the goals of the CRC, for less money.
Except his vision includes tolls to pay for the same capacity w/ increased pedestrian, bike, and light rail movement.
Yeah, that’s a problem.
Tri-Met is the worse offender, with almost all routes going directly downtown and very few suburb to suburb routes. All MAX routes (including routes that are being planned) go downtown and the streetcar system only runs downtown. One notable exception would be the WES, which shouldn’t have been built in the first place.
Good points, but there’s a reason. Transit works best with density, and that density around Portland generally involves corridors around a downtown area.
The new Green line is a hub piece, I suppose, but not in a very different way from WES. It continues downtown, yes, but that’s not a bad thing when that’s where the density is.
Do you have a suggestion for suburban routes that would benefit the region more than connecting the fairly dense downtown Vancouver area to the rest of the MAX system?
Do you have a suggestion for suburban routes that would benefit the region more than connecting the fairly dense downtown Vancouver area to the rest of the MAX system?
Well, one of the proposed “green” HCT corridors (those likely to be started planning soon, and built after Milwaukie MAX) is the Beaverton/ Wilsonville line, which would be WES done right. One of the “yellow” corridors identified in the corridor plan document is a Clackamas to Washington County connector, with two possible routes (one through LO, and one through Oregon City along I-205) mentioned.
And if you look at the Clark County HCT plans, they focus on travel within Clark County, including high-capacity transit lines connecting downtown Vancouver with Hazel Dell and points north, another running out to Vancouver Mall/Orchards, and another running out Mill Plain to Fischers Landing. A fourth HCT corridor runs along I-205, and continues into to Oregon to transfer to the Red Line near Parkrose.
All of the Clark County HCT corridors are BRT and not LRT–I’m not sure whether that decision was driven by political opposition to rail, for cost reasons, or because the expected ridership will be low enough that BRT will be cheaper to operate. I’d like to see MAX go further than downtown Vancouver; OTOH C-Tran is expecting that most trips will be within Washington State, not from the Couv to the Oregon side of the river.
I asked at a recent CRC presentation if they have a TDM (Transportation Demand Management) plan for the six years of proposed bridge construction. Oh, Yes, replied the CRC shill. Why not start it now, if things are so bad, I responded…to silence. Then someone wondered out loud, what if the “2 dime” toll of the 60’s (it would be $2 one way today) was brought back now to start laying aside the needed $? Why not indeed? More silence.
Lenny,
I know you won’t get this, but the idea that a toll could begin now without any sort of credible assurance of how it would be spent is ludicrous.
I mean who has less credibility than Metro?
Well TriMet and the PDC may be their equal.
Bragdon and status quo planning regime can’t even acknowledge any of their flops around the region.
No doubt they, like you, view SoWa a tremedous success.
What Metro advocates is self preservation, self dominance and decades more of the same chaos.
Bridge building, traffic and commerce mobility are of no interest to them.
I know you won’t get this
No doubt they, like you,
John E. –
You’ve been warned before. Drop the personal BS or go away.