Updated 11/15/09:
For those who can’t attend in person, the meeting with be streamed.
Original Post 11/12/09:
The House Interim Transportation Committee is meeting on November 19th and will discuss the Columbia River Crossing and High-Speed Rail among other issues.
6 responses to “High-Speed Rail, CRC on Agenda in Salem”
http://urbangreens.tumblr.com/tagged/Bill%20Badrick
To address the issue of CO 2 , inner-city
livability , and aiding the economy , let’s hope they consider a Park-Roof for the CRC Bridge.
By replacing the expensive and expansive Storm Water Treatment System , the Park-Roof pays for itself. By creating a vast new recreation place near the inner-city it aids in life quality and social justice. The beautiful one-of-a-kind Park , high above the Mighty Columbia will draw well off visitors from around the world to visit the Green Center of America. Let’s reach higher , and build the Green Gateway to the NW!
What kind of “social justice” are you talking about? The best justice in regards to that idea, IMO, is just to leave the present crossing as it is and plan for something else that allows for the region’s future. We are never going to be able to fit whatever traffic must pass through Portland—from the evergrowing urban areas of the entire West Coast—– on to two inadequate corridors.
Even if we invest in greater rail capacity, as we ought to, the two routes we have now will never be adequate for 21st Century needs. Those who advocate the CRC project are being disingenuous in conveying the impression that it would be the final major improvement to the I-5. No, they know that projects several times that amount, are on the back burner. It’s all part of their Grand Vision.
Ron, what do you mean, the west coast? Given that’s just California (up here being Cascadia), if they want a piece of the action, they better pony up the whole bill. Same if Washington doesn’t want light rail on the bridge (and they should be prepared to foot the entire bill of widening I-5 through Portland and buying out all the homes required to do so if they really think a wider bridge is the way to go.
Personally, I’d rather leave the Interstate Bridge alone, maybe put proper bicycle facilities on it, than deal with a substandard, expensive replacement such as what Clark County wants. A third bridge, though? Seriously?
Single-occupant vehicles just aren’t that important; there is zero justification to provide single-occupant traffic more than one lane on any freeway or boulevard: If you want to be selfish and take up space in traffic to only benefit yourself, then it should cost you.
Transportation is about moving people, not moving vehicles. Vehicles don’t pay taxes, people do. We need to be more like Vancouver, Canada and do more to get more people into the seats already making the trip, not making more seats make the trip empty, whether we’re talking private cars or public transport.
Can anyone explain to me why when someone suggests this area could, in the long run, benefit from a third interstate bridge they are surreptitiously morphed into a transit hating, bicyle loathing, mentally-feeble curmudgeon?
FYI, Washington residents are already paying $200 million per year into the Oregon dept. of Revenue. What has become of the several billion dollars they have paid in over several decades?
I don’t know how the discussion shifted into how many lanes single occupancy vehicles should be entitled to. An awful lot of the increase in congestion will come from trucks—-Trucks from California taking stuff to Washington and vice versa. I would rather see more of this go by rail—but the CRC proposal has nothing in it for freight rail.
Last time I checked the entire West Coast was still in the US–not Kahlifornia and Cascadia. Did I miss something? What do you propose–erecting barriers on Oregon’s southern border?
What sort of “substandard, expensive replacement” are you referring to? It looks to me like Clark Co. is getting suckered into supporting the Sam Adam’s pipedream of a “signature” bridge, more than the reasonable proposals Clark Co. has suggested since 1999. You might look at the SW Wash. RTC 1999 study of high capacity corridors. We treat them like know-nothing hillbillies and try to ram our expensive agenda down their throats. They are much more rational, at least when it comes to defining potential Columbia River crossings.
It won’t be the cars that contribute the most to pollution. Electric powered, hybrid or other alternative fuel vehicles are on their way …plus, we could have high mpg internal combustion vehicles if the silly EPA rules against them were lifted. I think the diesel trucks are the biggest challenge.
I am not trying to tell anyone to not ride a bicycle. Fine. Someday, though, you will not find it practical. Just think ahead.
Ron said: Those who advocate the CRC project are being disingenuous in conveying the impression that it would be the final major improvement to the I-5. No, they know that projects several times that amount, are on the back burner. It’s all part of their Grand Vision.
I’d expect long term to see a tunnel through the east side, and a tunnel to solve the Terwilliger curves (as European countries usually would have done in the first place) as well.
I doubt it will happen anytime soon, if the CRC happens maybe by 2060-2070, but unless we find a way to transport people and goods that doesn’t involve some type of personal auto and truck-type device, I have a feeling grade-separated routes aren’t going anywhere, and eventually we’ll find funding (maybe tolls) to do these projects in the long run.
Paul said: up here being Cascadia
No, it’s Oregon and Washington. Each separate states within the USA. Just like our neighbor California.
if they want a piece of the action, they better pony up the whole bill.
Oregon owes California a lot of money for all those people who drive down to San Diego, LA and San Francisco every summer then. Oh, and the trucks that head south out of Portland.
Good thing it doesn’t work that way, at all. That’s what federal funding for projects of regional/national interest are for, which is why I-5 is a high priority corridor from Canada to Mexico, according to previously passed legislation and FHWA definition.
Personally, I’d rather leave the Interstate Bridge alone, maybe put proper bicycle facilities on it
I’d love to see the cost of that. Would it be similar to the MAX/pedestrian/bike bridge proposed for the CRC? There’s no space on the current I-5 to add on, without it being a fairly significant modification.
Vehicles don’t pay taxes, people do.
People pay taxes (or, registration fees as we call them) on vehicles, or items vehicles consume.
We need to be more like Vancouver, Canada
We could easily eliminate or bottleneck north/south routes if it wasn’t for the pesky problem of not being the northernmost city on the West Coast. Ensenada in the other BC gets away with not having a freeway through way/freeway bypass because there just isn’t demand for it. There’s not much demand to go through Vancouver BC (other than to ferrys/ski resorts) so it’s an odd comparison, except to Ensenada where people are only going through to get to farms or resorts.
Cascadia is a larger economy than California. If it were it’s own country, it would be the 20th largest country in the world in terms of economy. California would be 36th. Between that and doubling Oregon’s population, California owes us, not the other way around. And don’t forget we’re paying higher electric bills still because they can’t be arsed to find a light switch or build their own power plants.
As for closing the border, I think states should be allowed to do so to protect their own labor markets and manage growth. It’s long overdue, and we have a 10th Amendment right to do so.